Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 6

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 6

Forms of address used by literary characters

Watching Agatha Christie's Poirot last night, it struck me for the first time that he always addresses or refers to women as, e.g. "Madame Smith" or "Mademoiselle Jones", men as "Monsieur Brown", and mixed groups as "Mesdames et Messieurs". Yet the stories are routinely set in England, the characters are English, and Poirot's command of English is otherwise more than adequate. Everyone calls him "Monsieur Poirot", never "Mister Poirot", so why can't he reciprocate?

Then I remember seeing shows where German characters address Englishwomen as Frau or Fräulein, and Englishmen as Herr. And Italians prefer Signora, Signorina and Signor in such settings. And so on.

I realise these are literary devices, but how closely do they reflect what such people would do in real life? When people are taught a language, one of the earliest things they're taught is how to address people in that language. Maybe authors do it to highlight the Belgianness, Italicity or Germanitude of their characters. Some of these characters were conceived as existing only on the printed page, and the author had to work a little harder to get across the extent of their foreign-soundingness than a TV or screen writer would. But they have their unusual forms of expression translated from their own languages, their "zis" for "this", and their occasional use of words or phrases in their own language to do that task for them very nicely.

Do English literary characters always address foreign people as Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms, or do they use the appropriate foreign title? "Who Do You Think You Are Kidding, Mr Hitler" comes to mind, but I doubt that's a typical usage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In a real-world context, I have an old edition of Emily Post's Etiquette from the 1920s, which prescribes that married women from non-English-speaking countries are generally to be addressed as "Madame" rather than "Mrs." I don't know to what extent this was, in fact, a widespread practice, nor when it pretty much died out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It was prescribed by UK newspapers until some time about the 1970s. Nguyen Thi Binh was thus called "Madame Binh" during the Vietnam War negotiations. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but it had been a French colony only a few years previously, so that may have been her preferred style of address. The New York Marxist Monthly Review was still calling her Madame in 2006[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a direct answer at all, but, similarly, see "PoirotSpeak" at TV Tropes. (It also links to "Viewers are Morons" for one possible reason :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Poirot routinely also uses bon and oui, when, as you say, the English equivalents would be some of the first words a new speaker of the language would learn. And he's supposed to be really smart! HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And, after further investigation and hopefully to nobody's surprise, I find that Wikipedia itself has the explanation. In Hercule Poirot, we have this quote from the man himself...

"It is true that I can speak the exact, the idiomatic English. But, my friend, to speak the broken English is an enormous asset. It leads people to despise you. They say – a foreigner – he can't even speak English properly. […] Also I boast! An Englishman he says often, "A fellow who thinks as much of himself as that cannot be worth much. […] And so, you see, I put people off their guard." HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems to answer it perfectly for Poirot, thanks HiLo48. I still wonder about the broader question, though. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ptha

der Ufokontaktler eduard meier soll deine Botschaften von Ptha erhalten haben. Ist es derselbe Gott, der in Aegyten war oder ist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.136.76.87 (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Try asking your question at the German Wikipedia. Insofar as your question goes, either my translation is awful, or you're asking a question that could be easily googled for. Try googling it. Shadowjams (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the question is, is Eduard Meier's "Ptaah" the same as Ptah; I believe the answer is, "How the heck is anyone here supposed to know?" --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Bible for evolved children

Is there a bible without God covering big bang to evolution? --Kittybrewster ☎ 10:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bible is a specific text. If you're looking for alternative explanations there are a number of biblical faiths that differ from conservative protestantism in the U.S., actually there are quite a few. If you're looking for religions that draw on some of the same text, then there are a number of other religions that do that. If you're looking to start a debate (this is where my money is) then you're in the wrong place (although I can't be sure someone won't indulge you below). Reference desk really isn't about rhetorical questions like this where you already know the answer you want to hear. If you have an honest curiosity, then we're all here to help. But if you want to argue, we got plenty of that just dealing with this encyclopedia. The rest of the internet is thataway. Shadowjams (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no sign that they are trying to start a debate. As for "bible", uncapitalized it means "an essential text", with no religious implications. See Wiktionary:bible. StuRat (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A fair answer but unhelpful/ I don't want an argument. I want a book to read to a child which Dawkins would approve of.--Kittybrewster ☎ 11:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Darwin is a long dead British scientist who used 19th century methodology and took long oceanic voyages. [Dawkins is a middle class wanker.] Perhaps you'd like to respecify. Meanwhile, the Cartoon history of the Universe is a handy text covering a world history perspective including (briefly and out of date popularisation of a high quality) scientific perspectives on life and species formation. For the fifteen year old, why not Peter Kropotkin's eminently readable Mutual Aid which connects principles of natural selection on a group basis with social success amongst humans. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you try Dawkins' new Children's book The Magic of Reality? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Great ideas. Anything for younger children? --Kittybrewster ☎ 12:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have reasonable reviews. The "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought" thread on the same site will give other suggestions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If you merely want a book covering science as we know it from time immemorial to today, may I suggest Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything? It's a decent read. (Edit: suitable for older children, I'd say 11+.)Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a children's version of it, too: "A Really Short History of Nearly Everything" Mingmingla (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a parent but would you read the bible to children? I certainly wouldn't.. I'm reading 'Magic of Reality' myself, I know the majority of the material but I'm finding it interesting reading it in very plain English, there is a certain skill in that. It is aimed at 12 year-olds, I think you can probably read it to a switched on 10 year old. If they're much younger then 10, read them story books, there's nothing wrong with cultivating imagination. There are lots of good children books which aren't all about fairies. If they're curious and smart enough to ask "bigger questions" they're probably smart enough to hear honest answers. Vespine (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Today would seem to be my day for recommending A Little History of the World. It covers the Big Bang, and the rise of world religions, and is highly readable. Ernst Gombrich wrote it in German before WWII, and translated it into English at the turn of the century, which must be some sort of record. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Persecuted Christians & Gays

Wich countries persecute Christians and Gays but receive money from Britain's Gift Aid? --Kittybrewster ☎ 15:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you really mean Gift Aid? That's just a way for charities to reclaim the tax paid by a donator, so I don't understand what you're asking. Every country that receives any aid from any charity at all could be said to receive money from Britain's Gift Aid, although more accurately it is receiving the money from the person who donated, with the income tax being repaid. Would you include cases where a charity uses gift aided donations to set up support for gay people or Christians in countries that persecute them? This question also seems somewhat vague in other ways, and seems (especially taken with the one above) to be designed to provoke discussion. This doesn't seem like you. Are you okay? 86.163.1.168 (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right. I think I meant Overseas Aid. --Kittybrewster ☎ 16:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you have in mind David Cameron's threat, last week, to cut off aid to anti-gay nations [2]. The article mentions Malawi, Uganda and Ghana.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Did you, instead, mean the Department for International Development, which has recently rebranded (at least in developing countries) as UKAid? I still think it's a vague question with a probably questionable agenda (I'd have thought "all of them" is the simple answer, just as all of them probably oppress women and have low literacy), but that would make more sense. You might want to define whether you are talking about government mandated action, government condoned action, or general societal practice. (after EC) So, do you mean aid sent from the official Department, or from the UK in general? 86.163.1.168 (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant Government mandated action, although Pakistan comes pretty close re Christians. --Kittybrewster ☎ 16:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's a list of all the countries. Perhaps one of these says how much to each. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You might get a more targetted list by approaching UK-based, internationally focused Christian and gay groups, which should be well equipped to tell you of countries that are of particular concern to them. There is the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, for example, and plenty of NGOs that cater to one or the other. Peter Tatchell, although not religious, has stood up for human rights around the world, so his foundation might help. Or take your pick of Christian missionary societies. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there any Continental Philosophers who are politically conservative?

Are there any Continental Philosophers who are politically conservative? --Gary123 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify I'm talking about Continental Philosophy as a philosophical tradition rather than geography so I would exclude European philosophers who are in the analytical/positivist tradition, and include any Anglo-American philosophers in the Continental traditional broadly understood. The wiki article does a pretty good job naming the traditions coming out of continental philosophy but I would just quickly name existentialism, phenomenology, critical theory, structuralism, French Theory, and post-modernism, as what I generally mean. Also for the purposes of this question, I would define conservatism and right-wing very broadly to include traditionalism, classical liberalism, nationalism, feudalism, Christian democracy, libertarianism, centrism, and fascism etc. So I would include both European and American definitions of conservative or rightwing. Or pretty much anyone non-socialist, non-anarchist, non-radical.

In America there is a general perception of Analytical Philosophy being generally centrist to conservative, with continental philosophy being leftwing to radically leftwing. But in Anglo-America analytical philosophy pretty much IS philosophy, and the same is true in Europe for continental philosophy. So its not like ALL American philosophers are centrist or rightwing. Some Analytical philosophers and leftwing. So I would assume the same would be the case for continental philosophy both in the USA and Europe. The same way that Analytical philosophy contains some lefties, I would think Continental Philosophy would have some rightwingers. That some philosophers in the Continental tradition would be "conservative" (broadly defined). --Gary123 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I distinctly recall Nietzsche writing some disparaging things about liberalism... something about the liberal instinct wanting to reduce mankind to a herd. It's proving difficult to find a quote so I'll leave that up to you, if you're so inclined. Vranak (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean living philosophers, or dead? As far as dead, in the 20th century, Emil Cioran is a candidate; initially a fascist, he later repudiated this in favour of a pessimistic conservativism, heavily influenced by Oswald Spengler who might also count. Karl Popper and Isaiah Berlin are intermediate between continental and Anglo-American philosophy, but both were right-of-centre and opposed to socialism for its tendency to threaten individual liberty. Heidegger was conservative in his political views, opposed to much of modernity (and pretty much everything later than the Pre-Socratics). European postmodernism is politically interesting; although many of its members were very left-wing, it has right-wing elements in its critique of Marxism and the Enlightenment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I found Right Hegelians.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

For the most part conservatism in Europe is associated with the church (Catholic, Lutheran, whatever), and most of the philosophers identified with Continental Philosophy were either atheistic or showed little concern for religious dogma in their writings. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Anything said about this is likely to be confusing unless it's clarified what sort of conservatism you're talking about; the term has very different connotations between Continental Europe and the United States/Britain (especially the United States). Popper might have been right of center, but was definitely not a conservative in the European sense; Europeans would have called him a liberal.

In Europe, as I understand it somewhat vaguely, conservatism is mostly about respect for traditional institutions, and is actively hostile to free-market capitalism, which it sees as destructive to those institutions. American conservatism is an uneasy alliance (held together mostly by mutual enemies) among several distinct tendencies that have little in common philosophically, but at least one of those wings, the libertarian one, is supportive of the free market. That wing is called "liberal" in the European sense. --Trovatore (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you cannot ever define "conservative" and "liberal" universally, except in the broadest sense that conservative beliefs seek to maintain/reestablish "traditional values" while liberal beliefs seek to change society into a "new, better society". These concept differ from locality to locality and also don't have any connection to "reality", rather to perception, and the other issue is that once a definition for a locally defined value of "conservative" or "liberal" is determined, then the definition becomes calcified even if the social reality changes. Conservatives in any one location seek to preserve what they perceive to be "traditional values" (however that is locally defined) and liberals in any one location seek to bring about what they perceive to be a "better society" (however that is locally defined). Thus, in Europe when the terms became calcified into the public consciousness, conservative and liberal gained their meanings in reference to the revolutions of 1848: Conservatives supported command economies, monarchies, aristocracy, and the other ideals of Metternich and his like. Liberals thus became defined as people who were democratic, supporters of free markets, and of individual liberty. In the U.S., the terms became calcified around the period of the 1930s-1960s, where conservative refered to people who supported free-market economies, traditional social order, and religious institutions, whereas liberals were people who supported government safeguards over the economy, civil rights, and secularization. The deal is, these ideals were what the two groups perceived to be the 'traditional' and 'betterment' policies of their local and historical period. So THAT is why European liberals are free market supporters and supporters of personal liberties, because when the term became defined in Europe, the "traditional" position was in support of aristocracy and mercanitilism) while in America, liberals are defined as supporters of government controls over the economy, because the term became defined when the "traditional" position was in support of free-market, laissez-faire economy. The terms do not become abandoned merely because they don't work in different contexts. This is also ultimately why totalitarian, oppressive regimes with nearly identical outcomes get defined in "right wing" and "left wing" terms: the Naziism of Hitler's Germany was motivated by preserving traditional German values; the Communism of the Soviet Union was motivated by establishing a new political order: it makes no difference what the output of each system was; merely that the philosophy is motivated by tradition or new order. Other examples include Franco's Spain (traditionalist, thus right wing) and Castro's Cuba (revolutionary, thus left wing), Mao's china (revolutionary, thus left wing) etc. --Jayron32 19:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No, what you're here is trying to preserve the US usage of liberal/conservative and explain why it's the same in a European context, just relating to different history. But that's wrong. It isn't the same. Liberal in the proper sense of the word (which is closer to the European sense than the American one) is not about whether you want to change society, but about what sort of society you want to have (specifically, one that respects individual liberty against the demands of the collective). If society is already like that, the liberal wants to keep it that way; if it is not, then the liberal wants to change it so that it is.

The liberal/conservative axis taught in American high schools is basically bullshit. --Trovatore (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In otherwords, the way you understand the terms is the only right way because it is what you believe them to mean, other perspectives are invalid solely because they are not your perspective. --Jayron32 20:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: Your explanation for how the word liberal came to be used for these different things is ahistorical. That's not the way it happened. Classical liberalism is not about your attitude towards tradition; it's about a certain specific set of political values, specifically about individual liberty. In the United States, the reform liberalism movement took the position that classical liberalism had misidentified the worst threat to individual liberty, and therefore came up with divergent policy prescriptions, but still with individual liberty as its basic goal. Over time, this movement became associated with other tendencies, such as identity politics, that were not primarily concerned with liberty, but which had similar policy prescriptions to the reform liberals, and their bastard child is today's "liberalism" in the American sense.

In Europe, this never happened, and therefore "liberalism" still refers to the classical liberal outlook, though it has no doubt mutated in other ways whose details I don't know. But it's not about the attitude to tradition versus change; it's about what sort of society you think is best, independent of whether it's traditional. --Trovatore (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article "Conservatism": "Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.[2][3]." From the Wikipedia article "Liberalism": "Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] " Neither of these terms is defined universally, that is that one specific set of beliefs, irrespective of location, applies to any. Your steadfast contention that Liberalism and Conservatism can only be properly defined by a European perspective, and that other perspectives are thus instantly and totally wrong, is simply not supportable. --Jayron32 20:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing for the "European" perspective per se (why would I do that? I'm an American) but for the more historical one. While interpretations, as you note, vary from place to place and time to time, the word "liberal" in both America and Europe refers originally to classical liberalism, which is simply not about one's attitude to tradition, but rather about one's attitude to freedom (hence the name). To claim that classical liberals are still called "liberal" in Europe because of their positions relative to tradition, as opposed to because of their political values on a more absolute scale, is just ahistorical. --Trovatore (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's really much difference between American liberals and European liberals, other than the fact that the European Left represents positions that are basically irrelevant in the US. Obama, Clinton, and Carter can meaningfully be called "liberals" in both paradigms. The few Americans on the left who support very non-liberal (in the European sense) policies tend to shy away from the "liberal" label and often use it somewhat pejoratively; i.e. they call the Democratic Party "neoliberal". On the other hand, the UK's Liberal Democrats (in theory) and Canada's Liberal Party support progressive taxation, universal health care and expanding the welfare state as long as it's done efficiently; few liberal parties in the world support actually dismantling the welfare state, which is the standard "conservative" (and libertarian) position in the US. 169.231.98.23 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Canadian usage, and perhaps even to some extent the British, are influenced by American usage. The positions called "liberal" in Continental Europe are the ones that are as supportive of the free market as it is possible to be in that environment and remain electorally relevant. So for example Germany's Free Democratic Party is the obvious example of a liberal party, and no, they don't want to dismantle the welfare state, but I think it's fair to say they're less enthusiastic about it than the other major parties. --Trovatore (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume that the OP asks the question from the American perspective on Liberalism and Conservatism (mostly because there's a pronounced misconception in the American view that Continental philosophers are vaguely socialist). With that in mind, the question is nonsense, but it's nonsense that deserves a response.

Continental political/social theory largely focuses on the problematic interrelation of the citizen (individually and collectively) and the state. Different aspects of Continental social theory can sound (to the American ear) either liberal or conservative: For instance, many continental philosophers place a high value on established social structures and social values as 'normative' goods - i.e., they like certain established institutions, prize certain moral constructs, and have objections to certain kinds of governmental influences, all of which American conservatives would find appealing. On the other hand, Continental philosophers often see the state as a necessary tool to control the hegemonic influence of wealth or other illicit power structures, and in that sense are often viewed by Americans as anti-capitalist. In truth, though, one simply cannot make sense of Continental philosophy from within the perspectives of American liberalism or American conservatism, because in the US conservatism and liberalism are largely non-theoretical - they are political stances that have no overriding philosophical conception, but are more in the nature of reactions to particular events via identification with certain parties. Throwing mud-balls at each other does not encourage the adoption of a theoretical detachment. --Ludwigs2 20:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a pretty good analysis with one major problem to it — it seems to suggest that there's a uniform Continental view. Continental European politics has a very broad range of ideas considered "mainstream" (I think Europeans must wonder why Americans even bother to have more than one party, since 95% of them apparently think exactly the same about the big issues and argue over relative details). What do we do with, say, Friedrich Hayek, assuming he's to be considered a political philosopher and not just an economist? By American standards he's very "conservative" economically; in European terms very "liberal". --Trovatore (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Hayek explained at length why he was not a conservative.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This debate over terminology is very interesting. Can anyone provide reliable outside sources to support the various definitions of terms being discussed here, from both European as well as American perspectives? I ask because I can see the usefulness of an article on this topic: Worldwide views of conservatism and liberalism, or something like that. Textorus (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a VERY complex question. Keep in mind that Classical Liberalism (of the Enlightenment era) is fairly close to modern Libertarianism (which is staunchly conservative) and that classical Conservatism (of the Edmund Burke variety), is the origin of things like environmentalism and certain social reform movements. Each generation tends to redefine 'liberal' in terms of whatever needs to be broken through a society and 'conservative' in terms of whatever needs to be preserved. --Ludwigs2 03:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I object to the claim that libertarianism is conservative. Libertarianism seeks to conserve individual liberty where it exists, and establish it where it does not. Libertarians make common cause with conservatives, when they do, primarily on the basis of shared enemies. --Trovatore (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Trovatore: this is not the right place for pamphleteering. your point is taken, but misses the thrust of my comments. please keep on topic. --Ludwigs2 15:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Is part of the thrust of your comments that libertarianism is a kind of conservatism? If so, that part of the thrust of your comments is incorrect. The rest was good though.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious about the choices of the examples of "conservatism" by the OP. If Christian democracy is conservative, shouldn't Islamic theocracies also be conservative as well? They certainly uphold their traditional values in far more draconian ways. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Only names I can think of are (very different) Giovanni Gentile, Raymond Aron. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Executive order for single payer health care

What conditions would be necessary for the President of the US to hire all uninsured people and their wardens to perform some nominal task which would qualify them for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, nationalize private primary health care insurers, bail them out, and either convert them to reinsurance, secondary insurance, or shut them down, leaving an expanded FEHBP in their place? Dualus (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Insanity? This is not to say one way or another whether a single-payer government health insurance system would (or would not) be a good thing in the United States, but I cannot imagine any President being able to achieve that through the specific set of circumstances you describe. The political realities of the United States would make your scenario completely impossible. --Jayron32 19:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Look at the Supreme Court canceling certain New Deal agencies (Frazier–Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act, Agricultural Adjustment Administration, National Recovery Administration) for a precedent on how it might not work even if Congress and the President agreed. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the article even with the FEHBP people still need to pay part of the premium (1/3) and the lowest of the self only part is $2,800 so it seems unlikely this alone will ensure everyone is covered, if that is your intention Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the article Executive order. Generally speaking, the President has no authority to make laws - rule by decree - only to execute laws passed by Congress (which may grant the President a certain amount of discretionary authority), or as otherwise specifically provided for by the Consititution. Presidents have often been criticized for exceeding their statutory or constitutional authority, as in the cases already cited by 75.41 above. Absent specific legislation on the topic by Congress, the scenario the OP contemplates would be unprecedented in the U.S., probably resulting in great outrage both in Congress and by the public at large as being highly undemocratic and unconstitutional, and would very likely be stricken down by the Supreme Court. Even in wartime, when the President's ability to act independently of Congress is greatly expanded, the Supreme Court has reined in the unlimited use of his authority: see, for example, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 1952 (Truman during the Korean War dealing with a steel workers' strike). And more recently, see Medellín v. Texas, 2008, in which the Supremes ruled that "The President's authority to act, as with the exercise of any governmental power, 'must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.'" Textorus (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all. It seems that Congress has given the President emergency authority to act on health care through emergency executive orders concerning FEMA with the restriction that they have to act within budget. If the savings from single payer is really 40% as the Canadians say, that does seem like one way to completely rescue the FEMA budget. Dualus (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The site you linked to is full of scare talk about the godless "scoundrels in D.C." seeking to establish a totalitarian "Media Mind Control" regime over all God-fearing Americans, etc., etc. I wouldn't take their fringe views too seriously on any topic. Textorus (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Voices in the head

Do voices in the head disappear if you hear music? (maybe, loud, with headphones). Quest09 (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Without offering any specific advice, I note that a women's prison near me reported a dramatic fall in self-harming and suicides after they included televisions in the cells, which they said was because the more troubled inmates used them to drown out the voices. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the voices disappear, but I have read that people with schizophrenia do sometimes play loud music in an effort to distract themselves from the voices. Looie496 (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, but then you're left with the other problem of what to do to get rid of the earworms... --TammyMoet (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Spend all day listening to the greatest hits of Jerry Vale, Bobby Goldsboro, or Michael Bolton, and the voices in the head might seem like an improvement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• By "voices in the head" I assume you mean auditory hallucinations? They can be caused by a variety of conditions, including schizophrenia and mania, brain lesions, and some tumors. I would assume that whether music would be helpful would be strongly dependent on the cause of the hallucinations. None of our relevant articles mention music as an effective treatment. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you devalue a currency by more than 100%?

If it was 1:2, and after the devaluation it's 1:5, is that a devaluation of 150%? Quest09 (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A 100% devaluation would reduce its value to zero, wouldn't it? Depends on which way you're looking at it, I guess. Sounds like a question for the Mathematics desk. Textorus (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"The following list of peak-to-trough devaluations since the mid-90s gives us an idea of what we could be talking about:

- 2002 Argentina: 280 %

- 1999 Brazil: 78 %

- 1998 – 1999 Russia: 330 %

- 1997 – 1998 Indonesia: 660 %

- 1997 – 1998 Thailand: 110 %

- 1994 – 1995 Mexico 115 %" [3]

Well, it's from CNN. Apparently, it's a normal way of expressing it... but it sounds not so logical. Quest09 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems like that answers your question - it is possible, according to some kind of math. But economics is not my strong suit, so another editor will have to explain it. Textorus (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, and math is not the strong suit of economists and journalists. So, maybe CNN screwed it up in great style... Quest09 (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Always a great possibility, if not a certainty.  ;) Textorus (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be an interesting currency. I could pay you, and you'd end up owing me 50%. Then you'd pay me back ... Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What they clearly mean is that if my £1 bought me $4, and it now buys me $2, this has been a 100% decrease. It's not so silly: if you think that my $4 bought me £1, and now it buys me £2. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you express that as a simple equation? To me, 2 is 50% of 4 any way you look at it. Textorus (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"2 is 50% of 4". Yes. But that might not be how we feel it useful to see a situation. If you'd prefer, think of this percentage as the amount that it is required to appreciate to get back to where it was. If I'm an importer, then stuff I buy in a foreign currency because this percentage more expensive. [For example, in my example, I needed £1 for $4, now I need £2; my costs have risen 100%.] Since exporters gain out of a devaluation, it's often the impact on imported goods that is measured.

Just as, say, gamblers have an adapted system(s) best suited to their area, so might traders. It's about which visualisation is most helpful. It it dropped a lot, then say it's devalued 6750% might be more useful than saying "99.985%" it's just about how you think of them in your head. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I sort of see that if you are talking about your costs, then a rise from $2 to $4 is 100%, yes. Though that's not strictly referring to devaluation, is it. To me, if my currency has been devalued, it would be much more useful to think that my $1, or £1 is now worth only .015 of a penny than to make sense of a "6750%" figure. In which case I'd be looking for another, more prosperous country to hitch-hike to.  :) But perhaps, as you say, for some arcane reason the other way is useful to currency traders and exporters, which I'm not. Textorus (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

To communicate clearly, one needs to specify which value is being used as the basis of the percentage. If this is not specified, then the original or starting value is assumed (where 100% devaluation is the maximum when a currency becomes worthless). Dbfirs 00:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You can devalue a currency more than 100% with respect to some other currency. However to devalue a currency by 110% in an absolute sense would mean that a person would owe more money by the act of paying someone. Why would anyone admit to having any currency? They'd just burn it, and come out ahead.Greg Bard (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the media are lazy statisticians. Many currencies are most commonly quoted in units per US$, such as 1,100 Korean won per dollar (W1,100:US$1). If the won were to fall to W2,200:US$1, it might look like a 100% devaluation. However, the proper assessment would be either (a) the dollar has doubled in value vis-à-vis the won (100% appreciation), or (b) the won has fallen (depreciated, or devalued depending on action taken) 50%, from US$1:W0.0009 to US$1:W0.000455. That’s too complicated for 30 second sound bites, so the lazy say the won fell by 100%. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The outer boroughs as the suburbs of Manhattan?

Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island are usually known as the outer boroughs, which are generally more residential and suburban than Manhattan, which is often referred to as “the city.” Many people who live in the outer boroughs commute to Manhattan for work. Manhattan is the center of the NYC metropolitan area. It is the place in NYC where most of the tourists go to. Would these facts imply that the outer boroughs would be the suburbs of Manhattan and that the tri-state area is the suburbs of the 5 boroughs in total? Would that be a fair way of describing things in NYC or not? Willminator (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's sketchy. Urban/suburban usually refers more to settlement patterns and population density. I have heard Queens and Staten Island described as the most "suburban" burroughs in terms of the character of their settlement (lots of single family homes, more automobiles, less dense population overall.) If you are asking for "What are New York's Suburbs" however, I think I would consider it places like Hoboken and Westchester County and Nassau County; I don't think anyone would consider the 5 burroughs proper as the "suburbs" of New York; rather as part of New York. --Jayron32 01:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't go to Brooklyn or the Bronx and call those places "suburbs of Manhattan;" someone might have a problem wid dat. Brooklyn in particular developed as a distinct entity until the Brooklyn Bridge was built. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure where you get the idea that Queens, Brooklyn and Bronx are "suburban"... all three have very urban areas (tall apartment buildings and office towers, mass transit, etc) ... Staten Island, however, is much more suburban in nature, so there are no hard and fast rules here. Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

See suburb, especially the historical sections (there's a history subsubsection for the United States). Large parts of NYC's outer boroughs might sensibly be called suburbs in the 19th century (the first example given in the US history subsection is Brooklyn Heights, Brooklyn). However over the course of the 20th century the term became associated with cars and single family detached homes. Levittown, New York is often cited as the archetype of the post WWII suburb--a suburb of NYC but notably beyond the outer boroughs. In short, most of NYC's outer boroughs do not conform to the common notion of "suburb" in the US. Pfly (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Much of Staten Island, for instance, may look suburban, but we can't call Staten Island a "suburb" in American English, in which the word always refers to a community outside of the central municipality of a metropolitan area. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Always? Well . . . this article calls Queens both urban and suburban, and says, "Countless articles pumped out by New York media channels rate Queens as a suburb. Maybe the most diverse suburb, but a suburb nonetheless." On the other hand, this demographic report on commuters from newgeography.com counts all five boroughs as part of New York City, with various counties listed as "inner suburbs" around the boroughs, and "outer suburbs" beyond. As a Texan, I have no dog in this fight, but seems like suburb means different things to different people, depending on context and location. Textorus (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Eugene V. Rostow

In the Wired magazine article "Inside the Apocalyptic Soviet Doomsday Machine", it says Eugene V. Rostow said that Japan "not only survived but flourished after the nuclear attack" in his 1981 confirmation hearing. But the Wikipedia article says it was is 1966 confirmation hearing. Trying to find a source to corroborate this, Google mostly finds either blogs talking about the Wired piece or Wikipedia mirrors. Can anyone find a reliable source to corroborate the one already in the article (which I'm not arguing is wrong, but it's nice to have multiple sources). Better yet, are transcripts of both hearings available online? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's 1981. Citation is "Nomination of Eugene V. Rostow," Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 79th Congress, First Session (22-23 July 1981), on page 49:

Senator PELL. Let me ask you another broad question, about which you must have thought in view of your new responsibility. In the event of a full nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and the United States, do you envision either country surviving to any substantial degree?
Mr. ROSTOW. Well, I think that the risks are not so much that of nuclear exchange as of political coercion based on the prospect of a nuclear exchange: the Cuban missile crisis sort of scenario.
So far as the risk of survival is concerned, I suppose the answer to your question is, it depends on how extensive the nuclear exchange is. Japan, after all, not only survived but flourished after the nuclear attack, however much we may regret that attack and do regret it. Nevertheless, it happened during the course of the war, and Japan survived. The problem is how extensive.
Senator PELL. My question is in a full nuclear exchange would a country survive?
Mr. ROSTOW. The human race is very resilient, Senator Pell.
Senator PELL. Oh, the race is; but, I asked if either country would survive.
Mr. ROSTOW. Well, there are ghoulish statistical calculations that are made about how many people would die in a nuclear exchange. Depending upon certain assumptions, some estimates predict that there would be 10 million casualties on one side and 100 million on another. But that is not the whole of the population.

It's online and searchable, but only if you have access to Lexis Nexis Congressional via a library subscription (which I do). --Mr.98 (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Political and Hollywood scandals and the use of lie detectors

There has been many scandals, particularly sex scandals, in the U.S in the Hollywood and political arenas in recent years. The most recent one is the Herman Cain sexual harrassment scandal. He says he hasn't done anything, but many people have questions. Why aren't lie detector tests implemented and used in such scandals? Wouldn't that help answer people's questions and doubts sooner, end any scandal sooner, and prevent the accused from further troubles and difficulties? Willminator (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Because they're not reliable. For example, according to this article published by the American Psychological Association, "most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies." Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Who would implement such tests? Why would the alleged "perpetrators" submit themselves to such tests? HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Only if they're absolutely certain they're going to pass. But unless they're dragged into some actual legal case (criminal or civil), they'd have no compelling reason to take the test. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly true. Public figures might well want to take an infallible 'lie detector' test to clear their names even in the absence of a legal case. (Herman Cain, for instance, wants to be President: an ambition much more likely to be achievable if his candidacy isn't shadowed by doubts about what he might have done in the past.) Unfortunately, as Clarityfiend notes – and which is amply demonstrated by our extensive and well-sourced article on the polygraph – there's no such thing as an infallible lie detector. Modern devices don't even come close, in fact. Germany and Canada consider polygraph evidence completely inadmissible in court; most European countries don't use it; the United States has a patchwork of laws and precedent, but neither defendants nor witnesses can be compelled to take a polygraph examination. Our article also includes a number instances where polygraph examination has failed to catch murders and spies; innocent individuals, meanwhile, regularly fail polygraph examinations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Law enforcement agencies like polygraphs because they often lead to confessions, not because they actually catch lies. They're a great tool for extracting a confession and not much else. The reason is psychological — the person being examined feels under pressure, worries that the machine is going to catch them out, and so on, and breaks down. They're remarkably effective, but only in this secondary, indirect fashion. My understanding was that they were rarely admissible as anything but exculpatory evidence in US courts (because they assumption is that they would likely be more prone to false positives rather than false negatives) but I may be some decades out of date in that understanding (my understanding is primarily historical). --Mr.98 (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And, if you're interested in truth rather than convictions, those confessions are dangerously unsafe! People under pressure, particularly if they trust that some evidence will come in to clear them, will confess to things they didn't do frighteningly often. If you assume the polygraph will be accurate, you're more likely to confess to get the pressure off you, since you think the polygraph will show you didn't do it. Be very sceptical of anything that's "very good at getting confessions", since success will almost certainly have little correlation to whether the suspect is guilty or not. But juries, like law enforcement, place a lot of faith in confessions. This is one reason why (say it with me children) you always ask for a lawyer before you say anything, especially if you are innocent. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, of course. But I just wanted to point out why it was that law enforcement still used them despite the fact that they were generally not considered to be good science or admissible evidence. Their use is still extremely widespread, which is sometimes surprising to people who are aware of how shaky their validity is considered by experts. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Lie detectors are only a small step up from Ouija boards. Even their biggest supporters only claim 90%-95% accuracy! That's nothing to be proud of! That's horrible. It's a 10% error rate! That'd be fine for a party game, but would you trust your freedom to a machine that at best, had a one-in-ten chance of telling the world you're a criminal?

And you can bet that if supporters claim a 10% error rate, real number is probably higher! APL (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that "at best, had a nine-in-ten chance"? And isn't it the chance of telling the world whether you are lying or telling the truth in answer to a specific question on a specific occasion, not whether or not you're a criminal? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The more impressive case is not to consider the individual statistic (in which 90-95% sounds like an OK bet) but the aggregate — out of 1 million or so people, you'll have 50,000-100,000 false results (to know how those broke down into negatives or positives would require more data — my understanding is that you get more false positives than negatives — but the point is you'll be talking both results, with the innocent being labeled as guilty and the guilty being labeled as innocent). So that's a lot of people either way... Bruce Schneier has a lot of good blog posts and essays (in his books) about the dangers of these kinds of seemingly low error rates applied across large populations. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

JackofOz, I don't know what you mean. Was that a joke? If the machine has a 90% accuracy, and I am not a criminal, then there's a 1 in ten that it will brand me a criminal when they ask me if I've commited a crime. APL (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it was not a joke. The logic of what you're saying seems terribly confused to me, APL. Firstly, lie detectors do not "brand" anyone as anything. They provide information about a person's specific response to a specific question asked on a specific occasion. A number of responses provided in a single session are then considered, along with other evidence, in order to come to an assessment about the person's bona fides. But putting all that aside for a moment, and just considering the supposed accuracy of the devices: If the claim is that they're 90% accurate, that means that 90% of the information they provide can be trusted and 10% can't. The trick is knowing which particular responses belong with the 90% and which with the 10%, and that's where human judgment comes in. But in general, if the claim is true, then a given result has at best a 90% chance of being accurate. That also means they have at least a 10% chance of being wrong. If lie detector test results were the only factor used to decide whether someone is innocent or guilty, or the only factor used to decide whether charges should be laid or not, then yes, I suppose one could very loosely say they have the potential to "brand" an innocent person as guilty. But it's at least a 10% chance of that, not "at best" a 10% chance. However, that is very far removed from how lie detector results are actually used in practice, so it's an academic argument. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't about how they're used in practice, it's about using them to publicly clear the name of celebrities.

Also, I'm unclear about your distinction between "at least" and "at best". I don't see why "at best" can't be used in a situation where low numbers are good. APL (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying now. If a machine has a claimed 90% accuracy rate, then it has a 1-in-10 chance of producing an inaccurate result. These figures should not be expressed as "at best", "at worst", "at least" or "at most" anything - because they don't change depending on particular results. Indeed, it is the results that, when compared with the truth as measured in some independent way, tell us the accuracy rate of the machines to begin with. In your desire to emphasise the untrustworthiness of the device, you managed to throw logic out the door. But it's OK, APL. We're still arguing like angels on the head of a pin.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure APL's point is that we don't really know what the accuracy rate is. Supporters who we can presume would give the highest accuracy rate estimation give 90-95%. (Opponents may suggest the accuracy rate isd even lower.) So I would say APL's comments were fair except that they should have said one in twenty not one in ten, since according to their earlier comments, the lowest estimated error rate was one in twenty. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I meant that the best case scenario is that the machine's supporters are correct and the accuracy is 90-95%. (I'm not sure why I ran with the lower of those to numbers. That's probably the source of the confusion.) My implication was that a more likely scenario is that the machine's supporters are biased, and the true accuracy rate is lower (and therefore more likely to indicate that an innocent person is a criminal.) APL (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, we seem to be on the same page now. But as I said before, you really need to use less emotive language. No machine can ever determine that a person is a criminal; nor can it even "indicate" such a thing. Only a court can decide a person's guilt or innocence in relation to a specific charge, and they do so only after considering and testing a whole swag of evidence. Lie detector results may sometimes be used to add to the mix of evidence, but they are never used as the sole evidence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So anyway [4] .... Nil Einne (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So apparently, Herman Cain passes voice lie detector test. Willminator (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have worked closely with lie detector operators. The machines use a galvanic skin response channel, a respiration channel, and a plethysmograph channel, which the examiners incorrectly call "blood pressure." There may also be a channel to detect movement in the chair, as an attempt to camouflage deceptive answers. Many persons become polygraphers when they get tired of being truck drivers, and find the money (under $500) to pay for a short (40 classroom hour) course at a "polygraphy academy." Then they buy a polygraph and offer their services to employers, detective agencies, or law enforcement agencies. The "95% accuracy" would happen only with a very skilled operator and a high quality machine. The "skilled operator" is typically an interrogator who can deduce a lot of information about the examinee's truthfulness by noting when he looks to one side, or when his breathing alters (which the machine also notes) or his tone of voice, or "micro-expressions," or myriad other traditional indices of truthfulness or deception. There are certainly lousy examiners and lousy machines, whose results would be near chance. One highly skilled (FBI) examiner told me that if the machine were broken, but the needle moved around randomly, it would still be a useful interrogation instrument in getting a naive young criminal to confess, just by telling him "You say you know nothing about the shooting, but this machine tells me you are lying." or "The machine tells me you have some knowledge of the crime. Now is your chance to avoid getting convicted for the crime, if you tell me who else was involved, that actually did the shooting." There is usually the "Stimulation test," in which the examiner fans some cards out on a table and asks the examinee to select one at random, look at it, and put it back without telling the examiner what it is. Then using the polygraph, the examiner accurately determines the card selected, even though the examinee is told to lie. The trick is that the examiner uses a careful arrangement of cards, so that he knows just by looking which card the examinee looked at. The examiner also thus gains information as to what attempts at deception look like from the examinee. With a little reading and/or training, the average person could at least render a lie detector test "inconclusive." Voluntarily tightening the anal sphincter causes a "reaction" similar to that from deception, so simulating "deception responses" to a variety of questions could make the examinee look so "reactive" that the result would be inconclusive. The 90% or 95% accuracy means that if a company had 10000 employees and they suddenly gave everyone a polygraph, with 90% accuracy, they would fire 1000 good and loyal and honest employees, to the detriment of their profits and to the great harm and demoralization of their employees. But if they knew one of four employees had stolen something, they would likely catch the culprit. So incident based polygraphy makes some business sense, as opposed to letting the crime be repeated, or firing someone you suspect based on vague inklings or prejudice, but random polygraphy or job applicant polygraphy is nonproductive and undesirable, since it catches too many good and innocent people compared to the number of bad guys. Edison (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah, but getting confessions out of naive suspects is fairly straightforward with interrogation techniques and tricks like this, regardless of whether or not the suspect actually did it. People confess to stop the pressure, assuming (trusting) that the truth will out, especially if they believe the interrogator about the power of the machine to discern truth. Sad, and scary.

If you had 4 people, and one of them did it and the other three didn't, assuming a 90% accuracy (assuming that's 0.9 chance of giving the right answer, since we lack false postive and negative data), there's only 0.9⁴ = 0.6561 = about 66% it will identify the right person and clear the innocent. To be fair, there's only about a 2% chance of it giving you a single innocent person as guilty while clearing the guilty person, but there's a high chance it will give you a wrong impression. And there's a good chance that an innocent person will confess, so you could very easily (about 22% chance) get two 'guilties' from the lie detector, and then the innocent person confesses to something they didn't do, and you have a lie detector test supported by a confession! See what sort of percentages we're looking at. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Writby

help i want to find out about gr great granfather being served Writby us goverment around 1853 1863 on beaver island michigan

The above was asked via IRC,and I posted it here, trying to help.  Chzz  ►  23:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I expect the question is about the great grandfather having been served a writ by the US government, but if there is any record of it, it's probably buried in a dusty file cabinet somewhere in a federal office. Looie496 (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Doing genealogy research on non-notable individuals does not fall within the scope of Reference Desk activities. But you can begin doing your own research by looking through legal records located at such free sites such as The USGenWeb Project and Genealogy.com, where you can also participate in discussion boards with other researchers working on a particular family or locality. Among subscription sites, Ancestry.com is excellent, with millions of records available from local, state, and federal sources. Textorus (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Beaver Island, Michigan has an interesting history in that time period, being ruled by self-proclaimed "King" Strang, the leader of a Mormon splinter group until the U.S. government sent in a gunboat and someone assassinated him (but nobody cared enough to figure out who). After which mobs came in to dispossess many of the Mormons and most of the local government offices were unfilled and nobody much wanted to sort it all out. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)