Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 25

Countries With (Attempted) Large-Scale Territorial Expansion/Enlargement Since 1800

Which countries successfully expanded or unsuccessfully tried to expand their borders since 1800? For this question, I am asking about countries where the bulk of the territorial expansion or attempted territorial expansion occurred since 1800, rather than about countries which did most of their expansion before 1800 (such as Vietnam (see here: Nam tiến) and (the) Russia(n Empire)) and then "finished up" their expansion since 1800. Also, I am not talking about territorial expansion which was done as a part of the process of national (re-)unification, such as for Germany and Italy in the 1800s (see here: German unification and here: Italian unification) or in 1990 (see here: German reunification). So far, the only examples which I can think of in regards to this are the United States of America (see here: Manifest destiny) and, from a more extreme perspective, Germany (during World War I and especially during the Nazi Germany; see here: Lebensraum). Which other countries am I missing here? Also, countries such as Canada do not count, since they expanded their borders due to the fact that they (a British colony in the past) absorbed other areas which were also British colonies in the past (hopefully this part here makes sense). Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The First French Empire, Japan, and Italy (to an extent) should meet your conditions. →Σσς. (Sigma) 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the First French Empire should count, since it expanded its territories (including its puppet states, which it perhaps might have wanted to eventually outright annex like it actually did with the Netherlands, northern Italy, and northeastern Germany) by a decent/large amount after 1799. As for Italy, I suppose that it could count to an extent, since AFAIK Mussolini had expansionist goals in the non-Italian countries/areas of Albania, Greece, southwestern France, et cetera (I don't really count the Italian territorial acquisitions right/shortly after WWI for the purposes of my question here, since Italy's post-WWI territorial acquisitions were at least generally Italian-majority, and thus, their acquisition by Italy can arguably be considered as a continuation of the process of Italian unification). And Yes, I suppose that Japan can count for my question here as well, at least to some degree. Futurist110 (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Canada should count as British Columbia did not become a British colony until 1858. Rmhermen (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't British Columbia under de facto and/or de jure British control before 1858 as well, though? I know that Oregon County was partitioned in the mid-1840s, with the United States getting the southern part and with the United Kingdom getting the northern part. Futurist110 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Oregon Country was disputed between Britain, Russia and U.S. after 1800. Rmhermen (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but Russia appears to have given up its claim to Oregon Country in the 1820s. Futurist110 (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

How about the Zulu Kingdom? Rmhermen (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I will need to look it up more, since I currently unfortunately don't know very much about it. Futurist110 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Territorial claims in Antarctica may be relevant. It's probably the last colonial land grab. Hack (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps; I wonder if there will ever be a serious discussion in any country in regards to annexing a part of Antarctica. Futurist110 (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There was serious discussion of annexing parts of Antarctica until the late 1950s. Maps from the era show the last continent divided and colored like colonial Africa; Argentinian and Chilean postage stamps showed the national borders including their claims to a slice of Antactica (see here e.g. [1]). The Antarctic Treaty of 1959 has put an end to that: while the various claiming countries have not formally renounced their territorial claims, they have all agreed to stop pursuing them any further and to let the continent be a common heritage of humankind. --Xuxl (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Arguably a number of Balkan countries tried, some succeeding, some not so much. Bulgaria has tried to create a Greater Bulgaria, but failed (see Second Balkan War). Romania gained independence in the 19th century in a form much smaller than what it is today (notably it didn't include Transylvania). Romania#Independence and monarchy has an animated map showing its expansion. Pfly (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this info. Also, couldn't the rump Yugoslavia (Serbia plus Montenegro) in the 1990s (arguably) count for this? Futurist110 (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No one has mentioned it and it's a little late, but Iraq's invasion and annexation of Koweit in the summer of 1990, which led to the First Gulf War, definitely fits. --Xuxl (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the Iraq being one of the answers to this question, especially considering that Saddam invaded Iran as well before he invaded Kuwait. Futurist110 (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sharecropping

Would it be accurate to say that sharecropping is a form of feudalism? →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The trend among scholars of European history for several decades has been to define the word "feudalism" more and more narrowly, so that true feudalism would be confined to a relatively small slice of European history only. According to such definitions, the answer would definitely be "no". The broader or looser traditional definition of feudalism is that in the great majority of people's lives, the power of their local overlord is far more significant than any theoretical central state or remote monarchy. Not sure sharecropping would qualify under that definition either (though it definitely sometimes included oppressive employment practices, or de facto debt servitude)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly not feudalism in any strict sense. Subinfeudation by commoners has been illegal since the statute of Quia Emptores in 1290, and the sharecropper's right to land is not a fief. Indeed, the sharecropper's limited right to land and inability to leave it to his heirs is central to sharecropping and an essential element of the landlord's power. In contrast, feudalism was an hereditary system. John M Baker (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It's actually more like manorialism than the usual understanding of feudalism, in the sense that sharecroppers, like medieval peasants, had to work the land for the local landowner, whoever it was, and were unable to leave and had very few rights. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It really depends on the details of the sharecropping arrangement. In the United States, cotton sharecropping often involved what had once been large plantations. Thus, the landlord tended to have many tenants, in an arrangement that could almost be seen as manorial. Other crops, however, tended to have smaller landlords for whom any comparison to manorialism would be ridiculous. A sharecropped farm might, for example, belong to the widow of the original farmer, now relying on the tenant for her own support.

While American sharecroppers tended to be poor, they had the option of leaving the farm, and once industrialization created sufficient jobs many of them did so. Sharecroppers could also buy the farm they worked, and this occurred sometimes, though probably not so much in the cotton plantation context. John M Baker (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Baker has captured the key difference between sharecropping and feudal relations. Sharecroppers were legally free agents in contractual agreements with landlords. They were free not to agree to a contract or to move on when the contract's term was finished. Feudal serfs were typically not free but were legally bound to continue working the estate where they were born. Serfs were more like slaves, with the key difference that feudal landlords could not buy or sell individual serf. (Typically, feudal landlords couldn't even buy or sell estates but held them as fiefs granted by their overlords. Feudal landlords typically only had the right to bequeath their fiefs to their heirs, and really only at the pleasure of their overlords, who could reclaim enfeoffed lands when their vassals died or if they were "disloyal.") But unlike sharecroppers, serfs couldn't legally seek a better deal on a different estate or as a wage laborer in a town. The only legal ways out of serfdom (before it started to give way to relationships more like tenancy beginning in the late Middle Ages) were to perform some extraordinary service to one's lord and to be granted freedom in return or, in some times and places, to purchase one's freedom. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

These answers are thought-provoking. Thank you all. →Σσς. (Sigma) 10:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

From the Marxist technical use of Feudalism (inherited from a pretty poor choice of technical terms in the 19th century), Sharecropping would not be feudalism to the extent that the landlord take the shared crop for sale on a capitalist market, rather than for personal enjoyment. The sharecrop for the landlord is potential value, it is capitalist in nature. For the Manorial lord, taxes as harvest or in kind are directly consumed, or sold out through non-capitalist means in order to procure limited luxury goods. The difference lies in the market economy, production for sale on a market, and the ownership of land as "a thing that can grow crops" or "a thing that provides market rents." Fifelfoo (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

But if not sharecropping, did the CSA not go through a feudalist stage, as it should have, after slavery was abolished? →Σσς. (Sigma) 10:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You can read Marx and Engels on this subject directly, I strongly suggest the Penguin collection of Marx's Journalism. They did not consider "The South" to be a slave society ala or Athens, Rome. Unfree labour existed in the context of a mercantile and developing industrial Capitalist economy for Freddie and Kazza. My go to here would be CLR James' The Black Jacobins, however, James has been criticised for being part of that whole Autonomist thing that puts the class before the party. Also Marx is pretty direct in advocating pushing as hard as possibly can be pushed in India, China and Russia for human freedom in his journalism and advocacy—certainly he wasn't a schematist about what was to be done. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Presidents/statesmen featured on US dollar bills

I think there is enough general background buzz surrounding the achievements of Washington, Lincoln and Franklin for Americans to really appreciate why they are featured on the $1, $5 and $100 bills, respectively. Jefferson ($2) and Hamilton ($10) require a bit more investigation, as unless one is somewhat steeped in American history, their contributions can be more easily overlooked. But what exactly is the spotlight on Jackson ($20) and Grant ($50) all about? I mean, sure, if one reads their Wikipedia articles, there's lots of great stuff, but if you'd give me the Wikipedia articles for all US presidents and early statesmen/legislators and asked me to speculate which ones had ben granted immortalization by having their pictures affixed to our currency, and then I read all the articles and attempted to rate the relative contributions of each, would I have chosen Jackson and Grant? Or Cleveland ($20) prior to 1928? I can't say that I would have. Am I just woefully unaware of these presidents' contribution to US history, or would the vast majority of non-historians also find it difficult to provide insight into why Jackson and Grant were honored over other presidents? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Jackson was generally considered the greatest President between the founding fathers and Lincoln, and was a war hero to boot (the Battle of New Orleans). Grant was the general who finally won the Civil War, after a whole string of commanders-in-chief of the Union forces proved to be unequal to the task; his two terms as President were less successful, but he was the first President to complete two full consecutive terms since Jackson (and the only one until Woodrow Wilson). They may be slightly forgotten now, but they were extremely famous men until the middle of the 20th century. Cleveland was also elected twice and he and Teddy Roosevelt were the most successful presidents during an otherwise uninspiring period running roughly from President Hayes to Franklin Roosevelt. --Xuxl (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Putting Jackson on paper money is a bit ironic though -- see Bank War. Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Jackson's reputation these days is a bit tarnished, especially on the left, since he was a slaveholder (though so were many of the Founders) and arguably genocidal toward Native Americans. However, he still has quite a following among conservative Southern whites and removing him from the $20 bill would be politically fraught. The $50 bill is not in wide circulation, and I doubt that most Americans would know, offhand, that it features Grant. The $20 and lower-denomination bills have much greater visibility. Marco polo (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The real fishy one is Salmon P. Chase on the $10,000 bill. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That was to honor Chase for introducing the modern banknote system, and the $10,000 bill was never publicly circulated anyway. I find that much easier to understand than Cleveland on the $20 bill from 1914 to 1928. John M Baker (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I find it odd that Jefferson would be in a "need more investigation" category. Jefferson is a bigger figure than Franklin, surely? The Declaration of Independence, and all. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For a non-historian American, I'd say you need to be in a history class to be able to know/recall that. The analogy "Jefferson was to Declaration of Independence as..." is only meaningful insofar as most people would assume that the analogy is, a priori, something that makes sense, rather than a joke. I only know that Jefferson had anything to do with the DoI because it's in the Animaniacs Presidents Song. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Bigger than Big Ben? I'm not so sure of that. Franklin was world famous, a rock star before there were rock stars. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It truly is a disgrace - see Seminole Wars. We're talking about a sum of money much greater than that used to buy Alaska, spent to systematically drive out or exterminate the Spanish, Indians, and escaped slaves from "Florida" (the southern margin of the U.S. all the way to Louisiana) and southern Georgia and Alabama also. And Jackson was absolutely central to the war to make America safe for slavery. Wnt (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale

Can anybody tell me something about the fertility options that were available prior to the publication of the The Handmaid's Tale? There are some things that don't make sense to me, like the fact that the couples use handmaids instead of adopting children from foreign or third-world countries or the fact that couples somehow don't have access to in vitro fertilization or the effects of going through a major genetic bottleneck. From a biological perspective, the handmaid's genes would likely contribute to the gene pool of the next generation, but since the handmaids give their offspring to the other parent and adoptive parent before moving on to the next household, it is assumed that the next generation will have a lot of half-siblings due to the handmaid's traveling. Half-siblings still wouldn't be good, because they can't reproduce with each other and doing so might result in inbreeding-induced abnormalities. 140.254.227.68 (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read The Handmaid's Tale myself, but I note that it is a work of fiction set in the near future. As such, I wouldn't get too hung up on whether or not the fertility options carried out by the characters in the novel make sense as logical choices today. The author may not have thought it was important to create believable future scenarios, preferring to take liberties for the sake of literary or dramatic effect. --Viennese Waltz 15:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

In vitro fertilization was a new thing when the novel was published; the world's first "test tube baby" was born in 1978, and the process took another five years or so to become widely available, which takes us to about the time Atwood wrote The Handmaid's Tale (which was published in 1985). In any case, Atwood was interested in a different scenario as a remedy for fertility problems, in what was a work of fiction anyway. --Xuxl (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A close reading of the text itself should suffice to answer your question. Pay particular attention to the Handmaid's memory of her youth in the prior society. Regarding half-siblings, read the earlier books of the Old Testament, these are Atwood's context for the theocratic state controlling significant portions of North America (chiefly, maternal line incest isn't a big thing in such a patriarchal society). Regarding "foreign-ness," the theocratic fascist state has a strong conception of "in" and "out" groups. Pay close attention when reading sections on un-women. Sourcing breeding stock from outside of the theocracy would be culturally distasteful. Also, it would be unnecessary, reread the sections on "econowives" as multiple purpose domestic, breeding and companionship women. Finally, the text contains major hints on how to read it ("context is all"), so you might like to both situate the text in the context of the mid 20th century, in particular the German and Soviet state's treatment of the other (I normally recommend Hannah Arendt's works on the German situation as a go to here, try Eichmann in Jerusalem, itself a highly ironic text); then, having done so, be aware that the text's alternate context is third wave feminism and reread the text through the kind of Marxist versus Radical (post-structuralist) feminisms debates on gender in the 1980s. The scientific availability of fertility and fertility control methods is insignificant compared to the social context of use of birth control. Culturally enforced non-breeding among a large proportion of the women controlled by patriarchs is more significant than IVF. Also, why on earth would a patriarch put a baby in his wife: don't be disgusting, that's just not done culturally. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't really talking about incest; I was talking about inbreeding problems. They are different but related concepts. 140.254.136.157 (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

So, I get the picture that somehow the United States of America is being transformed into the Republic of Gilead, a theocratic totalitarian patriarchal state rooted in old Jewish customs from an ancient era in which Jews were trying to develop their sense of identity but then this societal structure is mistakenly transplanted into the United States of America to create the Republic of Gilead? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think at least one of the confusing things about your original comment and probably why people thought you were referring to incest taboos is you said they "can't reproduce with each other". There's no "can't" about it for humans in most cases for biological reasons. You may have a higher miscarrriage rate and have a higher risk of genetic disorders, but there's nothing stopping it even in cases of full siblings. The only reason why "can't" would come in to it is if social issues make such incest untenable. Nil Einne (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Gilead doesn't particularly care about the negative genetic consequences of inbreeding. "Context is all." Fifelfoo (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"Against God's will"

How many things in history have been described as "against God's will" but nevertheless became widely accessible, distributed, available or just normalized? I'm just wondering this question, because I just looked up in vitro fertilization and there was this timeline that said something about a large portion of Americans that thought it was against God's will. It also occurred to cloning. 140.254.227.69 (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That's an unanswerable question. We cannot enumerate and give you a strictly accurate and reliable count of the number of "things" in all of history (what is a "thing" anyways?) that any of the billions of people who have ever lived have ever stated was against God's will. --Jayron32 17:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

bacon cheeseburgers? —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Final scene / climax in Hamlet

In the final scene (climax) of Hamlet, all of the major characters are killed off: King Claudius, Queen Gertrude, Laertes, and Hamlet himself. These are very significant deaths, as they constitute all of the major characters in the play; furthermore, all of these significant deaths happen in one fell swoop, in a matter of a few minutes. Further furthermore, Hamlet finally gets (through the death of Claudius) his revenge that had been so elusive to him throughout the rest of the entire play. So, it is generally understood that this scene constitutes the "high point" and the climax of the play. So, here is my question. After all of these important and significant deaths, the English ambassador arrives on scene and says, almost matter-of-factly, "Oh, by the way, I am here to let you all know that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead". Given that the other four deaths are much more significant (i.e., the more significant characters), this news relating the additional two deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seems very anti-climactic and almost out of place. Is there any reason (dramatic, plot-driven, etc., or otherwise) as to why Shakespeare would present the climax scene in this way? In the final scene, why would Shakespeare show us all the deaths of the four significant characters, but yet end the play on the very anti-climactic note of reporting the deaths of these two minor characters? To me, it seems very incongruous and out of place, almost a "let down" to end the final scene like that. Really, in the grand scheme of things, who cares about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, anyway? And, even if this news had not been reported, the audience/reader could easily have assumed that their deaths occurred simply by the previous events in the previous scenes. So, what's the point? Any ideas as to why Shakespeare thought that this was so important to include? And to include, of all places, at that particular point in the play? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no short answer, really. See Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Looie496 (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It ties up loose ends (a bit clumsily, but still ties them up nonetheless). The two were involved (likely unwittingly, but involved nonetheless) in the plot to have Hamlet executed by the King of England. So, they death, like the death of Claudius and everyone else who may have wronged Hamlet at all in the play, is tied up in the climax scene. --Jayron32 19:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

And after writing that, Wikipedia has an article titled Rosencrantz and Guildenstern which briefly explains their death and the reason for it. --Jayron32 19:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that's a better link -- although I don't think it tells the full story. What it comes down to is that for Shakespeare, there was no such thing as a throwaway character. In spite of everything else that has happened, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern still matter enough for their fates to be worth noticing. But that isn't the full story either -- as with many things in Shakespeare, there are levels on levels here. Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

With Shakespeare, the full story is never the full story. They say life imitates art; well, in this case, the art in the plays imitates the life of the writer, where there was always more to the story of who he was than the too-easy-but-good-enough-for-public-consumption "William Shakespeare of Stratford". That worked for a few centuries, but we now have a different standard, where good enough is never good enough. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you have to spout this baloney whenever a question about Shakespeare is asked? It contributes exactly nothing whatever to answering the question. Paul B (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

(1) Don't attack contributors in front of the OP; and (2) It may not be directly to do with the OP's question, but it's still an interesting point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It was all a long time ago, when writers were more naive, and near the beginning of the tradition of English theatre, so it seems necessary to entertain the possibility that, at least in some ways, Shakespeare just wasn't very good at it.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't be the first to have a low opinion of the Bard. Leo Tolstoy, no less, had two bites at the cherry when writing to Anton Chekhov: You know I can't stand Shakespeare's plays, but yours are even worse. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "Rosencrantsz and Guildenstern Are Dead" is meant to be a serious literary analysis of Hamlet, and so might not be so useful for the OP. But by all means, watch the movie, read the play, or catch it live if you can. It is great, and, unlike Hamlet, quite original ;) I'm sure there are serious scholarly articles on this question, but it's hard for me to find them: it's not my field, and the very famous Stoppard play fills my searches with chaff. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

My answer is that this shows the working out of Claudius' plan, as commandeered by Hamlet. I'm tickled that you used the phrase "one fell swoop", which originates in Macbeth. --ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not realize that the phrase originated in Macbeth! Although I am not surprised that it originated with Shakespeare. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Bathetic comic relief, per On the Knocking at the Gate in Macbeth. 86.182.25.18 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all! I appreciate the input. It was very helpful. Happy Thanksgiving! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Good night, sweet prince. And, personally, how nice - and, unfortunately, rare - to see someone express thanks. The rest is silence. 86.182.25.18 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It's sometimes claimed that the line was added because Ben Jonson complained that the fate of the characters was a loose end. But the line also functions to emphasise the sudden turn-around in events precisely because the news is now irrelevant. The ambassador suddenly funds himself as an outsider in a situation he can't understand. Paul B (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I had never heard that theory. But, without the line added, would it really be a loose end? Wouldn't the reader (or theatre audience) pretty much assume that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were indeed killed by the English king? Hamlet's (fake) "commission" was pretty clear in its instructions; and the English king presumed that the commission was on orders of the Danish king. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

What Iran sanctions are these?

Mentioned in this article.

I need to link to something on Wikipedia and the article I tried doesn't mention it.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think that is not the right article? The article mentions an oil embargo against Iran and so does the page you linked to. RudolfRed (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear that the embargo is currently in effect, or that the agreement mentioned in the next section deals with it. I'm reluctant to just add information when I'm not clear on what is being said.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program

Is this agreement a treaty subject to U.S. Congressional approval? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.38.145 (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not an answer, but it looks like this question relates to mine above.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

According to this source, it is not a treaty requiring U.S. Senate approval. Marco polo (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have an article about it?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Pssst. Look on the main page. Upper right corner. --Jayron32 00:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

In a desperate attempt to get an answer when no one provided one, I tried "Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program". I didn't figure Wikipedia would have an article title like that.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you mean "In the news". Why didn't you say so?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Jayron32 more or less did? BTW, that article much have plenty of redirects and links from our articles so whatever the title it can't be that hard to find. Wikipedia's search engine may be slightly slow to update, but there's always Google, Bing .... Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That last suggestion was what I meant by "desperate attempt". But I had searched all over the place and I guess I was in the wrong place. The upper right corner is where it lists my contributions, so that didn't make sense at first.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

November 26

Presidential laws

For the past month there has been a lot in the news about how the ACA roll-out has "fumbled." My question is, in US history, has there ever been any other president that had a similar experience?99.48.64.75 (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to know of any president that didn't experience a "fumble" or two. Like, for example, when Bush said "Mission accomplished!" in Iraq. Or when Jimmy Carter allowed the much-hated Shah of Iran into the US for medical treatment, triggering events that reverberate to this day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Bush never actually said "Mission accomplished!", kind of like people being shocked that in fact Palin never said "I can see Russia from my house". ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

However, he freely chose to pose in front of a huge banner with the words "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" on it while wearing faux-military attire... AnonMoos (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Google Image [bush mission accomplished photo] and many examples turn up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

He was wearing a business suit in the photo - and the military gear was real not faux as he flew in on a surveillance jet hours earlier, a move also criticized. See Mission Accomplished speech - WHAAOE. Rmhermen (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And JFK promised to support the Bay of Pigs invasion, but didn't get the job done, simultaneously pissing off Cuban exiles, Fidel Castro, and the Kruschev, leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis and almost causing WW3. I think that eclipses any "fumble", before or since. StuRat (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Carter and Operation Eagle Claw. Sjö (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bay of Pigs and Operation Eagle Claw were disasters for the US. Obamacare is just a website with some problems. Not even close to being in the same league with those other things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bay of Pigs is probably the most notorious fumble of all, because it took place only three months after JFK was inaugurated and cast a pall over his whole presidency. Here is a list of some other notorious ones, though:

• • • Bush 2: Katrina; Iraq invasion
    • Clinton: failed health care initiative; Somalia intervention
    • Bush 1: "Read my lips, no new taxes"
    • Reagan: Iran-Contra
    • Carter: failed Iran hostage rescue
    • Ford: nothing major comes to mind; some might say the Nixon pardon but I don't see that as a fumble
    • Nixon: Doh!
    • Johnson: Vietnam escalation

Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ford: "WIN - Whip Inflation Now". Not really a fumble, more like an incomplete pass. And JFK started the wheels in motion that led to the Vietnam conflict. People tend to forget that fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, hardly. The Vietnam conflict had been going on for decades before JFK ever became President. What he may have done is start the American involvement in the Vietnam conflict. Also, World War II started well before 7 December 1941. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the American conflict in Vietnam. JFK was a hawk. He laid this gauntlet down in his inaugural address: "We will go anywhere, pay any price..." etc. He created the Green Berets. Obviously, LBJ made it much worse. But they were on the same ideological page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

to Louie496:

• • • Bush 2: Failure to attend on the ground Katrina, TAARP, QE1, agree on Iraq
    • Clinton: The Monica Lewinsky year long drama, DOMA, Hillarycare attempt, Don't ask Don't Tell, NAFTA
    • Bush 1: agreed with your assessment, and in retrospect Desert Shield & Storm.
    • Reagan: Amnesty, Beruit Marine barracks bombing
    • Carter: abandoning the Shah well before the hostage crisis; Stagflation; high interest rates, more OPEC gas lines
    • Ford: USS Pueblo, Fall of Saigon, some might say his Pardon
    • Nixon: Trusting John Dean, thinking John Siricia was impartial, firing Archibald Cox and not firing Jaworski, OPEC gas lines
    • Johnson: USS Liberty, Tonkin Gulf lies, full scale social security IOUs, Warren Commission signoff
    • Kennedy: Failure to participate or attend the March on Washington, agreed with Bay of Pigs (mainly aircover)
      • Just some of my initial thoughts. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no politician in a democratic country whose career does not involve significant controversy. Abraham Lincoln's election managed to provoke a war with 600,000 deaths and his policies were hated by all sides: "Radical Republicans demanded harsher treatment of the South, War Democrats desired more compromise, Copperheads despised him, and irreconcilable secessionists plotted his death." And this is for a president considered one of the greatest of all time. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I recall a history teacher telling us, "If Lincoln was such a great leader, how come it took him so long to find General Grant?" The south, of course, did not have to secede, they chose to - because Lincoln's recent predecessors did absolutely nothing to try and deal with the growing divide, and Lincoln got stuck with it. And his assassination had the unanticipated (by Booth, anyway) effect of just making things much tougher on the south in the short run. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

lol, if I had that history teacher I would've replied: 'for the same reason it took Truman so long to find Matthew Ridgway after he almost started a war with General MacArthur', didn't Rodney Dangerfield say something like that to 'Professor' Kinnison? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly true, although Truman had very little to do with the Civil War. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't worry about that, that's the magic of history class everything is in play, as I'm sure Truman thought of Lincoln's troubles when he had to remove a potential political rival. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs -- Lincoln's unacceptability to the South had nothing to do with any laws he was likely to pass. It had a whole lot more to do with the fact that many southerners found it unacceptable that with the inauguration of Lincoln, southerners and their friendly supporters in the North would no longer dominate the U.S. federal government (occupying the Presidency and a majority of the Senate and Supreme court, leaving the House as the the only branch of government which was sometimes not dominated by pro-Southern interests), as they had done during the 1852-1860 period... AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. They had gotten spoiled by Lincoln's worthless predecessors. With a northern abolitionist in the White House, the game was up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Bowlhover, there's one exception: you can die (or otherwise stop serving) soon after taking prominent office. As far as I know, William Henry Harrison's time as US President didn't provoke substantial controversy, as the only substantial controversy related to him came after his death: is Mr Tyler the President, or is he just the Acting President for the next 3-11/12 years? For practical purposes, Tyler's response settled the controversy, but legal ambiguity was only removed in the 1960s. Meanwhile, although he lived out his entire term in office, I doubt that David Curson's time as a U.S. Representative saw much controversy around his actions. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Ambassador Berlusconi

Apparently, Vladimir Putin intends to appoint Silvio Berlusconi as Russia's ambassador to Vatican Ciy, thereby giving him diplomatic immunity, and protecting him from prosecution in the Italian courts.

• I assume that DI normally only applies in the country to which the diplomat is accredited, so is there a specific agreement between Italy and the Vatican that the diplomats of one are covered in the other?
• Would the Italian government get any say in whether an individual was acceptable?
• Why wouldn't the Vatican just refuse the appointment? Would they be more worried about offending Russia than Italy? (I know, this calls for speculation so feel free to ignore this part). Rojomoke (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't heard this story, but it reminds me of the case of Julian Assange, where people asked questions like "why doesn't Ecuador make him a diplomat, so he'll have diplomatic immunity and be able to leave the Embassy freely?" The answer to that is that diplomats have to be accepted be the host country, and can't just be appointed at will. As you say, it's getting speculative, but the Vatican would certainly be able to refuse to give him DI, and that seems a likely scenario given that he's not a bona fide diplomat. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Most people I know do not regard the Daily Mail as a reliable source for anything. --ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

One interesting thing about the footage from Putin's recent trip was seeing him cross himself at some point. When's the last time a Russian or Soviet leader was seen crossing himself? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Russia has always been a highly deeply religious society. The Soviets did what they could to stamp it out, but they've been gone for a generation now (how time flies). Yeltsin had some hangovers from his time as a Soviet official, so it's not surprising he wasn't given to overt displays of religiosity. But from Vladimir Putin: Putin regularly attends the most important services of the Russian Orthodox Church on the main Orthodox Christian holidays. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure diplomatic immunity doesn't work that way. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, even in the extremely unlikely case Berlusconi were to receive agreement from the Pope as Russian ambassador to the Vatican, his immunity would only apply to that state. It would not cover Italy or any actions performed in his original country before his diplomatic appointment. Now, his lawyers could argue he was only in Italy because he is in transit to his diplomatic post and therefore his immunity still applies (an exception covered in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations), but that doesn't normally work in your country of citizenship. So he would also have to renounce his Italian citizenship. But most countries won't let one of their citizens renounce if it is for the sole purpose of escaping justice. But then, this is Italy, and Berlusconi has managed to wiggle out of all sorts of legal jams before this. And he has no shame. --Xuxl (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It worth remembering we aren't talking about a typical third country situation here in more ways than Berlusconi being an Italy citizen. It's true under normal situations, a diplomat only has diplomatic immunity in a third country if they are in transit [2].

However we are talking about Italy and the Vatican here. It's unlikely the situation is so simple, since the tiny size and nature of the Vatican means it's difficult for diplomats to function if they don't regularly go to Italy for purposes other than simply transit (and they will always need to go through Italy for transit). For example, even simply things like shopping may require a trip to Italy since I'm not totally sure the Vatican shops will have everything a diplomat wants. Not to mention things like schooling for children, entertainment etc. Are we even sure most diplomats live in the Vatican?

This would likely be resolved by the agreements between Italy and the Vatican. Either the Italy will need to be consulted and agree to grant diplomatic immunity to putative Vatican diplomats inside Italy as well, or they will have agreed to automatically grant it.

A quick search about the concordat of Lateran Treaty governing relations between the Vatican and Italy finds [3] which shows article 12 (which doesn't seem have been modified by the amendments [4]) which seems to be suggest it's mostly the later. I didn't check that carefully and probably wouldn't understand it well enough anyway, but I would have thought there is still some what Italy can reject/expel diplomats appointed to the Vatican. Otherwise theoretically a diplomat could regularly go on murderous rampages in Italy and provided the Vatican agrees to keep them Italy couldn't do anything. But perhaps Italy made the assumption the Vatican wouldn't do that or they will unilaterally reject the treaty if this happens.

There is of course still the fact Italy is not really a simple third country for Berlusconi. But on the other hand, I'm not sure this makes a difference. The reason why this is normally relevant is because a diplomat doesn't of course have diplomatic immunity, unless granted by local law for some reason, in his home country. But what we're actually talking about here is the home country is Russia who appoint a diplomat to the Vatican. And presuming the Vatican accept that diplomat, Italy have agreed to extend diplomatic immunity to said diplomat (I presume backed up by local law). In other words, the fact that Berlusconi is a citizen of Italy may be largely an aside unless there is something in the treaty which I didn't notice or the law about it not applying to Italian citizens.

Of course I'm not saying this will happen. I do agree with others it seems unlikely the Vatican will accept (beyond the effects on their relationship with Italy, would they really want Berlusconi as a diplomat anyway?) It seems unlikely Russia will even try, despite the dominance of Putin, they aren't exactly North Korea. Not to mention it'll hardly be the first time a politician or Putin himself for that matter said something in jest they had no intention of doing.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Mrs. James Brown claimed diplomatic immunity from a traffic ticket because she was married to "The Ambassador of Soul". - [5] RNealK (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

General citing style used in the hard sciences

Is it generally the case that MLA is used in journals of biology, chemistry, and physics? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Most journals have their own specific style that you can read about on the journal's "information for authors" section. For example, here is Nature's description of how to write references, and you'll see a link to an example last page where they show what the formatted refs should look like. There is no explicit mention of a writing style, and I have not seen such in any of the journals I have submitted to. Most journals' referencing guidelines more or less resemble MLA or APA citation styles. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Maldives Greater India

Is Maldives considered to be part of Greater India? The description of the map on the article Greater India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.45 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The terminology is unclear to me, but have a look at the article Indian subcontinent, where (in the first paragraph under "definition") there are three references for the Maldives sometimes being considered part of a greater region that includes India - whether this matches the definition of Greater India I'm not sure. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Maldives is threatened by rising sea levels caused by global warming. Maldives will soon be no more.
Sleigh (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

November 27

Ottoman invasion of Italy

Based on the military and naval abilities of the Ottomans in the 1450s-80s, and how swift they had expanded into nations like Hungary, how feasible could have a large-scale invasion of Naples be (had Mehmed II put more effort than that of the invasion of Otranto)? Could it have lead to its annexation (or more likely vassalization)? Thanks. 50.101.203.177 (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that the Ottoman fleet was dominated by galleys, the logistics seem very difficult. Getting a large army around to Naples and supplying it by sea seems impossible, at least without taking Sicily first and using it as a base. Mounting an invasion somewhere near Bari and working across the peninsula seems more reasonable, but still extremely challenging. Looie496 (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the proximity to the Vatican would cause a massive response, most like a crusade organized by the Pope, and bringing in armies from all the Christian nations of Europe. StuRat (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

50.101.203.177 -- Muslims had never conquered more than Sicily before. Given that by 1478 the Ottomans still hadn't cleared Venice, Genoa, and Christian knightly orders out of Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus, and other smaller islands surrounding Greece, I'm not sure that they were then in a good position to launch a naval invasion from or through Greece at that point. The only invasion from southern Albania across the Strait of Otranto that I know of was by Pyrrhus of Epirus... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

See the Ottoman invasion of Otranto in 1480 which the OP references. As StuRat says, a minor Crusade was called - it doesn't get a mention in our Crusade article, but is called "The Anti-Turkish Crusade, 1480" in The Routledge Companion to the Crusades By Peter Lock (p.204) and the Turks were persuaded to leave in 1481. Crusading and the Ottoman Threat: 1453-1505 By Norman Housley says that such were the political divisions within the Italian peninsula at the time that any large-scale mobilisation of Christian forces under Pope Sixtus IV would have been unlikely and "it is impossible to gauge what would have happened had the Turks at Otranto been reinforced" (p. 95). Alansplodge (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the ancient Greek city-states, which warred constantly, but nonetheless managed to join forces when a large, external, existential threat arrived, such as Persian armies. StuRat (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Didn't seem to work in this case, the Venetians having reached a separate peace treaty with the Ottomans in the Treaty of Constantinople (1479), were reluctant to go to war again on anybody's behalf. Alansplodge (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Jain encyclopedia

I was wondering if anyone has ever seen this book; whose title I unfortunately cannot recall. It was a several hundred page long, (at least 700) Jain encyclopedia on google books that mentioned a number of animals and plants, but also discussed tiny life forms living in the classical elements. I've been looking for this book but cannot find it; there can't be that many books which fit that description. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Unknown Concept/Philosophy

I am looking for a page on Wikipedia of a philosophy (whose name escapes me) that states that, due to the nature of suffering based upon perception, human suffering will never decrease despite any advances in the sciences or society in general. If anyone is familiar with this concept, I would appreciate any direction anyone can provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.78.71 (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Pessimism (particularly as articulated by Schopenhauer) might be a good start. Tevildo (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Socialism. 'Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery': Winston Churchill. 86.182.25.18 (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Algerian cuisine other influence

Besides Berber influence in Algerian cuisine, what other major influence does Algerian cuisine get from? Also, which dish is which specifically from Ottomans? French? Spanish? Andalus? and Italian? Please take your time to answer this and thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.45 (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article titled Algerian cuisine, and if that particular article does not suit you needs, there are links to other articles on broader topics, such as North African cuisine, or Mediterranean cuisine. Like any nation's cultural heritage of this sort, there are likely hundreds of dishes, and many local and regional variations, so it is unlikely your going to find a comprehensive history of every single dish ever cooked inside the boundaries of Algeria. Such analyses have probably been done, but have not been all put into Wikipedia yet. --Jayron32 00:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a substantial preview of A Pied Noir Cookbook: French Sephardic Cuisine from Algeria By Chantal Clabrough on Google Books, which might help. Alansplodge (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

November 28

Leased Vehicles crossing US border

I recently leased a vehicle, and the terms of the lease contain a provision that the vehicle is not to be taken out of the United States. As such, I wonder one thing: is this vehicle's position constantly being monitored? In that case, if I were to drive it to the US/Canada border, would that trigger an alarm and/or a red flag from the monitoring system? 24.47.140.246 (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that monitoring the vehicle's position would be necessary. More likely you would be caught out by some form of automatic number plate recognition at a border crossing, then penalised when you return the car. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Even more likely, nothing will happen if nothing happens, but if the car is stolen or damaged, real trouble will ensue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hiring a car in Texas had even scarier warnings. It said that you were not covered by insurance and the car would be subject to seizure by the Mexican authorities who may also bring criminal charges, and that you would be liable for the full cost of the vehicle! -- Q Chris (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, rental (and presumably leased) vehicles sometimes do come with GPS units that record or transmit their position. People have faced huge penalties for driving rental cars out of the area specified in the rental agreement. Marco polo (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Recruitment during war and peace

According to the CEO of the company engaged to oversee UK armed forces recruitment, the number of applicants has fallen because there are no wars on, and soldiers would have nothing to do . Is that really how it works? I would have assumed that recruitment would rise during peacetime, when the forces can be seen as a steady job with training useful for a later career, and no immediate prospect of getting shot at. Maybe that's just my arrant cowar prudent self-preservation talking. Rojomoke (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The guy is blaming a 35% drop since his firm took over the job in march of this year on "not enough wars"? One of the lamest excuses I've heard ...

Not that recruitment was booming before that, last year a report revealed that the recruitment fell with two thirds in the last decade. Ssscienccce (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It may be a lame excuse, but it's not totally implausible that the prospect of "real action" might encourage recruitment among people who are inclined to join the forces in the first place. The idea of joining up in order to have a quite life and learn a trade sounds like something that only people like me, who would never join up in a million years, would consider an advantage. It would be interesting to see whether there any numbers to confirm this one way or another, but I can't find anything from a quick search. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

(EC) ObPersonal, but derived from my Father (an ex-Regular) having been an Instructor for the British Army for around 30 years – a significant proportion of recruits do join with the hope of seeing action, and equally not a few soldiers opt to leave if there is little prospect of it (which might depend on their specialism as much as the general situation). It must be frustrating for some people to train intensively for activities they never get to carry out. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I remember seeing TV coverage of queues forming outside recruiting offices when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982. Conversely, I used to work with a former Guardsman who had been posted to the Berlin garrison during the Cold War. He claimed that when the balloon was about to go up (see Martial law in Poland), a number of the Royal Corps of Transport drivers made themselves scarce, having only joined-up to get their Class 1 Heavy Goods Vehicle Licences on the cheap. This suggests differing motivation between those that join the fighting arms and those who opt for logistic support; if you want to learn a trade, then you're not going to join the Parachute Regiment. I'm afraid that I couldn't find references to support either of these anecdotes. Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

the lynx

is the lynx endangered or what status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whirlwind780 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The Iberian lynx is listed by the World Wildlife Fund as "the world's most endangered feline species" [6]. The Canada lynx is considered threatened in the United States [7]; it is however quite abundant in Canada [8]. --Xuxl (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, there are four separate species of lynx. Three are classed as Least Concern, while the Iberian lynx is Critically Endangered. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

If they do go extinct, they'll qualify as the missing lynx. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

When will an article of "The Economist" become a public domain piece?

It looks like that the copyright duration in UK is 70 years from the death of the author. But what if the author was an organization? For example, when will an unsigned article published in "The Economist" become a PD piece? 112.105.52.20 (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Our article List of countries' copyright lengths seems to indicate that it's either 70 or 50 years from publication (I would think it's the second column, hence 50 years, but I'm not sure what governs this). However once the EU directive has been ratified (or possible from three weeks ago, I'm not sure) it's 70 years in either case. --ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It's 70 years from death of the author (the fact that the copyright was transferred to the Economist does not matter, if multiple authors, it is counted from the last one to die). For an unknown author (presuming that the Economist themselves don't know, since asking them would be a "reasonable enquiry" under S9(5)), it would be 70 years from publication. I don't think anything specifies that the author must be a natural person (i.e. not a company), but it must be the person who had creative input, which I think would prevent a company from being considered the author.

The 50 years from release is for broadcasts, sound recordings and published typographical arrangements (i.e. the way the words are arranged on the page, not the words themselves, such as a new edition of a old translation of the Bible). Sound recordings (the recording itself, e.g. someone singing a PD song would have a 50 year copyright on that recording, but none on the song if someone else sung it), are currently 50 years, but will be extended to 70 once the directive is implemented. The act doesn't appear to have been amended yet, and EU Directives are not automatically effective once ratified. MChesterMC (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Emperor Franz Joseph I's Cause of Death

Does anyone know what the cause of death for Franz Joseph I of Austria was? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

According to a newspaper account of the time, his death "was caused by a cold which the aged monarch caught while walking in Schoenbrunn Park ten days ago with the King of Bavaria, according to a Zurich dispatch to the Parisien, Paris. The cold developed into pneumonia of the right lung".[9] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this info. I will add this info to his article later on today. Futurist110 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Pneumonia used to be called "the old man's friend"[10] because it provides a quick exit for infirm elderly people. Alansplodge (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

November 29

Scholarly article on religion and horror vacui?

Hi - I can find examples on the web of the idea that religion and superstition arise from a sort of horror vacui, but I'm hoping for a scholarly source - it's to support a bit of writing I'm doing. Can anyone help?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

For anyone (like me) who had never heard the term before, there is an article Horror vacui. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I’m out of time to do a proper search, but here is a lead: Aristotle's Horror Vacui by John Thorp, Canadian Journal of Philosophy Volume 20, Issue 2, 1990, DOI: 10.1080/00455091.1990.10717213: “Modern commentators... some of them have sought to explain Aristotle's aversion to the void as motivated by religious or aesthetic considerations.6”

The sources cited in that footnote6:

• “Joseph Moreau thinks the real reason Aristotle rejected the void is that it would have meant that some movements were without cause, undetermined, and that this was repugnant to Aristotle; Éspace et le Temps selon Aristote (Padova: Antenore 1965), 182ff.”
• “Solmsen writes, 'His objections are not of a metaphysical or ontological nature; they keep strictly to the sphere of physics. If deeper reasons account for his antipathy to the void, one may surmise that it offended either his aesthetic sense or his religious belief that some degree of perfection must obtain even in the subcelestial regions'( 143).”
• “Pierre Duhem (Systhned u monde [Paris: Hermann1 913]i, 190-1) thinks that the real reason for Aristotle's rejection of the void is that it would provide for no absolute directions in space, and Aristotle cannot conceive of movement without absolute directions.” Taknaran (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• It sounds as if Aristotle unwittingly discovered the notion of relativity - and it horrified him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Taknaran, I think I can use that - and yes, Bugs, I guess when I think about it the void suggests relativity, which suggests no-god in turn Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The one does not necessarily imply the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Missing U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Census Records for 1917/1920

Based on the information here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/CARIBBEAN/2007-06/1182426044 and here: http://www.donslist.net/PGHLookups/IACensus1920.html (especially this part: "Virgin Islands 2076 VI Virgin Islands St Croix (EDs 32-43 and 22-31), St. John (EDs 17-21), and St. Thomas (U.S.S. Vixen, EDs 1 and 11-16).)"), it appears that the U.S. Census schedules from 1917/1920 (this census was taken in the USVI 1917-1918 but was officially a part of the 1920 U.S. Census) for EDs #1-10/#2-10 (which apparently cover most of capital, Charlotte Amalie) for the island of St. Thomas in the USVI are missing. This article (see here: http://www.stjohnhistoricalsociety.org/Articles/CaribbeanGenologicalLibrary.htm) likewise appears to mention missing U.S. Census schedules from 1917/1920 for St. Thomas island. Does anyone know the story behind/about why these U.S. Census schedules are missing? Thank you very much, and hopefully my question here is already clear enough for everyone here to understand right now. Futurist110 (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Alchitrof, Emperor of Ethiopia

Alchitrof, Emperor of Ethiopia

This is a picture of "Alchitrof, Emperor of Ethiopia" as it can be seen in the Uffizi in Florence. In the list I cannot find a person whose name resmebles that of "Alchitrof." Can anyone tell which king is meant to be represented by this painting?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The painting is dated to 1568, at which time the emperor of Ethiopia was Sarsa Dengel. Not a great deal of resemblance in names, I must admit. Tevildo (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The Image of the Black in Western Art (p.149) says that the painting represents "a fantastic approach" and that the feathered headdress is more like a North American than an African. Alansplodge (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This thesis, Ethiopia in the Uffizi: Collecting African kings in sixteenth-century Florence by Ingrid Greenfield says; "Alchitrof, meanwhile, is a less identifiable figure. The name is not easily associated with a known Ethiopian ruler, though I recently found an Uffizi inventory of 1784 that lists the portrait of Dawit II, followed by an entry for 'Alchitrof, emperor of Ethiopia, [Dawit II’s] successor known by the name Claudius Asnaf-Sahed, who sat on the Abyssinian throne for nineteen years and died in 1559.' Based on this, Alchitrof may be the emperor Gelawdewos (1521-1559), whose throne name was Asnaf Sagad I, Dawit II’s younger son who ruled from 1540-1559" (p. 11). She goes on to say that the feather headdress (which she equates with the Brazilian Tupinamba tribe) and the earrings are symbolic of the perceived unorthodoxy of Ethiopian Christianity. Alansplodge (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The Latin says "king", not "emperor"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

And it says, Alchitrof, king of Aethiopia. This is black Africa in general, not modern Ethiopia. We could also translate: Alchitrof, king of Negroland. Aside from the series of portraits of Oriental rulers in the Uffizi in Florence there is another series of portraits of Oriental rulers at Ambras Castle described in a catalogue of 1855: ...#679 Alchitrof, king of Aethiopia, ... # 683 Atanadi Dingil, commonly called Preteianes (read Prete Gianni), king of Abyssinia, died 1540, i.e. Dawit II. Note that Aethiopia and Abyssinia designate different countries. The paintings at Ambras Castle are: Alchitrof and Atanadi Dingil. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A series of these portraits of oriental rulers in Paris in a catalogue of 1855, p. 57 has after Alchitrof's portrait one of Mutihara, Alchitrof's wife. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Security camera - what does the law say?

This is not a request for legal advise, I am only asking what the law says (if anything) about a resident of an apartment complex having a security camera displayed outside the apartment door. The intention being allowing you to see who is at the door before opening it and being used as a criminal deterrent? 63.95.64.254 (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Before you even get as far as the law, you'd have to see what the lease said about making permanent changes to the building such as drilling holes and running cables through the wall. Dismas|^(talk) 21:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is not just one law on this matter that applies everywhere in the world. You would need to factor in whichever relevant jurisdictions apply to you (and yes, there could be more than one). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The jurisdiction is Texas, so you might need to consult a Texas lawyer as well as reviewing your lease and talking with your landlord. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Bugs is correct - in this case I am talking Texas. I was expecting/hoping there to be something in the law that allowed residents to take reasonable measures to protect themselves when the apartment complex is unwilling or unable to do so. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Presumably Peepholes are allowed for the same purpose. Why would a camera be any different? HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Allowed in what sense? You might have problems if you stick one in a door you don't actually own. That was Dismas's point.

Speculating wildly here, though, I wouldn't be surprised if you could get a wireless camera that would obviate the "running cables through the wall" problem. Actually I would be surprised if you couldn't. --Trovatore (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused when you say the camera would be "displayed" outside the door. Do you mean it would be mounted there, or are you talking about having a view screen there so everyone can see they are on camera, and presumably being recorded ?

In any case, pointing a camera out the nearest window would solve many of the problems. StuRat (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Not if it's illegal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

November 30

Is the Chinese government trying to increase the death rate of its own people to cope with overpopulation?

The reason I've begun wondering is that I've heard that China's gov't is cynically marketing tobacco to its citizens. With the air pollution in China there will be a nasty synergistic effect. Thanks. I realize that the Reference Desk can't speculate on this, but if there were a newspaper pundit or well-known blogger who has already discussed the possibility, then it could be referenced and commented on here.Rich (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I'm guessing no, since the government is easing its one-child policy.[11] The Chinese really, really like to smoke, and according to Smoking in China, the government has a monopoly that "coughs up" 7-10% of its total revenue. Draw your own conclusion. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Restrictions on tobacco were slow in coming to America, too. As the Chinese smokers age and the millions upon millions of citizens with emphysema and various cancers mount up, they'll start to get the message. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

One is very tempted to point out that the death rate of the Chinese people will remain steadfastly at 100%, irrespective of the policies of the Chinese state. More speculatively, see bread and circuses on the possible motivation of states to provide their citizens with simple pleasures to keep them complaisant. Tevildo (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think the denominator in death and birth rates is usually time, and the numerator is either number of people dying or # of people dying per unit population. But by your reasoning, as long as any reproduction continues, the birth rate will remain at 100% also--1 human for each human birth.Rich (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That's like the old story about a guy asking what the death rate in this one community is, and the other guy answers, "One to a person!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in reference land, please see [12]. Smoking kills 90 times as many Chinese as HIV/AIDS, and the price of tobacco can likely increase while keeping government revenue constant. EllenCT (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• thanks, that's helpful.Rich (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe lung cancer gets the HIV victims before full-blown AIDS has a chance to set in? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that many governments have tobacco monopolies. Thailand and the Philippines come to mind, and in the past, Taiwan and Japan.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Professional domination services in Sweden

As Prostitution in Sweden explains, it is illegal to buy sexual services in Sweden. But does this also apply to professional domination services, which often do not include sexual contact? --Viennese Waltz 21:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You might want to contact a lawyer. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not phrased as a request for legal advice. Someone can certainly provide legal cites if they can find any. Dismas|^(talk) 04:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Provide all the links you want, just don't presume to interpret them for the OP. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

According to the government's bill (p. 136-137) "sexual relation" normally means intercourse, but other sexual activities are also included. Nude posing is not considered a "sexual relation". I've only looked for precedents by a quick Internet search and didn't find any. It seems that there is no clear-cut answer to your question. Sjö (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"Seek legal counsel" is very clear-cut. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

And is also completely the wrong answer. It was clearly a request for legal information, not legal advice. Are you able to deal with any question of a legal nature without interpreting it as a request for advice? --Viennese Waltz 22:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You didn't ask whether there was a law. You asked whether it was illegal. I hope you have better luck paying to get laid than asking questions. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That last comment might be fit for a teenage boy's locker room, it's kind of embarassing here. Asking whether something is contrary to or forbidden by criminal law does not, prima facie, constitute seeking legal advice. In this case here, I can imagine all sorts of reasons why this question might be asked without having any real life implications for the OP or for any of their acquaintances. Sjö did some research (so did I, but I only found Swedish language links that looked like they might be addressing the question, and I don't understand Swedish, and I don't trust google translate) — others might find some court decision, or comment by a legal scholar, or even interpretation by activist lawyers, for example. Just let the question be. You don't have to answer it. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Desk guidelines explicitly say that requests for legal information are allowed. I quote from [13]: "general medical and legal questions ('What treatments are used for diabetes?', 'Which countries recognize common law marriages?') are fine". If you want to go against what the guidelines explicitly say, get a consensus to change the guidelines first. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Does X count as a common law marriage in Fratistatistan?" is a request for legal advice, and that is the proper analogy of the "are professional domination services legal in Sweden?" question. Whether there are laws mentioning such services is a different question. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

December 1

Rene Levesque extramarital affairs

Who were the women that Rene Levesque had illegal relationship with, especially the one that he had a child with, according to CBC's tv mini-series on him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.21.68 (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there any "illegal" relationships apart from those between adults and minors, and incestuous ones? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, he died in '87, so it's possible there were at the time. I'm not familiar with the history of Canadian law on (say) adultery. --Trovatore (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

René Lévesque does not really mention anything but does mention Corinne Côté who he married after his divorce. The Dictionary of Canadian Biography mentions Judith Jasmin but again her article has nothing. You might want to check out these Google hits. Some of them may not be the best of sources and some of the women mentioned may/are still living so I won't mention them here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

OP, you will want to be careful and take what you saw on the miniseries with a gran of salt. I have not seen the one in question but, if it is like most bios done for TV (or film for that matter,) some of what they showed will be accurate but other parts will have been altered for any number of reasons. These can include dramatic arc and/or trying to avoid being taken to court by those portrayed. MarnetteD | Talk 01:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

St Vincent churches in the USA

One can find plenty of American Catholic churches dedicated to St Vincent; see fr:Église Saint-Vincent-de-Paul de Bedford for a substantial article about one of them, written in French. But how many of these are dedicated to St Vincent de Paul: are most of them his, or are there plenty dedicated to other Saint Vincents? Bedford's easy, since they have an inscription over their entrance, but one often doesn't see such a thing, and anyway you often can't learn much about a place that you've not visited. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit of a guess, but I imagine that plain old "Saint Vincent" is going to refer to Vincent of Saragossa, while later Vincents might well be disambiguated, like your example for Vincent de Paul. Most of the US examples I foundon Google make it clear in their full title which one they mean; for instance St. Vincent Martyr Parish, New Jersey refers to Vincent of Saragossa. Alansplodge (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What can most accurately be said about optimal working hours?

Recently this very convincing relation between hours worked per year and productivity from an article in The Economist came to my attention about the same time that this Science article on how sleep removes neurotoxins from the brain was published. The productivity graph suggests at first glance like 27 hours per week is the optimal number to work for maximum productivity, but what about for maximum total output? Trying to say something accurate is difficult because of confounding factors. For example, workers who know they are more productive at 27 hours are likely to be better informed than other workers, and therefore might charge more than their competition who are also willing to work longer, crowding out the former group in the buyer's labor markets that regulators prefer. I am loath to get into image uploads after seeing how they effect some editors, so I really want to know how to summarize that relationship accurately. EllenCT (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If you ignore outliers and look at the trend alone, it looks like the fewer hours you work the higher your productivity per hour. However, the graph doesn't extend to zero hours, and there are many confounding factors. For example, those who work fewer hours are often part-time workers, who may be lower skilled than those offered full-time employment, and this may affect their productivity as well. In short, productivity may affect the number of hours worked. StuRat (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as maximizing total output, you'd want workers to work far more hours to achieve that. However, there are also confounding factors there. For example, if there is a set amount of work to be done by a company, then having one person work longer hours increases their total production, but might decrease other worker's, as the first worker takes over some of their tasks.

Something else you didn't mention is how the type of work matters. For example, I'm a computer programmer, and find I need to be much fresher for coding or debugging than for testing, which is hours of repeating the same test with one condition changed at each step.

Another consideration is whether they include time used to travel to and from work, check in, start up the equipment, etc. If that was included, then short days become far less efficient, as the amount of nonproductive time stays the same, while the productive time goes down. Now, as an employer you might think you could ignore travel time in your productivity calculations, but that could lead you to have people work short days, lose money due to their travel expenses, and therefore quit and go elsewhere.StuRat (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Compared to the ~10% correlations I often see in relations that conventionally are thought to be strong, the graph doesn't really have any substantial outliers. And when you multiply the productivity times the hours, 27 per week (1400 per year) still dominates. I agree part time workers may appear to be more productive because they aren't drawing as many benefits, and need to look much more closely there, as well as at the issues for the type of work, travel time, and daily less productive ramp up periods. Thank you, Stu! (I also experience ramp up periods; they are usually shorter when I am well rested, and I suspect that may be true for most workers.) EllenCT (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

[14], [15] may be useful to those who found OP's link interesting. →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Correlation / causation / data quality. Union data, and personal industry sampling are indicative of massive over work in Australia. My industry's nominal working year is 1620 hours. The actual is around 3000. Also, optimum total output by what measure? Most industries are at market saturation and total use-value output isn't nearly as important as maximised value output, which requires realisation. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. Would you please elaborate each of those clauses? EllenCT (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Shorter working hours don't cause higher GDP. Higher GDP empowers labour against capital, labour tends to prefer shorter working hours. The data quality is likely to be poor, for example, Australia has a working year of 38*47 (4 weeks annual leave, 1 weeks worth of week day public holidays) or 1786 hours. My industry, in Australia, has a nominal working year of 1620ish hours. The actual number of hours worked per year in my industry is around 3000. Data sources are incredibly poor for this, in part, because statistical agencies are instructed to construct statistics in certain ways, almost all of which conceal overwork. "Total output" means what? Bananas per hectare? Bananas per hour? US Dollars per hour? Most industries can't sell more bananas, their problem isn't selling bananas but selling bananas profitably. "Maximisation of output" is in our societies, maximisation of dollar value outputs that can be realised as profit, not of volume of bananas produced. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

For info, the UK has excellent data on actual hours worked. But I don't think it's possible to crunch it to show the working hours that are optimal for productivity, because productivity isn't available for local areas or for industries. GDP is available for local areas but the measure is quite meaningless for a number of reasons. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Awesome that UK has that data. In Australia I've tended to find that the Bureau of Statistics has a number of nicely crafted essays around the place that amount to, "And that's why this measure is grossly misused, and isn't constructed to measure what people would like it to measure." Fifelfoo (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Escorts in London

What is the rate of a London escort? How to get an escort job? How to get more clients? --Hillsgod333 (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt escorts are available for rent anymore, as they stopped manufacturing them a decade ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Au contraire... Tevildo (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

OP might get some ideas from sites like this. There are plenty of alternatives. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

How to get more clients? Give better service or more bang for the buck, and then word of mouth will do the trick. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Do they have ratings like restaurants do? Such as, anything less than 100 could involve things like drug usage, crabs, STDs, etc. And those ratings could certainly affect the ability to attract clients. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There's presumably a much higher demand for escorts in London, what with the crookedity of its streets, and lack of a rational numbering system, compared with places like Manhattan, with more civilized layout. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

See The Knowledge for how this particular problem is resolved. Tevildo (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is quite interesting, I had been aware of that, and it is brought up in the NYC press on occasion when news is slow. I was more thinking of a walking escort though. For example, I had the occasional pleasure of walking Quentin Crisp through various parts of downtown Manhattan towards the end of his life. That was more due to his frailty than the street addresses being confusing, though. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Punternet. Nanonic (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Funny, Jefferson Hope in A Study in Scarlet says that he learns London by studying a map while driving his cab; Conan Doyle seems to do his best to be detail-accurate, so I never imagined that this would be impossible. Nyttend (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Cabs were horse-drawn in those days, so they could proceed at a leisurely pace. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but according to the article, The Knowledge started to be required in 1865, some years before the setting of A Study in Scarlet. He says that he simply went up to a cab owner, who gave him equipment and required him to turn in a certain amount of money per week. Perhaps it's implied that the whole operation is illegal? Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Are American pilots' letters being censored during WW2?

I had just read Arthur Miller's All My Sons, and one detail of the plot seems questionable to me: Larry wrote to Ann in a letter that he planned to commit suicide because he is ashamed of his father shipping out defective plane parts--which is not known to the characters until Ann revealed Larry's letter. I think there should be some kind of censorship of letters during war time, or it is easy to leak intelligence.--Wwtt1133 (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Letters sent by US servicemen in WWII were censored, but not completely, and surely the extent different from censor to censor. I'm speaking here not from a published source, but from my own family's knowledge. When my grandfather wrote back to his mother while he served in North Africa, any mention of where he was at the time was removed (they also removed his mention of seeing Casablanca, and we always wondered if they were just mindlessly blacking out place-names). But otherwise the letters got through fine. I'm not sure what they would have done with information such as about engine parts. I'm not familiar with the play, but then again, it is fiction after all. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think if the censorers do look at the letter, the mentioning of trying to suicide should get immediate attention.--Wwtt1133 (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I recall Walter Cronkite talking about reporting on the War. He said the news services were only allowed to publish information that could be reasonably expected to be already known to the enemy. Possibly the same principle with soldiers' letters to their homes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

When I was a child, my parents owned this book (and presumably still do), which consists of anecdotes from soldiers/sailors/airmen/etc during the war, together with some from noncombatants and family members who were at home throughout the war. There's a decent chunk on censorship, including an old lady who shows up to her husband's unit's reunion to show the former censor a letter that he'd cut to pieces, as well as an airman who told his parents his location by changing his father's middle initial in the address (e.g. if he were sent to Casablanca, his first letter would be addressed to Mr. Firstname C. Lastname, his second to Mr. Firstname A. Lastname, etc), and maybe some comments by censors about the difficulty of their work. Censorship was definitely important, since the goal was to ensure that the enemy couldn't gain new war-related information by capturing mail; this is basically another method of enforcing the slogan of "loose lips sink ships". Nyttend (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding All My Sons, is this letter an unintended flaw of the plot, or did Arthur Miller imply something(for example, the letter was known to Larry's forces and news agencies, but it was not put on papers because it will damage morale or affect Joe Keller's case)?--Wwtt1133 (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Going slightly off-topic (perish the thought), I was amused by one British Tommy's ruse to foil the WWI censors. Wanting to let his family know that he was at the British depot at Poperinghe in Belgium, he sent a letter to "Mr. P. O. Peringhe" at his home address. It worked. Alansplodge (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sacred sword (preah khan) of Khmer king Suryavarman_II (Paramavishnuloka)

I cannot find as much as the name of this legendary weapon which seems to be as culturally important as King Arthur's Excalibur. So far the best source for any informration on it seems to be towards the end of episode 9, season 3 of ancient aliens, "Aliens and Deadly Weapons" where it is hypothesized it is a light saber or plasma sword. I would like to know what ancient text actually mentions this sword, and what texts mention other legends involving Suryavarman II's, like the construction of Angkhor Wat by magic water. Currently wikipedia makes no mention of any of these legends. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If you got that info from the Ancient Aliens TV series, it might well be fictional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Fictional fiction? That would be a bit low even for Ancient Aliens.  Card Zero  (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

While Suryavarman II is historical figure; who dedicated Angkhor Wat to Vishnu, another source relates a legend that states is was built on the orders of Indra for his son Precha Ket Mealea. Paramavishnuloka, Precha Ket Mealea. and Preah Pisnouka are all very sounding similar names makes the matter extra confusing to determine if they are different people or the same; however that the temple would be dedicated to two clearly different gods is more notable. Still no reference to the magic sword or water. I agree that ancient aliens would at least use a real legend, like how they use real medieval paintings.

A sword is definitely part of the royal regalia of Cambodia (although today it’s a replica, the original having gone missing in the civil war). Here is a picture of it. It’s kept at the Hor Samritvimean, or Royal Treasury, along with the crown and “the Victory Spear” and was used at King Norodom Sihamoni’s coronation in 2004. I can only find one reference to it having legendary powers: Conceptions of State and Kingship in Southeast Asia which says “the royal sword of Cambodia which, it is believed, if drawn from its scabbard without the prescribed ritual, would bring disaster upon the country”. However, I couldn’t find any link with Suryavarman II in particular as opposed to other kings or the royal line generally, or any reference to an ancient text. Taknaran (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2

European Fairy Tales

I remember reading three traditional European fairy tales a long ago and now I'm trying to identify them.
1) I don't remember much of it. There's a blind giant who has a girl as a servant. A guy try to save her but an evil cat warns the giant. But they are able to escape. The story continues somehow.
2) A probably French boy has a silver thread. Unwindng/pulling it makes the time go faster. So he's able to skip things like war or jail.
3) A king of a fairy kingdom turns turnips into people. But they wither/shrivel too fast like the vegetable.
Do they ring a bell to anyone? --151.41.188.110 (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm drawing blanks. Jack and the Beanstalk, no idea, and maybe some derivation of King Midas? EllenCT (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure they weren't Jack and the Beanstalk or King Midas. They were from a collection of traditional European fairy tales and there was one story for every main European country. For example Baba Yaga was the tale for Russia. The second story of my list should be French. They were all "traditional" and "local" and not made up for the book. And there wasn't any ancient Greek myth. --151.41.188.110 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what the first is, but the second one is The Magic Thread] (click the link and scroll down to the bottom of the page.) The Third is "King Turnip Counter" and I think the book is Fairy Tales by Nikolai Ustinov. The six stories in the book are The Magic Thread (France); King Turnip Counter (Germany); Cap o' Reeds (England); The Seven Doves (Italy); The 3 Oranges (Spain); The Witch's Swans (USSR). One of those might be your first story. I had great fun searching for this. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And the first does indeed seem to be The Seven Doves, complete with blind ogre, girl and cat (version here.). Nice find, Richard-of-Earth. - Karenjc (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Google Books wasn't showing me anything for Richard's link to The Magic Thread, but another link is here. Alansplodge (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Critical Theorists and Mathematical Sociology

The most prominent invention of positivist sociologists, I think, is the mathematical sociology and the quantitative subfields it spawned. According to some online articles, mathematical sociology is an "established sub-discipline in sociology", and it’s true according to different leading journals today. But what do critical theorists and antipostivists think of this mathematical sociology? Do they criticize it as well? Does Wikipedia have a specific article about this?49.144.142.14 (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Instrumentalism is broadly criticised for its naive relationships to theory. The SEP has a good article with sections worth reading here and here. Here's a more specific attack from 1978 Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Congressmen from the District of Columbia

I've heard of DC's shadow senators before (cf Shadow congressperson), but only tonight did I learn that DC also elects a shadow representative. Apparently this person generally isn't the same as their Delegate to the House of Representatives. Is this some official policy decision, e.g. the Democratic Party leadership does its best to ensure that different people are nominated for the two positions? Or is this some sort of requirement of the "state" constitution mentioned at the end of the intro to the shadow congressperson article? Or is this simply the way things have worked out, e.g. delegates don't feel like running for shadow representative and vice versa? Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The positions exist under different legal frameworks. The shadow representatives are elected under DC's state constitution, but since this constitution is not recognized by the US Congress, which has not admitted DC as a state, the shadow representatives aren't seated, don't have any rights in Congress whatsoever, and are in effect no more than lobbyists. DC's official delegate to the House of Representatives is elected under a federal law passed by Congress, is recognized by Congress, and does have limited rights within the House of Representatives. The strong position of the DC government and populace is that DC should be a state, so they hold elections for shadow representatives as if they were a state (as well as for their legally sanctioned delegate). If DC were admitted as a state under its voter-approved constitution, then the shadow representatives would become actual representatives and take the place of the official delegate. At the moment, these are four separate positions, and there is no reason why any individual should hold more than one of them. Marco polo (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hundred Years' War, Anglo-Spanish War, Anglo-Dutch Wars, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War

To what degree did the Jacobite/Williamite feud have to do with James, Duke of York, becoming proprietor of the former New Netherland? Also, in tandem, the domino question asks how Prince George of Denmark-Norway fit into this same scenario regarding the late New Sweden? Are there any records from the period or papers since then commenting upon these motives, or have they always been unacknowledged, under the table?

It cannot be purely coincidence that these two men wedded and bedded the Protestant daughters of the king who had personal possession of New York, which contained both the Dutch and Scandinavian colonies, while his Catholic heir represented a further revival of the Auld Alliance. The time, place, and circumstances argue further interest than mere evolution and convenience of dynastic relations would imply. It is a parallel interest in the Kings of England having indirect title to New France, leading to the Conquest of New France and Quebec retaining the only French monarchy left on Earth in a curious repetition and/or continuation of English pretenders to France itself. It's as if, since the King of England was denied the Crown of France by competition from the Valois and Bourbon dynasties, along with the Revolutionary Bonapartes, then Canada was consolation. I have noticed that the cultural proponents of New York and Quebec make sure to emphasize the Dutch and French basis of these English lands and institutions supplanting them, as if the English were just an imposed veneer. At least the US and Canada would be English on the whole, but Anglo-Dutch and Anglo-French in the Mid-Atlantic States and Central Provinces. In some senses, it feels like the descendants of the English conquerors themselves are playing up a moribund but exaggerated multiculturalism or bilingualism in order to memorialize the conquests, otherwise these places would have been forgotten in having any essential distinction from the rest of the states and provinces inhabiting the same countries.

Could it be that the Monarchy in Canada, along with Stephen Harper and the Tories, deliberately stress the French heritage to maintain their ties to the old Kingdom of France deposed by the French Republic, by holding onto the last of it like the Channel Islands remain the Duchy of Normandy, or Northern Ireland stands in for the Kingdom of Ireland? Could it be that because the Dutch used to be ruled by Spain as part of the Burgundian inheritance, the US has been subject to Anglo-Spanish bilingualism more befitting the old Republic of Texas alone? Would social tension between Americans and Mexicans go back to Anglo-Dutch Calvinist ancestors fighting to free themselves from Habsburg Spain, the Duke of Guise and the Spanish Armada, but ironically by winning those wars, now have descendants of the former New Spain trying to turn the tables again?

Then there is the case of St. Pierre and Miquelon showing France trying to hold on from the other side. It is ironic that Old England had to deprive New England of title to New France on account of not securing Old France, thus leading to the Intolerable Acts and Articles of Confederation in which Quebec was an explicitly-mentioned reason for the breach. All the same, going back to New Netherland, I think New York was made the capital of the early American Republic in order to capitalize on that conquest, even if Quebec was the ultimate object of American expansionism--just like how Toronto was originally named York for New York, there is an overlap and relationship between the two English conquests.

Would it be fair to say that Southern American Loyalists owed their affinity to the House of Hanover by the foundation of the Province of Georgia, like how the Loyalists in the Province of New York were tied to the House of Orange, and that states preceding the Restoration tended to be the strongest Patriot bulwarks toward Independence? Would Irish republicanism as a form of nationalism have its roots in the same period as rebuffing the Orangist takeover as American republicanism also shook off the new constitutional monarchy staffed by foreign "British" monarchs? Both English and Irish veins of republicanism come from Cromwellian preservation of the Anglo-Irish Tudor inheritance, yes? Is this really far off or not? Surely, it is easy to see the connections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.95.180 (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to see (what seems to be) a more concise version of this question, have a look at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_September_5#Comparison_of_loyalism_and_republicanism_in_British_Isles_.26_North_America. Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No. Rmhermen (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

An essay, WP:TLDR, has been created in answer to this very "question"! μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

When did "London" start to refer to areas outside of the City of London, and why?

I've read several articles on the history of the City of London, but nothing that tells me when "London" acquired its present meaning. When and why did this happen, and are there similar stories for other cities?--Leon (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As regards London, our article on the City of London says that as early as the 16th century the name "London" was being used to mean the wider built up area, not just the area within the city walls. As the maps in the history of London article show, by 1600 London had expanded south of the Thames, into Southwark, and west along the north bank of the Thames, towards Westminster. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Although none of it was officially "London" until the creation of the London County Council County of London in 1889. Before that, bodies with a remit across the whole London area called themselves "Metropolitan"; the Metropolitan Police District (1829), the Metropolitan Board of Works (1856) and the Metropolitan Fire Brigade (1865). Large areas of the conurbation were omitted from the County of London; the part that had spilled over the River Lea into Essex was known as "London over the Border" until 1965 when Greater London was formed. Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be the natural process for any city that experiences a continuous growth beyond its original area of foundation. In fact I would be hard pressed to name a large city in modern times where this hasn't occurred. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

For Paris the process still isn't complete. If you just say "Paris" people may assume that you mean the administrative area consisting of 20 arrondissements. To be clear, you can specify Paris intra muros. "Greater Paris", Paris plus grand doesn't refer unambiguously to any particular area. The region parisienne is a very wide area. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In 1563, concerns about the possible outbreak of plague, the authorities began collecting weekly returns of the number of deaths from the parishes around the City of London (known as Bills of Mortality). These collection of parishes were the basis, in 1855, for the area of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. Do you have a source for that? It could go in our article. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

From the 1540s 'a city' was just any town that had a Cathedral, nothing more nothing less. So one has in the UK (for example) the City of St Albans, which is so tiny you can walk from one side to the other in ten minutes and that includes staggering from side to side after you have had a pint or too many in Ye Olde Fighting Cocks. From what I can gather, it was to make the delivering of post easier, by naming the nearest city (eg London) as the horse drawn post coaches ran city to city. --Aspro (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, but St Albans is governed by the St Albans City and District Council, whose writ extends over 62 square miles. In the 19th century, the wealthy burghers of the City of London refused to accept any responsibility for the sprawling slums that were growing apace just outside their traditional borders; such are their ancient privileges that they were free to ignore the national government if they chose. Hence the Metropolitan authorities had to be established by parliament, rather than the Corporation of London shouldering their obligations and widening the bounds of London proper. Alansplodge (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Think you'll find that District Council's came in much later. Back then you had the parish council for each parish. Only much later did Hertfordshire adopt St Albans as the 'shire' district council. [Francis Bacon] was 1st Viscount of St. Alban but vis. Roland Lytton whom was (around the same approximate time) MP for Hertfordshire. Their powers were were independent. Oh, it is time like this, I wish I had misspent more of my youth (such as smoking cigarets behind the school bicycle-sheds with the Head-Girl), rather than knuckling down to my studies and learning a lot of useless factoids that I never served me any good. I should have shunned math also and stuck to simple arithmetic -so as to become a rich banker.--Aspro (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it was the Local Government Act 1888 which created District Councils, however they were preceded by Poor Law Unions and Sanitary District Unions which allowed the parishes in a given area to pool their resources for work houses, hospitals and sewers. This never happened in London, or it wouldn't have done if the City had been left to organize things as it should have done. The end result is that in the 21st century, we have the unique situation of a Lord Mayor of London and a Mayor of London. Alansplodge (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah! Don't tell me any more about that! 'Unique' not quite.... This is one of the ding bat ideas they picked up from Government of New York City. --Aspro (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There was also the much lamented "GLC" , the "Greater London Council"85.211.141.203 (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, however Greater London still exists and is now administered by the Greater London Authority, when it was found that the 32 London Boroughs couldn't do the GLC's job after all. How much one laments rather depends on one's political views. Alansplodge (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the youngest city in the world?

Damascus is often called the 'oldest continually inhabited city in the world' - what is the youngest? By this I don't mean something like Fairview, USA, or anywhere which recently attained "city status" but has actually had people living there in a smaller settlement for hundreds of years. I mean what is the youngest city where you could go back in time and there would be literally nothing there? I thought it might be Canberra, which celebrates its centenary this year, but perhaps there are other planned capitals that are even younger? Something in the former communist world, maybe? I know Napyidaw was built less than a decade ago but it's basically right next to an existing town. 220.239.203.14 (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Try Brasília. HiLo48 (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Also Milton Keynes. --Viennese Waltz 11:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

...except that MK is not formally a "city", just a large town. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

True, but according to our article; "Milton Keynes competed for formal city status in the 2000, 2002 and 2012 competitions, but was not successful. Nevertheless, the term "city" is used by its citizens, local media and bus services to describe itself, perhaps because the term "town" is taken to mean one of the constituent towns." See also Milton Keynes City F.C.. The UK is extraordinarily picky about who gets to call themselves a city. Alansplodge (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Much more recent than Brasilia is Naypyidaw, founded on a greenfield site in 2002 but with a population of 925,000 by 2009. Our article doesn't say that it's "basically right next to an existing town", so I don't understand why it's being discounted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Who's discounting anything? I think we're all learning here. I certainly am. HiLo48 (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

User:220.239.203.14. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Naypyidaw's article says it is 3km from the town of Pyinmana, and in my opinion 3km is absolutely nothing when talking about a city of any size. I'm Australian, I don't know if we consider cities separately - when I say "city" I mean the entire metro area, and I would assume that if Naypyidaw has grown to nearly a million people then it's swallowed up the existing town, which would now form a very old neighbourhood within that city. We are all learning, though - greenfield is a useful term, and I'm basically thinking of cities that were built on that and didn't have any pre-existing settlements around to absorb. 220.239.203.14 (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I was about to add Pyongsong, but it was established as far back as 1969. I would guess there are some other recent examples in China (surely, they can't all be ghost cities?). --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Chinese drive to develop their economy has resulted in a number of new cities being constructed. Tieling New City has attracted a fair bit of media attention because few people have actually moved into it. We have an article on Tieling which is the original city 10 km down the road. We do have an article on Nanhui New City which was founded in 2003.

I would consider China's "new cities" (I recall visiting New Dali) to be examples of a satellite city outside an existing older city, though - with the two generally likely to merge in the next 10 years if they haven't already. 220.239.203.14 (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

List of cities in China contains some candidates which seem to have been "founded" within the last decade, though it's not altogether clear from their articles whether this is simply an administrative change or the foundation of a new settlement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

See also Category:Planned cities which throws up examples such as Ciudad Guayana in Venezuela, which was founded in 1961 but incorporates two smaller towns which stood there beforehand. Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Also Belmopan in Belize, founded in 1970, which certainly seems from its article to have been on a greenfield (well, green forest) site. It's still quite small in size, however. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Then there’s Oyala, currently being built [16] in the middle of the jungle and planned to be the future capital of Equatorial Guinea. Taknaran (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ayn Rand had a crush on Saint Petersburg, for which she worked as a tour guide, and which she credited to Tsar Peter the Great, who raised it from the swamp by the force of his will. The founding of Alexandria as a "new" city is also a fascinating story. It seems founding a world-class city is a great way to get the epithet "The Great" attached to your name. μηδείς (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Being strong-willed can result in effective leadership, but it's not enough. I would bet several rubles that Peter the Great had to resort to bringing in some stonemasons to get the job done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems to have been a relic of her Nietzschean childhood, as she was vociferously anti-FDR and other public-works issues by the 1930's. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

A social Darwinist: "If they can't find work, let 'em starve." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no betting required, Bugsy. From Saint Petersburg: The city was built by conscripted peasants from all over Russia; a number of Swedish prisoners of war were also involved in some years[18] under the supervision of Alexander Menshikov. Tens of thousands of serfs died building the city. And from History of Saint Petersburg: The city was built under adverse weather and geographical conditions. High mortality rate required a constant supply of workers. Peter ordered a yearly conscription of 40,000 serfs, one conscript for every nine to sixteen households. Conscripts had to provide their own tools and food for the journey of hundreds of kilometers, on foot, in gangs, often escorted by military guards and shackled to prevent desertion, yet many escaped, others died from disease and exposure under the harsh conditions. ... The new city's first building was the Peter and Paul Fortress, ... The marshland was drained and the city spread outward from the fortress under the supervision of German and Dutch engineers whom Peter had invited to Russia. Peter restricted the construction of stone buildings in all of Russia outside of St Petersburg, so that all stonemasons would come to help build the new city. ... At the same time Peter hired a large number of engineers, architects, shipbuilders, scientists and businessmen from all countries of Europe. Substantial immigration of educated professionals eventually turned St. Petersburg into a much more cosmopolitan city than Moscow and the rest of Russia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

“where you could go back in time and there would be literally nothing there”. I would go with HiLo48's Brasília It was founded on April 21, 1960, to serve as the new national capital. The other contenders would be the new cities of Soviet Russia of the 1930's. The planners of the new state reasoned: Now we are no longer capitalist's, we don't have to build new industries were there is already a population of skilled workers. We can build new cities westward, into our newly annexed land of Siberia and move our workers there. So new cities spouted up all over the place 'in the middle of nowhere' during this period.--Aspro (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Entering the Kaaba?

After reading the article Kaaba I found out that it is hollow, and has separate structures inside. But do Muslims actually enter the Kaaba at any time during the Hajj, or otherwise? I couldn't find out from the articles Kaaba or Hajj whether this is actually done. JIP | Talk 17:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read Jaylen's answer at the bottom of this forum page. Omidinist (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

From illustrations I've seen, it appears that the interior of the Kaaba consists of some modestly ornate decor; an original copy of the Quran autographed by Muhammed at a book-signing event; and a little kiosk where you can get nifty stuff like a sand globe of an oasis, or a T-shirt with an Arabic slogan which translates roughly as "I came to Mecca and all I got was this wonderful T-shirt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

To consolidate the forum content here: According to Ar-Raheeq al Makhtum, Rasul said Uthman bin Talha's family would take care of the Kaaba. There is a biannual ceremony "the cleaning of the Kaaba" about fifteen days before the start of Ramadan and about fifteen days before the start of the annual pilgrimage. The Banī Shaybat (بني شيبة ) tribe has the keys and allow visitors including foreign dignitaries/diplomats who use brooms to clean the building directed by the governor of Mecca. The interior has a marble floor and half-way up the walls with tablets with Quranic inscriptions inset into it, with the upper walls covered in gold Quranic verses embroidered into a green cloth. It is furnished only with lamps from a cross beam and has a table for incense burners. The marble is anointed during the cleaning with the same scented oil used to anoint the Black Stone outside.

Anyway, besides pointing out Wikipedia has some deficiencies, this leads to the obvious question of whether any of these Bani Shaybat folks can be persuaded to contribute images to Commons. :) Wnt (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

France's time zone

Western European Time in indigo

Since World War 2, have there been any proposals to put France back in the Western European time zone where it previously was? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything. Any change would put France out of step with all of her neighbours except the UK, so I think it's a bit unlikely. Alansplodge (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, not if Spain were in a sensible zone as well. People have a tendency to report, in shocked tones, how late Spaniards eat/sleep/do this or that, but by Sun time, it's really not all that late. Or sometimes it is, but still not as late as it sounds. --Trovatore (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Spain changed time zones because Franco wanted to be chummy with Hitler, rather than any rational debate. They could always change back if they wanted to. Alansplodge (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I did find a 1997 report to the French Senate called Faut-il en finir avec l'heure d'été ? (perhaps "Should we do away with Summer Time?"). If accepted, this would have put France on the same time as the UK (British Summer Time) between April and October. It wasn't. Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And the Spanish still talk about doing it occasionally. - Karenjc (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

do also note that France extends across many different time zones, what is being discussed here is merely Metropolitan France. --02:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

December 3

Caracalla's hair color?

Caracalla, 22nd Emperor of Rome

Do we know the various Roman emperors' hair colors? Is it known whether Caracalla was fair-haired, red-haired, or dark-haired? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually we do. Let me find that link again. May take a minute.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately he is not one of the emperors who was mentioned in such a way by contemporaries, but here is the list: [17].--Mark Miller (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that list gives through Commodus, last before the Severan dynasty to which Caracalla belonged. I have always imagined him a redhead, and wonder if there's some basis for this. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

One of my hobbies is copying classic paintings. This is one I have been working on a while and I doubt it is accurate, but it depicts Caracalla and family as "Italians" of dark skin tone and hair.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Now here is something I was unaware of. Our article describes Caracalla as being of Berber decent, from North Africa west of the Nile Valley. It appears the painting may be attempting to show that decent in some manner but it is unclear what his true skin tone would have been, but is likely he had dark to black hair, not red or auburn which was a characteristic of the Julian line. Interesting. learn something new here everyday!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he was a quarter Libyan Berber, a quarter Italian, and half Syrian. This is not a combination that would be likely to result in red hair, though it is not inconceivable. More likely, he was dark brown or black haired. Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just had a look at wikiquote:Berber people. Here's some excerpts about their physical appearance:

• "Many of them present the purest type of the blonde races, blue or gray eyes, tawny beard, fair complexion, curly light or reddish hair, muscular in build and often tall in stature."
• "A very large proportion of fair (sometimes golden) hair, blue eyes, and complexions, especially in the case of young children, who lack the tan produced by years of exposure to the fierce heat of the summer sun..."
• "They are distinctly white-skinned, even when sunburned. Usually they have black hair and brown or hazel eyes, some have yellow hair and blue eyes."
• "Like all other Berbers, the Riffians include standard Mediterraneans in their tribal populations. Among these Mediterraneans the incidence of elements of blond hair and blue eyes is a bit higher than the usual twenty-five percent. (...) Concentrated in the more isolated tribes in the central Rif, the older strain is characterized by individuals of stocky build, with large heads, broad faces, low orbits, large teeth, and broad noses. While variable in pigmentation, these individuals, who look like Irishmen, run to red hair, green eyes, and freckles."
• "When the Spaniards conquered these islands in the fifteenth century, they found a distinct population with some blond-haired and blue-eyed people – traits that are still evident among some Berbers in Morocco."

— Kpalion^(talk) 17:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Red hair is present in a small minority of Berbers, especially in Morocco and Algeria. However, Caracalla's ancestors were Libyan Berbers. See this page for some photos of Libyan Berbers today. A couple of the people shown (maybe 1% of this sample) are blond, but no real redheads. Libyan Berbers were one quarter of Caracalla's ancestry. Another quarter was Italian. Again, redheads are not unknown in Italy, but they are rare. Finally, a full half of his ancestry (his mother's side) was Syrian and probably Arab. Red hair is virtually unknown in that population. So there is a tiny chance that Caracalla was red headed, but it would be surprising. Marco polo (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow...great work!--Mark Miller (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Swiss Guards and the Pope

Why is it that Swiss Guards – as opposed to Italians (or perhaps Romans) – serve as guards for the Pope and the Vatican? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

See the Vatican history on the subject. [18].--Mark Miller (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't want to nutshell it as it is a rather interesting read.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

We also have our own article, called, strangely enough, Swiss Guard. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Also Military in Vatican City.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I have seen and read those articles. They explain (in the affirmative sense) why it is that the Pope and the Vatican do use the Swiss Guards. I guess the question I was asking is really more in the negative counterpart: why is it that they do not use some Italian military force or guard? A subtle – but important – distinction, I think. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• See unification of Italy. The Papal States were the last territories to be incorporated into Italy, and during that time, Italy was seen as the enemy, while the Swiss guards are an otherwise neutral mercenary force. μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The tradition of the Swiss Guard is much older than united Italy, but μηδείς is right in the sense that the Papal States had been warring with other Italian states for centuries before the unification. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, the Vatican is an independent nation/state and is under no obligation to use Italian forces.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's a state, but I wouldn't call it a nation. I doubt that there are any native-born Vaticanians. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, there are. Disappearance_of_Emanuela_Orlandi. μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Our Vatican City article says; "The military defence of Vatican City is provided by Italy and its armed forces". Countries without armed forces or no standing army says; "Vaitcan City - Maintains a Gendarmerie Corps for internal policing. The Swiss Guard is a unit belonging to the Holy See, not the Vatican City State. There is no defense treaty with Italy, as it would violate the Vatican’s neutrality, but informally the Italian military protects Vatican City." Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a result of the Lateran Treaty of 1929. It accounts for external security, not internal, and long postdates the presence of the Swiss Guard. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Pencil it in. It's gonna be one hell of party.

"We do not answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Scot[']s law is the legal system of Scotland. It is a hybrid or mixed legal system."--Wikipedia There are several islands off the coast of Normandy. Some people in my vicinity self-identify with the Irish. (And indeed they have an innate knowledge of the methods and sources of "party-tology" if I may employ a neologism). However, a special branch in my metaphorical heart exists for those clannish sorts who enjoy a rousing tra-la-la any day of the week, no special raison d'etre required. Now, in mid-September of the coming year, the English aka Shakespear's "invidious Albion" question mark, may present a present, a "gift" to be inexact (let's not argue). The "gift", something like, quote liberty and justice for all unquote. Some may, in good faith, call this a dream produced by pipe inhalation. However, were a significant fraction of Scot-Americans to, once enlightened, reverse deport themselves back to their Spiritual Homeland, the result of the voting would be clear, through the use of present-day polling techniques, by a civilized hour of the afternoon. So please, if not too great a burden, illuminate the hour (and minute) that the pubs of Scotland will open on the next day, that is, the nineteenth of September one year hence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

U.S. international flight compensation?

Cathay Pacific to China via HK, out of JFK in NY. Flight was delayed for 6 hours, the only compensation a meal ticket at the airport. A 2-hour stay in HK became overnight--a hotel stay is hardly compensation when a separate computer glitch means unexpectedly having to haul luggage through customs in HK, not to mention a whole day ruined. If I hadn't gotten on the delayed flight and instead waited for another flight, the airline wasn't even going to compensate at all. I'm writing to the airline but not expecting any compensation. Something even worse happened last year on the same airline, so is boycotting it the only thing I can do now? 24.215.201.206 (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

See pyrrhic victory. Any compensation you may get or be entitled to could likely cost you more to obtain than it would be worth. --Jayron32 15:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a thing called suing. See a lawyer. Call one, they will be happy to talk long enough to determine if you have a case. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said, see again pyrrhic victory. --Jayron32 19:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Suing over a (admittedly badly) delayed flight?! You've got to be kidding me.... Fgf10 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Depending on the income level of the plaintiff, it might be cheaper to just buy the airline and then run it better than the previous guy did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd take it on the chin. There's always someone worse-off than you, and if it's any compensation, at least you don't have the ghastly Ryanair, which seems to be actively at war with its customers, and the French air-traffic controllers, notorious throughout Europe for going on strike during the holiday season. 86.183.79.28 (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If the OP's going to bother, he needs a lawyer, not us. If he's not going to bother he doesn't need us as life coaches either. Does anyone have any relevant references to add? Otherwise this is ready for a friendly collapsing. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are references, actually. Since you mention your flight left from JFK, I will simply note the American side of this. I have no clue what the Chinese rules are, if they exist at all. Basically, the Airline is under no obligation under either Federal law or FAA rules to give you any kind of reimbursement for a flight delay. Mandatory rules cover tarmac delays and overbooked flights only. Your only options are to seek compensation from your airline, or to protest in some manner and hope the free market punishes them or compels them to action. Reference here: http://www.usa.gov/topics/travel/air/resolve-problems/flight.shtml And that is, I believe, all the reference desk can help you. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If I were in the OP's shoes, I would call (not necessarily write) and complain. Keep asking for higher levels of supervision until you find someone who will throw you a bone. If all else fails, yes, silently "boycott" the airline, if that's possible or practical. You could "openly" boycott by various means, e.g. reporting this problem via a website that collects reviews of things. But the free-market bottom line is that, whether organized or not, if enough people get fed up with a product and don't buy it any more, the company will go bust. It's unfortunate that a company could go bankrupt and not even know why people stopped using their product, because most folks don't want to "make a scene". You know what? If the customer service area won't help you, try to contact the company president or CEO. In my (fairly limited) experience, the CEO is the one guy who's most interested in customer issues, because he's the face of the organization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Is a sacristan in the Catholic church allowed to marry?

Is a sacristan in the Catholic church allowed to marry? I was reading the page on Macaulay Culkin, and I noticed that his father worked as a sacristan. I clicked on that page and noticed that a sacristan was really a priest. Can someone tell me exactly who is and who is not allowed to marry in the Catholic church? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Our article links to the Catholic Encyclopedia which says a sacristan should ideally be a priest, but that laymen often get the job due to a shortage of clerics. Any unmarried adult Catholic in good standing who is not serving under holy orders can marry another Catholic in a Catholic marriage or a non-Catholic with a Bishop's permission. If you want more than that, search the archives at the top of the page for Catholic marriage. This comes up every three months or so. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Even within our article it says only that "the Cæremoniale Episcoporum prescribed that in cathedral and collegiate churches the sacristan should be a priest." That key word here is "should" with the added caveat that it's specifically cathedrals and collegiate churches that this is prescribed for. That leaves it open to anyone else, barring other rules elsewhere. Mingmingla (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Both my parents were sacristans for years. So, yes. Dismas|^(talk) 20:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

December 4

Pirate capture of a man-of-war

I asked this at the talk page of Bartholomew Roberts to no answer, so I thought I'd ask here. I begin with a quote from that article:

“ During this time, Roberts caught the Governor of Martinique, who was sailing aboard a man-of-war. Robert's ship pulled up next to the man-of-war pretending to be a French merchant ship, and offered information on the location of Captain Roberts before suddenly attacking it, spraying the warship with cannon and small arms fire, after which the pirates boarded it and took it over using pistols and cutlasses. The Governor was caught and promptly hanged on the yardarm of the Royal Fortune. ”

What was the governor's name? According to List of colonial and departmental heads of Martinique this would be one "de Hurault" but we don't have an article on him or even a full name. What was the name of the Man of War he was caught on? Was this an otherwise notable ship? What did Roberts do with the ship after capturing the governor? A Man of War is quite the prize for a pirate to have taken, so I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned. And finally, was there some reason Roberts had it out for this governor? Presumably he had some serious motivation to attack such a powerful warship. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This site (whose reliability is unknown) claims he made that his flagship.[19] Other google searches on the general subject suggest he was constantly at war with these islands, so hanging the governor seemed fitting. With that "dreaded pirate Roberts" stuff, I keep seeing The Princess Bride in my mind's eye. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Queen Anne's Revenge, which was basically a sailing frigate, is often mentioned as huge for an 18th century pirate ship. Larger ships are frequently cited as being impractical for piracy due to the difficulty manning them and the lack of infrastructure for maintaining them (not to mention the lack of speed and maneuverability required for pursing a prize). So given that people typically mention Queen Anne's if talking about "large" pirate ships, rather than this behemoth, I'm skeptical of any claim he took it as a flagship. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a transcription of an official British report mentioning the event (scroll down, April 25, Bermuda, 463iii). .Leeward Islands, April 23rd. On 26th March Capt. Hingston Commander of a ship belonging to London in her way to Jamaica was taken about 4 leagues S. of Antigua by John Roberts Commander of a pirate ship of 42 guns and a briganteen of 18 with 262 white men and 50 negroes in both carryed to Burbuda ... The pirate ship had been a French man of war some small time before taken by Roberts in her way from Martinique to France with the Governor of Martinique on board who the pirates hanged at the yard arm etc. . So Roberts allegedly had an 18-gun brig and the 42-gun captured French warship in March. Note that the same April 25 entry, higher up, describes how on Feb. 18, 1721, a pirate ship of 32 guns, comanded by one Jon. Roberts, and a brigantine of 18 with 350 men in both, capture a "Dutch interloper" of 30 guns at St. Lucia and refit it with 36 guns. So, by mid-February he has the brig, a 32-gun ship 'and' a Dutch 30/36. If nothing else, this could provide a citation for the capture and hanging of the governor. It certainly does suggest that he had access to ships that were approximately equal in gun numbers to 'Queen Anne's Revenge (40 cannon), although it obviously doesn't tell us the calibre or type of guns, total weight of broadside or the actual size of the ships themselves. -Karenjc (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I did a search using various possible French terms but was not able to find anything that corroborates the story from the French side, apart from mirrors and translations of the article on Roberts. Which is strange, since a governor (by definition an aristocrat) executed by pirates should have left some traces in the historiography. The Governor "de Hurault" mentioned above seems to have been one "Florimond de Hurault", but there is no indication that he met a tragic end or left much of a trace. So it's possible the executed person was not the Governor of Martinique, but someone else who may have been described as such in order to make him appear more important than he was. This would require looking at vintage documents to elucidate further, however. --Xuxl (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Florimond Hurault was appointed governor of Martinique on 21 August 1719 or on 22 August 1719 (scroll down to Hurault de Chiverny). His successor was named in 1721. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

US conference of Catholic Bishops and Abortion

I was shocked by the news that USCCB (US conference of Catholic Bishops) sponsored hospitals issued a directive, pervading their doctors from giving the best medical solution so long as it violates the Catholic teaching. The recent news said that a catholic hospital denied a certain woman of her basic medical rights when the doctors found out that abortion was the best solution. The doctors did not even told the woman about her medical situation. I think this was a measure of that Catholic hospital to fool the woman into the thinking that she was only experiencing a minor medical predicament, and she can survive without needing abortion. I haven’t heard other Catholic hospitals in other countries having the same directive. In fact, some Catholic forums say that if the woman avails abortion on the grounds of maternal health, it is morally acceptable. But this USCCB says otherwise.

Most countries have their own Catholic Bishops Conference. IMHO these CBC’s are somehow autonomous, in such sense that they can issue their own directives based on what they think agrees with the Pope’s words (please correct me if I’m wrong). My Question is – Are there “Catholic Bishops Conferences” in other countries accepting abortion on the grounds of maternal health?49.144.142.14 (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference, the IP address is referring to this story. The IP has accurately represented the claims of the plaintiff in a lawsuit, although the USCCB has more or less refused comment. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• This seems an obvious solicitation to debate. Even the final "question" smuggles in the premise that an abortion was necessary here. We don't have the facts, and children do survive, with bed rest and luck, when the water breaks early. (This would have been the first week of the fifth month.) It certainly doesn't seem this woman wanted bed rest to save the child--either that or she was not advised to take bed rest, which seems unlikely. So there's no chance at all we are going to be able to comment on the policies of other conferences in such circumstances, when the circumstances here are so muddied. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I spent some time looking into this, and I believe the answer to your question is "no". The Catholic policy on abortion has been set by the Popes and the Second Vatican Council, and argues that abortion should not be permitted even to ensure the health of the mother (see Catholic Church and abortion#Discussions about possible justifying circumstances). However, Catholic law, specifically Canon 1398, does specify that certain medical procedures that kill a fetus, but whose purpose is something else, may be permitted. Such exceptions include removing a fallopian tube during an ectopic pregnancy, or removal of a cancerous uterus. I also spent time searching through both Google and Wikipedia for opinions of Bishops or Bishopric conferences (see our list of articles on such at Episcopal Conference), yet I could not find any conference that condones abortion for the health of the mother, even in nations that are generally pro-choice. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, which exception implies there was likely some other factor, such as the hospital's possibly having recommended bed rest, which we are rightly not privilege to due to her privacy. The reports seem to imply they did remove the fetus when it actually did come down to her life or death. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Judgment Day (Last Judgment).

Request for opinions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is there indeed going to be Judgment Day someday? Applies to the whole world. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC) No. The bureaucracy for judging billions of people who currently live on the planet, as well as all those in the past, would take too long - much longer than a day. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Jehovah’s Witnesses have published information about "Judgment Day" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002547. —Wavelength (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately not. The stars will cool, and all that will be left is a frozen, dead universe. Joy, love and purpose itself will die out with the rest of life and nothing will be left to even remember that anyone ever did or felt anything at all. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC) There is no way to know until it happens (or doesn't happen). Thus, there is no factual answer possible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Yes. It's today. Haven't you noticed? μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Old fake headline: "The world ended today! More on this story tomorrow!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Ignore the previous ignoramuses (ignoramai?). There have been a lot of Judgment Days, many of them profitable. (The 1991 one was fairly entertaining.) I have no doubt there will be another coming along sometime, possibly to a theater near you and in worldwide release. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Assuming you are calling my response ingnoramity, CF, I find it odd someone would think today's acts are not judged. Every day is judgment day. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Nah, not you. Didn't you notice the plural form? I was referring to those who answered in the negative. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Every day is judgment day? Right.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

December 5

Is Day of the Dead 1, 2, or 3 days long?

Our article claims all 3, and I can't seem to find any definitive answer. Kaldari (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Entertainment is the right desk for this. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Never mind that, sorry, I thought you meant a movie! I am not sure of the answer in Mexico, but in the US Catholics have (mischief night, then) Halloween, All Saints Day, and All Souls Day. Halloween is technically the eve of All Saints Day from the Christian perspective. That would be three days: the eve of and the day after All Saints Day. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Mexican dessert cube

Does anybody know a Mexican (possibly Latin American dish) which looks like a brown sugar cube and dissolves in your mouth? II don't think it was chocolate and I can't seem to find it on Category:Mexican desserts. It is probably available in US since that is where I first tried it.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about panela? --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Less likely but maybe one of the Latin American flans? Rmhermen (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Help finding Lute Song (琵琶記/pipa ji) French translation by A. P. L. Bazin

Does anyone know where to find an online archive of Lute Song (琵琶記/pipa ji) French translation (1841) by A. P. L. Bazin? I do not know the name of the French title or what the full form of the author's name is.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be Antoine Bazin also known as "Bazin aîné". — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that! It's the translator. Now all I need is a link to his work, which should be in the public domain. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Susan Sontag quote

Hi, all - I have the vaguest memory of her giving a speech in which she relates the experience of shock to the experience of finding yourself outside the narrative of your life, as it were - like you're living a story that's familiar, whether it's pleasant or unpleasant, and then suddenly something happens that couldn't possibly fit that story. Does this ring a bell for anyone?

Thanks - sorry to give such vague clues.

Adambrowne666 (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried [[20]]? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, RedPen - it's not there, but that's a great resource. Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Simon Rattle

What foreign languages does he speak? He's been conducting the Berlin Phil since 2002 so one would have thought his German ought to be pretty good by now. Also his wife is Czech so maybe he speaks Czech as well. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 13:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

He speaks a bit of German in this, but it doesn't sound terribly fluid to me. His son's opinion of Rattle's German is briefly mentioned at the end of this interview. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Given how many Europeans speak English as a second language... he may not need to speak anything else. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The orchestra's website defaults to an English version (though I suppose it may be detecting my location when doing that). Judging by the names of members, many of them are not Germans, so it's quite plausible that English is their lingua franca. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Words for traitors against independence of a nation

Harki and Rajakar were used on people who were against the independence of Algeria and Bangladesh. Is there other words to describe people who were against the independence of their own nation? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.45 (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Have you googled "traitor synonym"? Have you chcked the archives (was it you who asked something similar to this over the summer?) Is there a specific language you want? There are plenty of terms like tory/loyalist, quisling, Haw Haw, Tokyo Rose, Benedict Arnold, depending on exact context and meaning.μηδείς (talk) 9:41 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Quisling is used to denote a traitor to their own country. Rojomoke (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Loyalist (or Tory) in the American Revolution. Southern Unionist, later scalawag, in the Confederate States of America. Copperheads is a more colorful term used for southern sympathizers in the North (Union). Rmhermen (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It was the CSA who were the traitors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Counter-revolutionary is the generic term. Kaldari (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Counter revolutionary is a marxist epthet that has nothing to do with independence per se, just opposition to a marxist revolution. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It didn't mean that originally, but it was hijacked. Arguably, the folks who sacked the Cromwells were "counter-revolutionaries". But instead they "restored" the monarchy, as if it had merely been on probation for ten years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This was closed as trolling, along with the two following unsigned questions. I suggest seeing the talk discussion. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

census scared or not allowed to publish ethnicity and religion

In France, they don't publish ethnicities and religions in numbers by departments or cities in their stats reports. Israel don't publish the term Mizrahi, Sephardi, Ashkenazi or Haredi, reform, or cconservative when it comes to which population has highest in number of these groups. In US, they don't publish religions in numbers by states, or cities in their stats report. What other nations do like this? Please answer this. don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.45 (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No conspiracy in the U.S. - they don't publish it because they don't ask the question. In fact, they are forbidden to.[21] There are other non-Census attempts to answer the question though like the American Religious Identification Survey. Rmhermen (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons why the U.S. doesn't ask the question is the constitutionally guaranteed protections for freedom of religion in the United States. There's a good chance that an innocuous question which wasn't used for anything except data collection probably doesn't violate either of the freedom of religion clauses of the Constitution (the free exercise clause and the establishment clause). However, information is power, and there is a real threat that, with information those in power may abuse that information (c.f. the current NSA data mining controversy). For this reason, to prevent the Government from potentially violating the law, the data is not collected at all. It's easier just not to collect it, since it, by the constitution, serve no official purpose. However, as noted, there are non-governmental agencies that do collect and publish that information. Besides the one noted above, the one I know that has a good reputation is the Pew Research Center, see http://religions.pewforum.org/ --Jayron32 19:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As states that are secular (albeit with different nuances to their secularism), the governments of the United States and France don't consider religion a relevant category and thus don't collect data on it. In France, there is a public myth that ethnic origin is irrelevant to the French republican identity, so for ideological reasons the state formally ignores it (but informally and arguably hypocritically takes it into account). In Israel, there are similar official blinders about Jewish ethnicity and religious sects. 67.132.19.18 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The article Race and ethnicity in censuses could help answer a part of your question here. Futurist110 (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No conspiracy in France either. "Ethnicity" and "Religion" are quite simply outside the range of things considered important by the republic hence - as for shoe size and favorite color - no information is ever gathered by the government on these subjects.2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:5A2:577D:7DF4:AF7C (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "no conspiracy" because racial data has indeed been misused in a wide variety of ways useful to one side or another in the U.S., and choosing not to collect religious data avoids the same. For example, the internment of people of Japanese ancestry during World War II, the creation of "minority-majority districts" (which reduces the number of districts at issue, yet effectively gives illegal aliens voting power because the districts are allocated according to total number of residents), and the practice of siting undesirable public facilities in minority neighborhoods. There's a lot more politics that could have occurred in response to religion had more data been available. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that the data is still availible, just not collected by the government. There is still nothing to stop unscrupulous public officials from abusing their power in regards to that data. They just have to get it from non-Governmental sources. That is, gerrymandering and Environmental racism would still happen even if the government didn't collect the relevent data; the data is still collected by private agencies and exists. Once it exists, people will still use it. Ostensibly, the reason the government collects said data (at least on ethnicity) is to ensure that violations of civil rights DON'T occur (that is, how can agencies of the government protect the civil rights of disadvantaged groups if it has no data on where those groups live and what their living conditions are like!) Whether that occurs as intended, or if the information is abused, is a matter for another discussion, but there is at least a real justifciation for collecting it in the first place. --Jayron32 17:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Muslim majority African states has non-Muslim leader since independence

Which African nations that has a Muslim majority population has been ruled by a non-Muslim leader since independence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.45 (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Boutros Ghali was Prime Minister of Egypt, and a Christian. --Jayron32 16:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Maurice Yaméogo was President of Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso), and converted to Christianity from a local Anamist religion. In fact, many (possibly most) of the people listed at List of heads of state of Burkina Faso, including the current president, Blaise Compaoré, seem to be from Christian backgrounds, according to Islam by country Burkina Faso is 58% Muslim. --Jayron32 16:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Siaka Stevens was head of state of Sierra Leone, a majority Muslim nation, and a Christian himself. --Jayron32 17:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

François Tombalbaye was head of state of Chad, a majority Muslim nation, and a Christian himself. --Jayron32 17:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Tanzania has no majority religion, but Islam, at 40%, is the most prominent religion. Julius Nyerere was a Roman Catholic. --Jayron32 17:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Léopold Sédar Senghor was a Catholic president of Sénégal, which has a large Muslim majority. --Xuxl (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

House of Cards

Hi there. I was wondering if you could help me out here. The (original 1990) series of House of Cards (UK TV series) is based on the novel by Michael Dobbs. Can anyone confirm if it is just the first four episodes (the original run) of the series that is based on the novel, and not the other two (To Play The King and The Final Cut}. So essentially, if I've only seen the first four episodes (and not the sequels), am I going to 'spoiler' myself if I read the novel before watching the later episodes. Thank you. Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak to the question you've posed, but I must comment that if you intend to both read the novel and watch the shows, then a) if they are based on the novel you will spoil it either way, since watching the show first would "ruin" the book, or b) no connection, no spoiler. Either way, you should be able to enjoy it. Mingmingla (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly comment on the novels, but the British adaptations are of much shorter length, so you may wish to watch them before the American. The British version of the first story would have seemed clipped and anticlimactic had I seen if after the first American season. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The later TV series are based on the other Dobbs novels in a trilogy; To Play The King and The Final Cut. So the answer is "yes", it IS just the first four episodes of the series that is based on the novel. Alansplodge (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

US presidential bill signings

Although File:Signing of the Poverty Bill.jpg doesn't show it clearly, I'm holding a picture from the signing of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 which shows President Johnson's desk in high resolution, making it clear that there are at least thirteen different pens on his desk. Since only one presidential signature is required for a bill, no matter how long, what's the point of the extra pens? Is it common to for presidents to use one pen for one letter in the signature, another for the next, etc., on landmark legislation? 2001:18E8:2:1020:FDB3:68AD:F06C:A673 (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a previous post that was answered: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009_March_9#How_many_pens_does_it_take.3F Katie R (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Also see This Google Search for more answers. --Jayron32 20:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are souvenir pens for whoever was attending the ceremonial signing. I vaguely recall that LBJ handed out all the souvenir pens and then pulled his own regular pen out of his pocket and signed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Repenting.

question answered. Seek a spiritual counselor for professional advice
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How does one repent? And what does repent mean, said as simply as possible? Applies to the world. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Read the Wikipedia article titled Repentance. There are many different perspectives on what repentence is and how to achieve it, both from a secular and religious perspective. If you read that article, you can learn a whole lot about it and arrive at your own conclusions. --Jayron32 20:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but I can't (really can't) read complicated texts. Does the article indeed give the answer to my question? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC) We cannot think on your behalf. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hell.

question answered, we are not a reading service and do not supply opinions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are we in hell? Serious question. Applies to the world. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Read the Wikipedia article titled hell to learn more about the subject. You can then arrive at your own answer. --Jayron32 20:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but I can't (really can't) read complicated texts. Does the article indeed give the answer to my question? How could you reply so fast? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC) We provide sources, we do not digest and regurgitate them. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC) L'enfer, c'est les autres. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps try the simple English version of the article. Dismas|^(talk) 21:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

21st Century Novels with Very High (1000+) Lexile Scores

Does anybody know any 21st century novels with very high (1000+) lexile scores? It must use long, complex sentences and challenging but vibrant vocabulary. A modern equivalent of Nathaniel Hawthorne. 140.254.229.134 (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

See Lexile if (like me) you had no idea what the question was about. Alansplodge (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Dishes of Arab World

Is there websites that shows the dishes in the Arab world, by nation and explains if the dish is a Berber dish, French, Turkish or other European due to influences of Ottoman and European colonial powers, regardless appetizers, main course and desserts and snacks? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.45 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article is at Arab cuisine which also leads to some more specific country articles while noting that a number of dishes are widespread. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

December 6

US female voter turnout in 1920 and 1924

What was the voter turnout % of females in the US presidential elections of 1920 and 1924 compared to the male voter turnout? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.165.49 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The data on this is spotty because it was collected in surveys only. But it would be more accurate to look at individual states than the entire country, as numerous states already had women's suffrage before the 19th amendment. And most of the polls that were conducted at the time tended to suffer from extreme selection bias. One of the few good studies we do have was done in Chicago in 1924, and concluded that only 35% of women in the area voted in the first presidential election after receiving the right[22]. As far as government records go, for most of US history we have no idea what the gender breakdown of the voters really was. That, combined with the facts that there was significant fluctuation in turnout even without suffrage and states gradually implemented suffrage, Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections is hard to interpret. But what you do see there is that turnout of eligible voters is about the same from 1920 to 1924, which would suggest that women are voting at similar rates to men. We also have a study that looked at turnout in individual states, and lined them up according to when they gave women suffrage: see page 1170 of this. Keep in mind that this study is defining voter turnout as the turnout of all adults, not just eligible ones. What we see there is that the average turnout the election prior to suffrage is about 25% (so ~50% of eligible men), and that after suffrage it is about 38%. Assuming the male ratio didn't change, this would suggest 26% of eligible women voted (but once again, given the large fluctuations even before suffrage, this is hard to interpret). You can look online and find more such surveys conducted in different means and over different areas. It is unfortunate there was not a large, nationwide effort to find out how long it took women on average to take advantage of their new rights, until long after. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

So I guess to give a direct answer to your question: Anywhere between half as many and just as many appear to be reasonable estimates based on the available data, but we can't know for sure. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Largest sunken shipment of computers

I've been looking up sunken ships and the bacteria that are found in them; and was wondering what the largest shipment of computers to sink beneath the sea happens to be. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you resolve these two conflicting studies?

This study from the CDC claims that 70% of unreciprocated domestic violence is initiated by women, while this study claims that 85% of domestic violence victims are women. These two claims seem to contradict each other, so which is right? 74.15.137.253 (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the links you have provided works... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the links provided by the IP. They now work, though no comment yet on the actual question. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read the linked studies, but it's easy to see that the two conclusions you mentioned are not necessarily contradictory. The first claim is that "70% of unreciprocated domestic violence (presumably a very restricted set) is initiated by women". The second claims that 85% of all domestic violence victims are women. To illustrate, let's say for the sake of argument there are 100,000 incidences of domestic violence. Let's say further that in only 100 of those cases did the victim not reciprocate. According to the percentages given in your question, 70 (70% of 100) of the 100,000 incidences would have been initiated by women, while 85,000 (85% of 100,000) of the overall victims would have been women. So it is possible that the studies do not contradict each other. To find out whether the actual numbers bare that out or not would require reading the studies and I don't feel inclined to do so tonight.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 08:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

How can 85% of victims of reciprocated domestic violence be women when every instance of reciprocated domestic violence (ignoring gay marriage) involves one man and one woman? The only way I can see it happening is if men were much more likely to be repeat offenders with multiple women -- but in order for the math to work out, you'd need male perpetrators of DV to attack on average ~6 women, which is surely not the case. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Simple. Person 1 beats person 2. The first study says that if person 2 doesn't fight back, 70% of the time person 1 was a woman. The second study says that 85% of the time, person 2 is a woman regardless. Since the studies measure different things, they don't contradict each other. It's like saying "75% of all people prefer chocolate ice cream" and "80% of the people who eat strawberry ice cream eat it out of a cup rather than a cone". The studies both deal with domestic violence, but don't measure the same thing. Plus, as William noted, since we're dealing in percentages, we have no idea what subpopulation of ALL domestic violence cases are represented by your first study. --Jayron32 18:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"The second study says that 85% of the time, person 2 is a woman regardless." This strikes me as impossible. Replace "reciprocated domestic violence" with "dancing". If we suppose that men only dance with women and vice versa, then ~50% of the people who dance will be women, precisely because every dance involves one man and one women. The figure might not be exactly 50% because men might be more likely to dance with multiple partners, but the 50% figure will be close enough. 74.15.137.253 (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sample differences. The CDC study analysed "data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health", which is a fairly narrow sge range - maybe this generation is anomalous. The stats at the Statistics Brain link gets its figures from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. It's possible their figures are based on cases of domestic violence which become involved in the justice system, and that male victims of domestic violence are less likely to report their abuse to the police and the courts. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

historical events since 1913

My grandmother is about to celebrate her milestone 100th birthday. Im trying to put together a list of wordiode major historical events in the last 100 years from 1913 - 2013 can you help? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.175.116 (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You could start with our article listing events of 1913 and continue from there. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What's 'wordiode'? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. “timeline 20th century” will get you lots of great stuff, including these:

• BBC British history timeline,
• Major wars of the 20th century,
• 20th century history,
• artistic, cultural, social, scientific and political events,
• 20th century inventions
• and (for fun) toys and games of the 20th century.

See also Wikipedia’s 20th century. Happy birthday to your grandmother! 184.147.136.249 (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting things kept happening after 31 December 2000, when the 2oth century ended. See also 21st century, which included the 9/11 attacks, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring. the first African-American US president, the completion of the Human Genome Project, the discovery by robot Mars explorers that Mars once had water, the first space probe leaving the solar system, High Def and 3D TV in widespread use,and the spread of the internet and mobile phones to the majority of the world's population. Edison (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Identifying wallpaper pattern

Does anyone know what words describe this type of pattern (so I can search for it in the form of fabric) --78.148.106.99 (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Try searching for "damask print fabrics" on a Google image search which brings up some fabrics with a similar pattern. Actual damask is a monochrome fabric where the motif is woven differently to the background. 83.104.128.107 (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Flock wallpaper. Very popular, at least in the UK, in the '70s and still notoriously popular in curry restaurants. Nowadays considered naff (especially in private dwellings). 86.183.79.28 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Quotes on the cross-race effect

Are there any remembered quotes by famous persons relating to the cross-race effect, particularly prominent African-Americans refuting the prejudice that 'all blacks look alike'? --KnightMove (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A different angle on it, I wish I could remember his name, but I recall a Japanese-American comedian some decades ago saying, with purposeful stereotyped accent, "Awr Americans rook arike." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

House of Lords maiden speech

Sometime in the 1980s (or possibly 1990s, certainly no later) I read about a member of the House of Lords who had given his maiden speech. The unusual thing was that he had been a member for many years and had never spoken a word in the House before. IIRC it was the longest time anyone had gone before making a maiden speech. The subject of the speech was water management, the need to save water to avoid droughts and so on. Can anyone find the name of the Lord and the date of his speech? Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 13:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Baron Trevor (4th, I guess) after 43 years? In May 1993: [23] 184.147.136.249 (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sadly not, but thanks for trying. The subject of that speech was policing [24], the one I'm looking for was definitely about water. --Viennese Waltz 14:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ask Kittybrewster. 86.183.79.28 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know about that Hansard resource. With the search string "lords water drought maiden" I found this possibility. Could Gerald Spring Rice, 6th Baron Monteagle of Brandon be your man? Maiden speech on 11 March 1992 after being in the House for 47 years. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Amish

Do any amish use electricity? Just yes or no. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia article titled Amish life in the modern world. --Jayron32 15:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Urban Percentage of Germany's Total Population in or Around 1933

Does anyone know what percentage of Germany's total population lived in urban areas in or around 1933? I am curious about this, considering that Germany appeared to be (much) more industrialized when the Nazis came to power than in the cases of many other countries when extremists came to power. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Census in Germany has information on when official German Censuses were taken. You can use that as a launching point for your research. --Jayron32 17:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Navigate to page 59:11 in the 1935 German Statistical Yearbook, where you will see Germany's population broken down by size classes of municipalities. The 1933 data don't seem to offer a standalone statistic for urban population. Municipality size is an imperfect proxy for degree of urbanization, but you might consider municipalities with more than 10,000 residents (or some other arbitrary threshold) as urban. "Gemeinden mit Einwohnern" means "municipalities with residents". "Weniger als" means "less than", "bis unter" means "up to", "Zahl der Gemeinden" means "number of municipalities", "Wohnbevölkerung" means "resident population", "Zahl" means "number", and "vH" means "percentage" (of the total German population). Marco polo (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Porn vs. prostitution

In California v. Freeman and the related New Hampshire decision it references, U.S. courts found that making porn films was protected speech, but prostitution isn't. What I'm wondering is, how is this line being maintained in the modern era?

For example, I would think that someone who might otherwise sell sex could put out an ad, "partner wanted for adult film enterprise - be the star of your own porno film!" The customer would be expected to put up an investment toward the joint enterprise. Video taken at the site could be edited afterward for "amateur adult film" distribution, if it is any good, and the two could share proceeds from the sales.

Fundamentally, I don't get how a court can claim that there is a distinction between illegally paying for a performance in person, versus legally paying for a performance to be filmed for you; I understand the courts were desperate to timidly assert the First Amendment after a long absence, but can't they by now go whole hog and wipe away anti-prostitution laws that exist only to stigmatize vulnerable women, to make it difficult for them to find other employment, and to defend organized crime's control over their activities? Wnt (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)