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

March 7

Contents of the casket

What was in the casket Phyllis gave to her husband Demophon that so horrified him? (A library book scroll Demophon forgot to return before setting out for the Trojan War?) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhea was all about the dead babies. They're pretty unsettling, so make a good (bad) final jab in lover's quarrels. Mostly a guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Another Demophon was a dead baby himself. Almost eternal. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

No one ever recorded what was in it. It's the original MacGuffin. What's in the booooox? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! Stupid! You so stupid! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It sure wasn't no stinking badgers. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

"Still, some feelings will be familiar. We know what it’s like to fear. We know the courage necessary to protect our loved ones. But there are some things we’ll never fully understand. That ignorance is why we read, why we look. Sometimes, it’s why we play games." InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

If the mythology doesn't say what it was, then we don't know. We are compelled to use our imaginations. My first thought was that maybe it was his own wife. Or, even scarier, a pre-nuptial agreement. Or worse, an insurance salesman. Hitchcock used to say that what the MacGuffin specifically is does not matter. Its purpose is to drive the story, so it can be anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

At least anything that fills the brain with the wildest chimeras. So not tin. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:22, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

A MacGuffin, eh? Must have been the work of Alfredicles of Thespiae. Bad enough that he ripped off Aristophanes. Then he had to go and omit that important detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll be damned. Cybele was Rhea and Demeter's Phrygian counterpart, Aristophean Cybele was an ostrich mother and Cybele was in a reboot of Lysistrata. Small world, after all. And in the Underworld, Demeter's screech owl shares a name with Ares' dead son from the Trojan War. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

How do doctors assess whether someone is malingering and faking a mental illness?

This question is about malingering. (The Wikipedia article does not provide any answers.) The question arises in the context of someone who commits a crime and then "pretends" to be crazy, in order to avoid prison. But, my question is not really limited to that scenario. I assume that some mental illnesses are easier to "fake" than others are. And some individuals are better "actors" than others are. So, my questions. (1) How exactly do doctors distinguish the real from the fake? How do they know when someone is faking? And (2) Is the determination subjective? Or objective? In other words, are there some set of strict criteria that need to be observed? Or is it simply an "opinion" and one doctor might conclude that the patient is faking, while another doctor might disagree? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm no psychiatrist, but looking at someone's history (from sources other than the "patient") can often provide clues. He's "suddenly" lost his mind? Most mental illnesses don't work that way (though there are exceptions). They last over many years. So the first obvious clue is probably to look at how the person has behaved in the years leading up to the crime. (e.g. Jared Lee Loughner had a long history of bizarre and nonsensical outbursts at university, so was clearly no fake. Ditto John Hinckley, Jr. had a clearly establish-able history of mental problems in the years leading up to his attempt to assassinate President Reagen). Some actors such as Borat could stay "in character" for days at a time, but very few people have the ability to put on an "act" which spans years.

In fact, the real scary and dangerous ones are the exact opposite - the genuinely insane who can keep a convincing mask of sanity for years, behind which lurks a very dangerous mind. Anders Behring Breivik may be the perfect example of a man with paranoid and grandiose delusions who hid them very well - plotting silently and meticulously until his day he let his pent up well-planned evil insanity explode. NOTE that he fiercely argued in court that he was perfectly sane, as many mentally ill defendants do.

That said, some issues do inevitably arise. People who have experienced combat or other life and death situations seeking disability pensions for post-traumatic stress disorder can be a tough one. Once upon a time, it was generally assumed that all PTSD was "just acting" to get money. Militaries nowadays accept that PTSD is very real, but yes, there is inevitably an issue there with the potential to fake one's symptoms, and difficulties in verifying the claimant's claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyohub (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You know who are great at playing crazy for years on end? Wrestlers. They can also pretend to be fine. Or actually be Kamala and The Wizard. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough, three years after that Kamala match in Boston was the first National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women in Montreal. Experts still aren't sure how crazy that guy might have been that day. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

At least in Nebraska, "the weight and credibility of an expert's testimony are a question for the trier of fact, and triers of fact are not required to take opinions of experts as binding upon them". So if you can convince the judge, you can be legally insane. And psychiatrists who actually know the patient/defendant best are advised to not testify, for ethical reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Expert witness and trier of fact might be useful. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Question one assumes that they can. They cannot. See Rosenhan experiment. In response to question two; subjective, although there usually is a list of things to check for, check out a DSM-IV or DSM-5. And "doctors" often disagree with each other. So, in theory, if you wanted to fake a mental illness, and you did a bit of research beforehand to get a realistic list of symptoms and you claim that you have those problems then you could fool everyone. Well, almost everyone. In the article about the Rosenhan experiment it is mentioned that 35 of the total of 118 patients expressed a suspicion that the pseudopatients were sane... So patients are probably better at detecting fakery than "doctors". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but imagine if a patient simply read the DSM and claimed to his or her local forensic shrink to have those symptoms in an attempt to evade justice. Wouldn't a simple "background check" with others who know the patient and who have no reason to lie on the patient's behalf (assuming you could identify such individuals) readily reveal the "symptoms" as a sham? As I said in my earlier response, wouldn't you need to establish a plausible "history" (involving others willing to lie on your behalf that they heard you express delusional ideas, for example), given that most mental illnesses don't suddenly develop out of the blue, at least not without some significant triggering event (in which case you can try to independently verify whether the "event" did in fact occur, and the patient was present or involved)? A bit similar to the difficulties in establishing the "authenticity" of a counterfeit painting? IMHO, for many of the total shammers, some pretty simple detective work would quickly unmask their lies. It's more a job for an investigator (police or private investigator) than a Psychiatrist. Eliyohub (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eliyohub: A witness who says that this person used to be sane at some point in the past is not evidence that that person has faked his current insanity. Some forms of mental illness can occur without any warnings, and are quite difficult to predict. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It was as obvious as the nose on your face that Loughner was mentally ill, but he was still found competent to stand trial. The legal definition of "insanity" is a lot narrower than just being mentally ill. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

As to faking it, Vincent Gigante is an interesting study. Was he insane? Was he faking being insane? Was he faking being sane in order to fake being insane? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems to have admitted faking in 2003. That's believable enough for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:36, March 8, 2016 (UTC)

There is a famous experiment, the Rosenhan experiment, analyzing the validity of psychiatric diagnostics.

On the legal side, I doubt that many criminal would benefit from being considered mentally ill. That could imply even a longer time locked away. Having a good lawyer convince the court that you were temporarily insane is another thing. Llaanngg (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Generally true, a successful insanity plea can result in an indefinite incarceration in a psychiatric facility, potentially many times longer than a prison sentence may have ever been. But one group are a glaring exception: those potentially facing the death penalty. They have every reason to attempt to persuade the judge or jury that they are insane. Their life may well depend on it.

Also, lawyers do regularly attempt to raise defendants' mental health issues (either genuine ones, exaggerated ones, or sham ones) as a mitigating factor in sentencing. In many jurisdictions, psychological or psychiatric reports on the defendant are regularly tendered at sentencing hearings. Eliyohub (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's true that being found "insane" could potentially result in you being locked up for much longer than the likely prison sentence - but for someone faking their insanity, they could also arrange to convincingly recover from their mental issues after a period of treatment, and thereby escape the system much sooner than they would if they'd gone to prison. A smart faker could perhaps even pick a highly treatable mental condition to fake, make a fast, but complete and convincing, fake-recovery and return to society in relatively short order. But it's definitely a risky matter. SteveBaker (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a reason that most legal rulings use the phrase "a history of mental illness". Suddenly claiming to have some condition when a crime was committed, and never previously, is unlikely to get you off the hook. Having evidence of a significant past history of that illness is what is needed. Of course there is still no guarantee that justice will prevail, but it's fairer than having someone who has been arrested to suddenly start faking symptoms and thereby attempt to circumvent punishment. It's also a fairly dangerous route to travel in a trial since it basically requires you to accept evidence that you committed the crime, so if the "insanity" defense doesn't work, it's too late to deny involvement. SteveBaker (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a temporary insanity plea, which seems like a rather convenient way to claim they were insane at the time, so not responsible, but they are all better now, so we should just let them go free. StuRat (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Crime of passion is another useful link here. SteveBaker (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

One problem with getting accurate mental illness diagnosis in court is the adversarial system, which virtually ensures that the prosecution will hire whatever doctors they think will find the defendant sane, while the defense will hire whatever doctors will give them the diagnosis they need. The idea that the truth can be found midway between two opposing lies is highly questionable, and the side which spends the most money to hire the most convincing paid "experts" often wins. StuRat (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's why the "history of mental illness" test is more convincing. If the person can be shown to have been diagnosed with a problem over a matter of years - and perhaps had even been treated for it (albeit unsuccessfully), then that body of evidence would stand up well in the face of "experts" examining the persons' current state of mind. But if you have to resort to duelling experts looking at the person after the fact (when, let's face it, being arrested and locked up weeks or months pending the trial could drive anyone crazy!) - then it's a crap-shoot. SteveBaker (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

One problem at looking at their history of treatment is that those records are often sealed, so how does the jury know if they were treated for their fear of spiders or for wanting to kill everyone they meet ? StuRat (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

They're not sealed, but protected under physician–patient privilege. This privilege can be waived, which usually starts with a subpoena duces tecum. If relevant, and the interests of justice can be argued to outweigh privacy concerns, the treating shrink should see that patients have a lawyer and ask them to sign away their privilege. Of course, maybe they don't want to. Then that's another battle. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, March 8, 2016 (UTC)

If a criminal brings up his mental state at the trial (e.g., claiming that he has mental problems), then that "opens up the door" to his medical records. And the prosecutor can get access to them. In order to "defend" or rebut against the claims of mental illness. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Defendant, not criminal yet. It's not typically something that comes up during a trial, rather in pre-trial discovery (for competency or culpability) or sentencing (for mitigation). If the defendant announces she's crazy on the stand, that's just testimony. Does nothing without a lawyer making a motion, but may inspire one. Not sure if anyone's ever claimed to be incompetent while representing themselves, but that would be amusing. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:47, March 8, 2016 (UTC)

A "defendant" can still be a "criminal"; they are not mutually exclusive. Also, when I say "trial", that involves pre-trial proceedings (like discovery, etc.). Not just the actual trial itself. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The "innocent until proven guilty" assumption requires us not to call them criminals until found guilty. StuRat (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Charitably, we can be talking about the trial in the past tense after the then-defendant has become a criminal. Once someone has been found guilty, you can call them a criminal from the moment they committed the crime. Anyway, the nit that's being picked at here has no bearing on the answer to the question. SteveBaker (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The MMPI-2 has some scales and well-known result patterns that are correlated with malingering/symptom magnification. None of them are uncontroversial, but they provide another piece to the puzzle. See, e.g., Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That's sort of what I was getting at. What types of things would doctors look for, to conclude that someone is faking? There must be typical "patterns". Also, the common layman knows nothing (beyond the surface) of mental illness and the psychiatry/psychology of it all. They just think if you "act crazy" (for example, scream and wave your arms or mumble irrationally), that that should be enough to do the trick. I assume mental illnesses involve more than that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There was an episode in the TV series 'Escape from Colditz' where a character faked insanity to obtain a repatriation, but effectively willed himself mad. So far as I can see, however, this was fictitious. However, see also Ion Ferguson. 217.38.99.0 (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no crying in baseball, and no waving or mumbling in the diagnosis of schizophrenia. That (or a shorter schizophreniform disorder) is probably the surest bet for playing the "nothing made sense" card, though anything related to mania or psychosis is pretty good. They all have their checklists, which can only be checked by licensed professionals, but can be read in most (all?) of their Wiki articles. Licensed professionals have a knack for spotting fakes through real experience with all sorts, so in the case of a "stalemate", a judge might be wisest to trust the older doctor. Practice doesn't always make perfect, though, and anyone can believe their own eyes. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:28, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Bible translation

There was a particular Bible translation project that I'd look into off-and-on every few years, but then kind of lost track of during college and forgot the name of.

It's a fairly literal translation, though it attempted to indicate puns and similar literary devices where possible. What I remember of what they had of Genesis, Adam was translated as something like "earth-man," "clay-man," or something along those lines. The "birds" and "fish" of the fourth day are directly translated as just "flying things" and "swimming things." As I recall, it also stuck to the Masoretic, though they said they were considering adding notes from the LXX later on.

It was not finished in 2010, to my knowledge. Any ideas? Thanks.

Ian.thomson (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A Literary Bible: An Original Translation, by David Rosenberg - perhaps? 109.150.174.93 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

List of English Bible translations might be of some help in tracking it down. SteveBaker (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Literary Bible's not it, though I may have to look into that one as well.

Already checked the list. It wasn't exactly a notable project. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I know I just asked this, but in my own searches I'm starting to suspect that the project (which wasn't the largest) fell apart and was overshadowed. If it was out by now, it'd be the perfect companion to the Comprehensive New Testament, but the Amazon page for that doesn't link to this. So I'm thinking it's either not finished, or never was.

On the off chance someone happens to remember the name of the project and/or can direct me to the website (which would have been well designed in the 90s) or its remains, I'd be glad to know. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm...Miscellaneous_English_Bible_translations suggests the Original Bible Project...and thence to: http://originalbible.com - which claims (Dec 2015) to be under redesign...but it's a bizarre redesign that hides all of the old content during redesign! (That's pretty inept!) - however, you can look on The WayBackMachine and you'll probably be able read the website before the content was removed/hidden.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs)

http://biblegateway.com has a LOT of translations available. One of those, perhaps? --Jayron32 16:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Tend to use that pretty often. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Could be the recent translation by Everett Fox. He uses lots of awkward hyphenated expressions. The Torah was published in 1995, and "The early prophets" (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) was published in 2014. Staecker (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, looking through the Wayback machine results, it was definitely the Transparent English Bible (i.e. Original Bible Project). I'm amazed we have an article on it while The Comprehensive New Testament only has a mention in a few articles. Thanks everyone. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, you know how to fix that...right? Articles only exist when someone cares enough to write them. SteveBaker (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources of info for UK referendum.

I'm a British citizen, living in the USA. I don't generally vote in UK elections because (a) I'm not usually sufficiently well informed to make a good decisions and (b) It seems wrong to impose my preference when I'm unlikely to be very much affected by the results.

However, for the referendum in June on whether the UK should remain in the EU or not - I feel that I may be significantly affected by the decision - and so I need to understand the ramifications, point them out to British friends and family and cast a considered vote. I have a completely open mind on the matter right now...I have no idea what the best thing would be.

Can someone point me to some reasonably unbiased pro- and con- arguments online? Preferably somewhere with links to facts and statistics that I can check up on?

TIA SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You could start at BBC News EU Referendum coverage. As well as news stories, towards the bottom of the page you will find a selection of features and analysis. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I recommend starting with the BBC's regularly updated Q&A, which seems relatively neutral although possibly slightly and subtly pro-Remain, then have a browse of recent Telegraph and Guardian coverage of recent topical issues (read both, for balance). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) BBC News has some pages on the subject, which are probably going to be reasonably fair to both sides. There's also some information from The Guardian. And of course there's United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. You might not be eligible to vote, though, depending on your exact circumstances, as you have to be (from the Guardian page) a British, Irish and Commonwealth citizen over 18 resident in the UK; or a UK national living abroad who has been on the electoral register in the UK in the past 15 years (I don't know if that means "continuously" or "ever"). Not that that should stop you taking an interest, of course. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

For information about voting as a UK national overseas, see About my vote - overseas voters. DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah - that might be a problem - I'm not currently resident, but I think I voted less than 15 years ago. Well, either way, I want to be well-informed, if only so I can harangue other Brits into voting "intelligently". :-) SteveBaker (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The BBC pages include a Reality Check - where they have technical experts looking at all of the claims to see if they add up or not. Very informative. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388 109.150.174.93 (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times editorial board has weighed in on the "remain" side, which might interest you as a British national living in the States. See here. Neutrality^talk 19:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Fwiw, your approach is right, because no information will be truly without bias. See historiography. See also the Wikipedia version, WP:POLE. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If you liked WP:POLE - check out my comment about it on the talk page!  :-) SteveBaker (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for Template:Mayors of the largest cities in the world by GDP

Don't know if this is the right forum, but can anyone see what the inclusion criteria is for {{Mayors of the largest cities in the world by GDP}}? Hack (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The template was created by User:Lucas Landin, who is still somewhat active, his last edits were about a month ago. You could ask him what he was doing when he created the template. --Jayron32 17:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Commercialisation

Is the NHS the only organisation in the UK that hasn't become increasingly commercialised and about cost recovery, and is still about its core values and outputs? 82.132.246.0 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like an essay question which would require people to give their opinions. That's not really the purpose of this desk. --Jayron32 19:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really. I'm asking for facts, not opinions. An organisation is either commercially driven or not. 82.132.246.0 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

How about the military and Anglican Church ? StuRat (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, military, Anglican Church and I suppose police and fire brigade. Are those, including the NHS, all what we would call paramilitary organisations? 82.132.246.0 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Since when is British socialized medicine a "paramilitary" organization? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not. Ok, let me rephrase that so the NHS and Anglican Church are the only non paramilitary/military organisations that are not financially driven but driven by its core values and outputs? 2A02:C7D:B907:6D00:898:57DD:C11F:36F3 (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have non-profit organizations in Britain? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes but many are commercially driven as they have to recover their costs and don't receive funding from government. 2A02:C7D:B907:6D00:898:57DD:C11F:36F3 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

How does that make them "commercially driven"? In America, non-profits typically cover their costs by donations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(three times) Unfortunately, the NHS has become increasingly commercialised, though I agree that most employees are still concerned about its core values and outputs. There are many other organisations (including lots of not-for-profit ones) in the UK that are more concerned about their core values and outputs than about commercial matters, but most of them have charitable status. Why pick out the Church of England? Dbfirs 21:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Because they have to think about how much they're spending and will cut corners etc to save money or they will try business tactics to get donations. This seems to apply to most charities. Really? The NHS is commercially driven? Is that management? 2A02:C7D:B907:6D00:898:57DD:C11F:36F3 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, management, but that now includes local GP practices who have delegated budgets. Dbfirs 22:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggest you look in to art collective, communal living, cooperatives, and maybe some Anarchy_in_the_U.K. (more seriously, we don't have an article on Anarchist organisations in the United Kingdom but we do have List_of_anarchist_communities). Things cost money, even charities have to keep the lights on. We do have an article on Social_and_psychological_value_of_money. You don't have to like living in a capitalistic consumerist, commercialized society: lots of people don't like it, but searching for organizations that don't care about money at all puts you into the domain of organizations that are often considered WP:FRINGE though we might just say marginalized to keep it more WP:NPOV ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The NHS isn't very marginalised though. It's the largest employer in the uk. 2A02:C7D:B907:6D00:79A0:E092:D859:E713 (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes and I hold that they do care about money quite a bit. OP seems to be asking for groups that have no commercial interest and no need or interest in money, so I gave some links along those lines, and I do think something like an art collective is marginalized compared to NHS. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Which European nationality group votes most Democratic in US elections?

I know that Jews as an ethnic/religious group, are among whites the most pro-Democratic by far. I was wondering what number 2 was? Which non-Jewish white ethnic group is the most relatively Democratic-leaning?

Among Christian-majority European ethnic groups in the US I was wondering which has the most Democratic voters? --Gary123 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not think pollsters normally ask voters what ethnicity they are when they ask them their political allegiances. I've never seen it mentioned in a poll, I've seen race, religion, gender and state location included. But I don't think ethnicity is usually asked. Jewish voting preference is known because, like evangelical voters, it is considered a religion, not an ethnicity. Plus, most people are a mixture of multiple ethnicities so I don't know exactly how a Polish-Scottish-German voter would identify their ethnicity in the limited "checkbox" type of survey used in political polling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as someone unfamiliar with American politics, there often seems to be reports about the "Latino" or "Black" vote. Your answer seems to draw a distinction between "race" and "ethnicity". If that's what you meant, and at the risk of taking the thread on a tangent, I'm curious about what counts as a "race" versus an "ethnicity". Is "Latino" regarded as a race or an ethnicity in that dichotomy? What about "Slavic", "Sub-Saharan African" or "Australian Aborigines"? Or "Mongoloid" (i.e. East Asians and Native Americans), which is a canonical "race"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hispanic (=Latino) and non-Hispanic are considered the only ethnicities for Census purposes. It is not a Census race. Mainly because 1. There are single race Hispanics like descendents of the Peninsulares 2. The majority of Hispanics have white ancestry (mestizo) and are considered as white as anyone by the Census (but usually not the public) 3. Hispanics are over 1/6th of the population instead of a tiny fraction so they bother to make distinctions. And maybe also cause they wanted to distance the Census from America's past where someone was treated as a "n*gger" if they couldn't hide not being quite 100.0000% white (one drop rule). Words like Slavic, Mongoloid, Celtic, Alpine, Nordic or Germanic.. aren't used probably because Nazis used them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating. Reading across the two tables near the bottom of the page in the article you linked to, "Filipino" or "Korean" (for example) is a race, but "Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish" is an ethnicity? Does that reflect reality or is it just a strange byproduct of the way the census questions are set out? What about a Portuguese person? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Census is pretty idiosyncratic. Usually races are very general like White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander (rare outside the Pacific Islands territories or Hawaii). Specific countries (like Korean) and peoples (like Aborigines) are ethnic groups. The article you looked at said

Use of the word 'ethnicity' for Hispanics only is considerably more restricted than its conventional meaning, which covers other distinctions, some of which are covered by the "race" and "ancestry" questions. The distinct questions accommodate the possibility of Hispanic and Latino Americans' also declaring various racial identities (see also White Hispanic and Latino Americans, Asian Latinos, and Black Hispanic and Latino Americans).

and this is still true today. "Hispanic" has the root Spanic (Spain-ic) so Portuguese and Brazilians should seem to be excluded but they say South American without explicitly excluding Brazilians so that makes no sense. It seems like they made a poor definition and there's not enough perplexed Brazilians to get them to change it, lol. I believe Hispanicness has more to do with language than Spaniard ancestry. There are people from Central and South America that are pretty much Native Americans after all. Then again, Belize is ex-British Honduras in Central America and the language is English. Are they Hispanic? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I would guess the Scandinavian nationalities, since they seem to be rather liberal in Europe, and also tended to migrate to the northern US, for the similar climate, which is a more Democratic area. Probably not a huge difference, though. StuRat (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

European ethnicities are barely relevant in the United States any more. They were relevant in the early 20th century, when many white people were immigrants or the children or grandchildren of immigrants, with strong ethnic traditions. Today, a large majority of the white population of the United States is at least 3 generations away from an ethnic immigrant background, there has been lots of intermarriage, and relatively few white Americans maintain a strong ethnic identity beyond the (in fact ethnic) identity that comes with being a white American. So, for the most part, there are not relevant white ethnicities to which voting behavior could be correlated. Regional, class, and maybe religious differences among the white population are much more relevant. Marco polo (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the opening statement in the question actually true? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

probably, see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html --Soman (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

March 8

North Korea part of the WHO's SEA region?

How come North Korea is part of WHO's South-East Asia region here[1] Shouldn’t it be part of the Western Pacific region[2]? Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently not. No clue why not. Have you tried contacting that contact info about it? Someone there must know. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, March 8, 2016 (UTC)

Seems they traded it for Brunei. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:17, March 8, 2016 (UTC)

No hints here. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, March 8, 2016 (UTC)

Logically, given the political situation in the area, it would make sense not to have North Koreans on the same regional committees as South Koreans and Japanese. If you look at their full lists, you will note various similar arrangements - so Israel is in the European region; Morocco is not in the same region as Algeria; Pakistan is not in the same region as India, and similarly for Malaysia and Indonesia, North and South Sudan, Somalia and Ethiopia. 109.150.174.93 (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

109.150.174.93 is probably right. Also, the SEARO HQ is in Delhi, whilst India isn't generally identified as 'South East Asia'. So DPRK inclusion isn't so strange. --Soman (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not strange, but forced division doesn't seem very "United Nations" of them. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:45, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

If there were no Taiping Rebellion in the Qing Dynasty China, would Hong Kong exist?

If there were no Taiping Rebellion started by Hong Xiuquan in the Qing Dynasty, would we have Hong Kong (HK island + Kowloon + New Territories) today? 173.34.246.242 (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

In all alternate history, the answer is maybe. Here's some speculation, someone else has some other. Perhaps an opinionated prediction debate will break out, and every side will have some good points. But you'll never know for sure. Ripples make butterflies fly into dominoes. Always a chance of snowballs. That's why the disclaimer at the top here discourages this. Best to just wonder about what actually happened. Most of those answers are out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, March 8, 2016 (UTC)

Hong Kong became a British colony in 1839; the Taiping Rebellion began in 1850. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I understood the question to focus on the territories ceded later - i.e. 1860 / 1898. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Interdimensional travel...

voy:Wikivoyage:Joke_articles/Interdimensional_travel

I was finding I was in need of a list of well known alternate universes (inc distopioas) or works that featured interdimensional or inter-plane travel, including mythological ones.

So far I've managed to include Oceania (1984), Discworld, Amber SpyGlass, C.S Lewis etc... but would appreciate some more major science-fiction related works as well. It would also be appreciated if you could suggest which Wikidata items might be appropriate for some entries ( I was using the Wikidata id as the reality 'co-ordinate' if it helps.)

I am putting this in Humanaties, because it's a question about fictional works mostly. I may depending on the response ask separately in the science section for suggestions on 'thought-experiment' worlds that could be mentioned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

List of fantasy worlds 109.150.174.93 (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you counting places like Narnia and Neverland? Is time a dimension? If so, then Time Lords and Tralfamadorians should count as being able to travel through dimensions. --Jayron32 15:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikivoyage did time travel last year, but you can go update that article if you want. ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Flatland. StuRat (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, Flatland is a really poor choice. The book's description of the 2D world is inconsistant and doesn't really work in 2D (for example, the world is visualized in "plan view" and buildings have "doors" and "windows" - in 2D, how can a door and a window be in any way different? The world has "rain" - but without a third dimension, and in a plan-view kind of a world - how would that work exactly?). This turgid book is more of a (painful) description of a class-ridden, (horribly sexist) male-dominated world - it's a political/sociological work, and the fact that the world is in 2D hardly matters at all. A vastly better 2D world is The Planiverse - it's well thought out, it's backed by lots of discussions with physicists, it has some awesome diagrams showing how a variety of things function in a 2D universe. It's one of my favorite books. SteveBaker (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The world that Donald Trump seems to live in would make an interesting choice! :-) SteveBaker (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

On the difference between door and window in 2D, how about if the door is a long solid segment with a hinge at one corner, while a window is a shorter, partially transparent segment which slides instead of rotating ? StuRat (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

But there would be absolutely nothing to prevent you from walking out of a window. So the distinction between window and door would simply cease to exist in such a place. Admittedly, you could "translate" the word for "window" to mean "transparent door" or "sliding door" - but since both of those things are doors in our 3D world, the only significant distinction is that you walk in and out through doors. Flatland is always trotted out as a book about a 2D world - but it's really not. It's a book about class prejudice, meritocracy and the mocking of women. You can read it from cover to cover and learn essentially nothing about 2D worlds...but reading it at all is extremely painful! By modern standards, it's not a good book of any kind! On the other hand, The Planiverse is an intelligent look at the problems of 2D worlds - how animals could eat and excrete without falling into two halves, for example. How a simple piece of string laid over a doorway is enough to eventually suffocate everyone inside! I defy anyone with the slightest curiosity not to look at the drawing of the 2D steam engine and not spend an unreasonable amount of time figuring out how it works! It should be on all curious peoples "must read" list. SteveBaker (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Our 3D windows also often function as doors, as doorwalls and when a window to a fire escape is used. So, there's a continuum between doors and windows, even in our world. However, in 2D, an opening too small for the occupants to fit through or a transparent line segment that doesn't open (like glass blocks in our universe) or a window on the ceiling would all prevent usage as a door. StuRat (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You should probably trawl through List of fantasy worlds - it'll jog some memories if nothing else!

I'd advise also looking at List of fictional location types which would allow you to consider a wider selection of types of location.

An obvious one is Ringworld - but instead I'd suggest The Smoke Ring (novel) (also by Larry Niven) - a "99% physically reasonable" world that's weirder than anything I could possibly come up with, and far, FAR more mind-bending than RingWorld! SteveBaker (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

From the point of view of interdimensional travel, Barsoom would make a good choice. Getting there seems to mostly involve staring off into the distance in some ill-defined manner. SteveBaker (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It must be inhabited mainly by writers, then.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd disagree that Niven's Ringworld and The Smoke Ring fit the OP's stated criteria; they're works of fairly "hard" Science Fiction which attempt to depict worlds which might possibly exist in the future according to known science plus a few "allowed developments" like FTL travel, but certainly don't involve interdimensional travel.

There are many, many possibilities within Science Fiction, Fantasy and Dystopian literature (which of course are not mutually exclusive). One which springs readily to mind not yet mentioned is Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber in which interdimensional travel is the entire basis of the series.

The OP might like to explore The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction which is freely accessible online and has relevant articles on Themes and Terminologies, and its companion The Encyclopedia of Fantasy which is similarly available and similarly structured. (The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.66.243.108 (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The question didn't seem to limit the answers to places reachable only by interdimensional travel - I read is as: "a list of well known alternate universes (inc distopioas)"...OR..."works that featured interdimensional or inter-plane travel". Since our universe disallows things like FTL travel - I'd argue that RingWorld and The Smoke Ring are "alternate" universes with clearly different laws of physics. But I agree that it's debatable!

On that note, The Planiverse is about contacting an alternate universe rather than travelling there - but the means of contact is decidedly different from many others. (Essentially, the humans write a computer program that (by coincidence) is a reasonably accurate simulation of the 2D world - and somehow this "connects" to the actual place. So they can communicate back and forth with the 2D world via keyboard and screen.) It's really unclear how you'd be able to travel to such a place because smooshing your 3D brain into 2D would certainly be 100% fatal! SteveBaker (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

SteveBaker, I'll write a note about being able to observe but not necessarily visit Planiverses.. BTW I would appreciate people seeing this thread contributing over at Wikivoyage :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Keith Laumer does this in the Worlds of the Imperium and Lafayette Leary series. H. Beam Piper has his Paratime series. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Then there's the granddaddy of them all, "Sidewise in Time" by Murray Leinster. That article, by the way, includes a lot of other examples in the Influence section. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget to visit Nethack - you won't find a better place to shop for gifts! Pick up a ring of teleportation on the cheap and bring it back for that special coworker who can make your workplace much more pleasant by being somewhere else. While Trump fans may want to spend the extra mile to bring back a scroll of genocide. :) Wnt (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Birth before/after stories

• The New Testament includes many interactions and conversations between angels and humans. For instance, three separate cases of angelic interaction deal with the births of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. In Luke 1:11, an angel appears to Zechariah to inform him that he will have a child despite his old age, thus proclaiming the birth of John the Baptist. And in Luke 1:26 the archangel Gabriel visits the Virgin Mary in the Annunciation to foretell the birth of Jesus Christ. Angels then proclaim the birth of Jesus in the Adoration of the shepherds in Luke 2:10.
• The book of Genesis also states, Abraham meets with three angels; the task of one of the angels was to inform Abraham of his coming child. – don’t know where it states? Quotation sought too.

  See Abraham --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you guys know any other religious and or mythological stories, along with quotation(s)?

Apostle (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

In the Bible specifically? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

-- Apostle (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Not clear if you are only interested in birth/angel stories or just angel stories. Loads are in the Old Testament. Here's a sample:

• Ishmael's rescue, in Genesis
• Lot and his family in Sodom, in Genesis
• Jacob's wrestling match, in Genesis
• Angel of death's intervention during the Exodus in, erm, Exodus
• Gideon's selection and his test of divine favour, in the book of Judges.
• Samson's birth story, also in Judges
• Job's unfortunate adversary in the book of <ahem>

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If the gods of Mt. Olympus count as angels, they don't just wander down to herald mortal pregnancies, but to cause them. Zeus was particularly notorious, but Poseidon was perhaps much busier. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:28, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

Lol. Nope. -- Apostle (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Birth/angels stories for every single religion and mythology. -- Apostle (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

In the Quran 19:19 Jibrayil (Gabriel) says to Maryam (Mary) "He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son." Also Ibrahim (Abraham) is mentioned as having angels visit him to tell of a son 15:53 and 11:71. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

In the fairy tale, "The Pink", a queen wishes for a baby, and an angel tells her she'll have a wishing baby. Then when she's framed by a cook for letting him be eaten, angels sneak her food in her tower. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, March 10, 2016 (UTC)

The exact message was "Gib dich zufrieden, du sollst einen Sohn haben mit wünschlichen Gedanken, denn was er sich wünscht auf der Welt, das wird er erhalten." Probably Enochian. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

-- Apostle (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That story appears in the little-known book of the Bible called 3 Corinthians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Peeps, what about Muhammad? Plus, any other believable/unbelivable stories would be helpful too. - only one fairy tale is here...

Baseball Bugs: If the biblical info is not available in this post then let me know, along with its quotation(s)

Everyone, thank you all; so far. Sorry for the delay, I was tired and .

Apostle (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Peter the Great

Hi, does anybody know of any academic articles that deal specifically with whether Peter had a coherent vision for Russia. I can find many that discuss whether he deserves to be titled 'the Great', less on this, the subject of my essay? Any help appreciated, just need the right reading for my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.99.241 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether you'd call this an "academic article", but it's from the History Learning Site. That's a great title. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:15, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

March 9

Why don't third parties in the USA have any political power?

The political seats are either Democrat or Republican. Third parties don't seem to have any political power, no incumbents, no political office holdings. Do third-party affiliates really vote for the third party, or do they actually choose to vote for one of the two powerful, dominant parties? Also, once registered as a Democrat/Republican voter, can people unofficially or officially change parties? Maybe a person may officially be listed as Republican (because he used to be Republican) and then vote for a mix of Democrat and Republican candidates but then the word "Republican" still gets listed because that's what he chose when he first registered to vote at 18 years of age? 140.254.70.165 (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Voters don't have to register with either party, and if they do register with a party, it is for that election only (not for life). The Democratic and Republican parties were, at different points in history, third parties themselves. See Political_parties_in_the_United_States#History. The way things have worked in the past, if the people voted for Libertarian candidates in a way that made the Libertarian party a mainstream contender rivaling the big two, it would do so by absorbing the Republican party (with the less-Libertarian inclined Republicans forming new third-parties). Likewise, if the Socialist party became a mainstream party during the next election cycle, it would be at the expense of the Democratic party.

However, the current big two do what they can to pander to a variety of groups. Republicans appeal to certain types of corporations, the religious right, libertarians, and the tea party. Democrats appeal to other types of corporations, socialists, third-way advocates, and social liberals. In many other countries, many of those groups would go with their own parties. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

In most U.S. jurisdictions, if you register with a party, you are a member of that party until you specifically change it. But it's always easy to change. Another reason smaller parties have no real power is that, unlike Westminster system governments, where small parties may hold disproportionate power because they can join with other parties in forming a coalition to elect a Prime Minister, the American head of government is elected by popular vote. - Nunh-huh 13:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I would quibble with your wording. In a closed-primary state, registering with a party gets you that party's ballot, but it doesn't make you a member of the party. If you want to actually be a member, you have to talk to the party, not to the Registrar of Voters.

Second quibble, no, actually, the president is not elected by popular vote. The president is elected by vote of the several states. --Trovatore (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

For now, at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:05, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Long term stability of a two-party system is not a uniquely American phenomenon, though perhaps it is more stable in the US than most others. That article has some explanations about why. Some other countries oscillate periodically between two-party (as the two main parties shift their policy positions to compete with minor parties) and multi-party (as disenchanted voters of one or both main parties drift to minor parties).--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Party affiliation really only applies to Primary elections and caucuses (you vote for who you want to be the candidate for your registered party)... But in the general election you can vote for anyone, regardless of party. If you don't like the guy (or gal) who was chosen to be your party's candidate, you can vote for the candidate from another party. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there anything (in law or in what voters sign up to when they register) that stops a whole bunch of party A supporters registering as party B voters in order to nominate an unelectable candidate for party B? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Laws vary. Many states have Open primaries in the United States. Some voters say they take advantage by sabotage. Others are closed, requiring registering in advance. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You're allowed to switch every 4 years (2 if your location has a governor or something that's elected every 2 years). Sometimes, people change support. It's unlikely that anyone sane switching major party every election for decades never tried to sandbag anyone but I don't think there is a quota to keep the rate of party switching down to realistic levels. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Every jurisdiction in each of the United States has at least one officer with a two-year term: its federal Representative. —Tamfang (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

D'oh. Well I haven't voted a primary ever or a Rep in 6 years (and I cared about beating that governor candidate and not my Rep's safe seat (whoever s/he is)). My primary vote might actually matter for once this year. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You know who gets more done than the red team or the blue team? The red and blue team! Why risk losing an election if you want constant power? These other "third parties" do alright, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:16, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

Of those Top 20 puppetmasters, only three don't use red and/or blue in their logos. Two are orange and one is purple. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:56, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

So the Business Roundtable must be secretly New Democratic Party of Canada, eh? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Either that, or it goes all the way to the top. See also You're Not Elected, Charlie Brown. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:06, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

To see what could happen when there's many parties in a non-parliamentary system not built for that, look at this US state's leader election, 1991. David Duke (the leader of the white supremacist movement which does things like chain a black man to a truck and drag him for miles until his head comes off (in 1998)) won almost 40%. Also Duke's a convicted felon for lying that he needs donations to save his house and then using the cash to gamble for recreation. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, in 1991, voters couldn't so easily access news and views from the future. Or from the theoretically possible alternate future. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:36, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

I believe the main driver of the two-party system is that Americans want to vote for a potential winner, so often don't pick the candidate or party they consider the best, if they think he can't win. This pretty much means they will only vote for the top two. Some other factors include:

1) Rampant gerrymandering, which allows whichever party is in power following a census to redraw the districts to choose their own voters. Since that's either going to be the Democrats or Republicans, they will take districts away from their rivals, including any third parties.

2) The pork barrel system, which only candidates in a major party have enough votes to pull of, to bring taxpayer dollars to their district at the expense of the nation. Since voters are selfish, this results in them voting to keep such a person in office.

3) The system is rigged for insiders in other ways, such as senior Reps and Senators getting important committee posts, while freshmen are all but ignored, so have little chance to impress their constituents. Since these members of the "old boys network" are likely to be in major parties, they support others in their party.

4) Taking large donations from rich people and corporations puts Reps and Senators in the pocket of those special interests, who work hard to keep them in office, with soft money PACs, etc. StuRat (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Your first (unnumbered) point is good, and I think is a simple consequence of the manner in which we vote, the most naive first past the post method that everyone knows is also the worst method for multiple candidate elections. But it's also the best method for two-candidate systems, and it essentially turns multi-candidate elections into two candidate elections. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that this factor can lead to a tipping point, where a 3rd party get more votes than one of the established parties, and everyone therefore jumps from the old party to the new one (with some readjusting to and from the other established party), since they again don't want to "waste their vote". However, my numbered points may tend to favor the old established party a bit longer, until the new party can become similarly established (could take a generation, if we're talking about #3). StuRat (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no one single "right" answer. Lots of factors play in to this. Here's one that I don't think has been mentioned: We are stuck with two parties because we don't use ranked voting (not at the federal level, some hip local governments have caught up with 18th century democratic technology). It's not impossible to get 2-party systems with ranked voting, but it's very hard to keep three or more parties with any strength when about half of the votes are wasted every election. This organization [3] intends to increase and spread ranked voting in the USA, but they also have good information. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Two-party_system#Causes. This article was helpfully linked above by PalaceGuard but I'm repeating it in bold because it has the best answers and they are better sourced than our comments here. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• • Yes, that is a good explanation. I had forgotten about Duverger's law which is basically what the OP has noticed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Iraq map 1990 online?

Here is a 1990 Iraqi presidential decree, outlining the creation of the Kuwait Governorate and its three districts. As per the boundaries, the decree mentions an attached map. Any chance this map exists online somewhere? I couldn't find it so far. --Soman (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Nazi Germany's intelligence operations against the USSR during World War II

Hi,

I am currently looking for sources available online on the following topics, in pursuance of an article I intend to write imminently:

• German intelligence operations against the USSR generally, 1941-1945
• The roles of Fremde Heeres Ost (FHO), the Abwehr, and the SD (as well as other agencies) in said operations
• German parachute operations behind the Soviet lines
• German cooperation with nationalist partisans behind the Soviet lines.

I greatly appreciate any help, and feel free to email me any sources that you believe would help.

GAB^Hello! 23:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Some information at The Brandenburger Commandos: Germany's Elite Warrior Spies in World War II by Franz Kurowski, The Soviet Union and the Iran: Soviet Policy in Iran from the Beginnings of the Pahlavi Dynasty until the Soviet Invasion of 1941 by Miron Rezun (p. 348), Acta Historica Tallinnensia (p. 75), Germany and the Soviet Union by Gerhard L. Weinberg and The Kings And The Pawns: Collaboration in Byelorussia during World War II by Leonid Rein. Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

March 10

Double cousins

A double cousin is when either a person's father and mother are brother and sister of another person's father and mother respectively (parallel double cousins) or each person's father is a brother of the other person's mother (cross double cousins). Are there any known examples of double cousins? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I have some double cousins, as my father's sister is married to my mother's brother. A more remarkable case is that of Chang and Eng Bunker, famous conjoined twins who married two sisters, both of whom had children. - Lindert (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Check out this family. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Googling "twins marrying twins" brings up a lot of hits, including one where twins were married to twins by twin priests. Loraof (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

They won't all be relevant hits, but searching just inside Wikipedia for double cousin brings up 7,639 hits. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

So we have anecdotal and famous/notable examples. Our WP coverage of double cousins is at Cousin#Additional_terms. Some related info at Coefficient of relationship which shows that double cousins are as closely related as half-siblings. But 3/4 siblings are even more closely related, Sibling#3.2F4_sibling gives some examples, a famous one involving the Jackson 5. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• It happened in royal families all the time; since there was a limited set of people to marry. Doing some searching, I even found some examples of spouses who were double cousins, see Alfonso XI of Castile and Maria of Portugal, Queen of Castile were double first cousins (maybe double half-first cousins, I think they just shared grandfathers), while Francis I of the Two Sicilies and his wife Archduchess Maria Clementina of Austria were true double first cousins: they had all four grandparents in common, as were Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor and his wife Maria Theresa of Naples and Sicily, who had the SAME four grandparents as the Francis of two Sicilies and Maria Clementina. Their kids would have been quadruple second cousins with each other. Wow. --Jayron32 21:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

They call it "line breeding" when it's used for prize race horses, but "inbreeding" when it's low class humans. I don't know what they call it for royalty, but pedigree collapse also illustrates some famous double cousins and other close relatives. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal experience, but an interesting slant. My family knows a family with double cousins (brothers married sisters) and this came in very handy when one of the children was diagnosed with a severe illness requiring a bone marrow transplant. His own sister was not a match, but his two double cousins were both perfect matches. Extremely fortuitous for the lad, to say the least. Matt Deres (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

March 11

Ibrahim father of the prophets

I understand that Ibrahim is the ancestor of Prophet Muhammad. I understand that Ismail and Ishaq were the children of Ibrahim. Lut was the nephew of Ibrahim. Yusuf was the son of Yaqub, who was the son of Ishaq. How is Ibrahim the father of prophets in case of Sulaiman, Dawud, Musa, Harun, Isa, Ilyas, Alyasha, Yunus, Ayyub, dhul-Kifl, Yahya, Zakariya and Shuaib?Donmust90 (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Time has foggied the facts and mixed much with metaphor, but Abraham's family tree gives unraveling things a shot and there's a graphic in the oddly-spelled Abraham in Islam. In a non-literal way, he's the father of prophets/prophecy like Hippocrates is called the Father of Medicine, or Christians call God "Our Father". Someone whom later generations model themselves upon, learn from or respect. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

See Ancestry of Muhammad. In a literal way, as is Islamic belief. Rmhermen (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Constitution Restoration Act?

Can anyone make some practical sense of the Constitution Restoration Act? It looks like a lot of legalese to me. What would it actually mean in practice? I guess to protect people like Kim Davis? It seems to suggest that anyone could at any time claim to be acting by God's authority and immediately become immune from scrutiny by the Supreme Court. That sounds a little too crazy to be the intended effect of the Act. I assume it's supposed to be crazy, but surely not that crazy. Is there anyone still around (in federal office) who is a supporter of this act? Staecker (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-USian): why is it called an "Act" if it was never passed? Shouldn't it be "Constitution Restoration Bill"? Or is it usual in the US to call something an "Act" before it legally becomes one? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right in that it's a bill, or a proposed act. People are just sloppy in using the terms. Congress usually gives bills the name they want then to have once/if they are passed into law. So that the text of the bill states "This Act may be cited as the “Constitution Restoration Act of 2005", but that text doesn't go into effect until after it's been passed. Note that the text as given on Congress's website is "A BILL/To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism but that it's also referred to as an Act. Note that the names given proposed acts are propaganda and don't necessarily correctly describe the act's actual effects. - Nunh-huh 16:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Until its passage I would refer to this as "the proposed Constitution Restoration Act" or "the proposed Act/law/statute" or "the bill." Once it becomes law it's "the Constitution Restoration Act." John M Baker (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It reads to me like it's exempting from the Supreme Court's judicial review/appellate jurisdiction specifically the "acknowledgment of God" by a government entity or official. This doesn't sound like it should mean anyone can gain immunity in general just by claiming to be acting by God's authority. For one thing, it only applies to governmental acts. For another, it would exempt a review of "acknowledgment of God" itself, whatever that means. I think how it would play out is, if an official executes a person for no reason and then claims that this was done by God's will, the execution would still be reviewable, but whether they breached the establishment/freedom of exercise clauses of the First Amendment by invoking God, would not be reviewable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The bill was written in the context of Christian shop-owners/county clerks wanting to discriminate against gays (not photographing weddings, not selling wedding cakes to gays, not issuing marriage licences to gays, etc.) It's trying to provide legal cover for those people, preventing them from being fined or prosecuted for discrimination otherwise forbidden by law. Of course, it's written so broadly that there's no real way of knowing what its effects would be before it's implemented, which is one reason it languishes unpassed in the hopper, and is likely to remain so. Introducing the bill was a sop to try to get religious folk to vote for the introducer without regard for the bill's actual chances of passing. - Nunh-huh 16:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Remember that the bill was written in 2004, predating the recent pro-gay judicial decisions, which I don't think the proposed Act would affect anyway. Rather, this is about the bill's author, Roy Moore, who installed a version of the Ten Commandments at his courthouse; the installation subsequently was found to be a violation of the First Amendment and was removed. The bill purports to strip federal courts of authority to hear such cases, except for cases arising under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. John M Baker (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Do bills that never became law remain as "live" bills forever, or is there some period after which they lapse? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A bill has to be acted on within the session of Congress in which it was introduced [4]. If it fails to pass within that time, any sponsors wanting it to become law have to reintroduce it in a succeeding Congress. For an interesting graphic on what happens to bills, see this link regarding the 110th Congress (thousands of bills introduced, 442 laws enacted). Most bills die in a committee of the house in which they were introduced. - Nunh-huh 19:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Right. So this motion was never more than a bill, and since 2006 has not even been that. It was never an act; and if it is ever to become one it would need to be reintroduced. But there's been no activity on it in the past 10 years, so that seems unlikely. The title must surely be changed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, no, I think this is pretty standard use of language, at least in the US. Typically, the proposal says something like "this shall be known as and may be referred to as the Flibwidget Protection Act of 2525", and that really is the name of the thing, whether it's enacted or not. It says so, right in the language itself.

When and if it's enacted, it becomes a "law", not an "act". (But it still has "Act" in its proper name.)

That's my vague non-lawyer sense of how I've seen these terms used. --Trovatore (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

But the phrase "This shall be known as...." doesn't become law until it's enacted. It properly should be referred to as a proposed act, not an act. But sloppy usage in this regard is generally accepted. And our article might more correctly be at proposed Constitution Restoration Act of 2005. At its present title it does indeed suggest (particularly to non-Americans) that it has, or had, the force of law. - Nunh-huh 07:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree, except that if one peruses Category:United States proposed federal legislation, one sees they're almost all "something Act", with only a couple of "something Bill"s, and no "proposed"s at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

What you're both missing is that it's a proper name, not a description. Proper names don't have to accurately describe the things they name. "Constitution Restoration Act" is indeed its proper name; the fact that it was not enacted as a law has no bearing on that whatsoever. --Trovatore (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Act of Congress is quite enlightening here ... but also, strangely, not so much. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

More not so much than quite, I think. Giving a measure a name that includes the word "act" does not assert that such measure is an act. Proper names don't assert anything at all. --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

---

See Jurisdiction stripping. Neutrality^talk 18:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

March 12

When the blacks became the blacks in the US?

Immediately after being brought from Africa as slaves, blacks would not identify with each other, nor consider themselves American and lest be consider American by the white Americans. When did they become just "the black" (or the PC word of the time "Negro", "colored", "Afro-American")? --Llaanngg (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I question your assumption that they wouldn't have identified with each other. Those who spoke different African languages and not English would have had an obvious communications problem, but I imagine they quickly learned the basics of English and/or whatever creole was spoken in their area. It sounds like your Q is more about when they felt they were Americans. The obvious answer is when they were granted citizenship, but the obvious answer isn't always correct. StuRat (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is not a thing as "the blacks" (that's an identity created in the US, or at other places) and there were and are plenty of African wars to prove that they can hate each other to death. So, I question your questioning of my assumption that they wouldn't have identified with each other. --Llaanngg (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, it was only after the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s (and well into the 1980s) that people in the United States felt comfortable enough to acknowledge their African ancestry and identify as African American. See African Americans#Terminology. So, it's not that they felt they weren't American or considered American by others but that it wasn't encouraged to take pride in having African ancestry (especially if you weren't sure where in Africa your ancestors even came from). Negro, black, and colored, on the other hand, were all references to skin-color and even used as legal terms by whites. It's kind of been a back-and-forth about what's considered proper, as "Negro" was used more among the African American community because "black" was considered offensive, but now "Negro" is outdated and "black" isn't generally considered offensive. clpo13_(talk) 23:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Name a Musical Instrument

I want to identify a musical instrument. It is a small, hand held "accordion" which can be played by a woman. It has two hexagonal "boards" with bellowswork between them. It has one register as I understand on the right and a few bass buttons on the left. I saw it played in this movie shown recently on TCM (the movie's title is simply "M"). I think someone is also playing it in My Fair Lady in a bar scene. What is the name for it? Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Concertina? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

And if not, see Template:Squeezebox --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016

This question is about the Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. If some candidate gets to the "magic number" of 1,237 delegates, then what happens? He automatically gets named as the Republican nominee? And if no one reaches that magic number, what happens exactly? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Either way, they would hold a vote among all the delegates at the convention. If someone wins the majority on the first ballot, they would be the nominee. If no one gets a majority, it's a whole new ball game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. Don't we know before the convention what the delegate counts are? So, what is there exactly to vote on? In other words, right at this moment, we know already how many delegates each candidate has (up to this point, at least). Also, my second question: if no one gets the magic number of 1,237 delegates, then what? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There is always at least one round of voting. If a candidate gets the needed number of votes, they get the nomination. Otherwise, the voting continues until one candidate gets enough votes. See United States presidential nominating convention for how the convention works. After the first round (and sometimes in the first round), delegates can vote for any candidate. In recent years, only one round of voting has been needed. Sometimes it takes more than one. One year it took 103 rounds to select a candidite. RudolfRed (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Then what exactly does it mean when we say today that Trump has x number of delegates; Cruz has y number of delegates; and so forth? What does it mean to "have" that number of delegates? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

For context you need to understand the history of U.S. presidential nominations. See the above articles for more details, and maybe these previous Ref Desk questions (1, 2), but in a nutshell, the nominations used to be decided at the conventions by the party bigwigs. The delegates were free to vote for whoever they wanted. The extent of the voters' input was selecting who the delegates were, and sometimes not even that much. After the political turmoil of the 1960s (including notably the 1968 Democratic National Convention), the two major parties retrofitted the system to make the process relatively democratic. They kept the convention, but now the delegates are "bound" based on the votes in their state's primary or caucus (excepting superdelegates in the Democratic Party, who remain free to vote as they wish like before, but superdelegates are a small minority of delegates). However, this "binding" only applies to the first ballot. If a candidate has a majority of delegates, they win the nomination on the first ballot, and the convention is just a formality. The 1,237 "magic number" mentioned above is the number of delegates needed for a majority in the Republican convention. But if no delegate has a majority, no one will win the first ballot, and then we go back to the 1960s where the delegates pick the nominee themselves. A point to stress here (and one that often seems strange to people not from the U.S.) is that in the U.S. political parties are, legally, private organizations, and the nomination process is considered an internal function of the parties, no different than, say, your local chess club electing officers. After all, there's no law that says only the two major parties' nominees can become President, though a bunch of factors combine to make that the likely outcome. So it's up to the political parties themselves how they pick nominees. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)