Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:50, 5 May 2016

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

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.

April 30

Medieval Charters from Northern French Communes?

Hi,

I am looking for the English translation of the charters of communes in Northern France in the Middle Ages (other than Laon). I don't suppose this is possible to find? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.172.250 (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder who would take the trouble to translate such things? So far I have found one scholar who works with these manuscripts. He does publish in English, so perhaps he would be a good person to ask for further direction. [1] (You certainly can get some in French: see [2] or [3].) 184.147.128.57 (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, wouldn't it? It would be interesting to read them in a modern translation, but there are many dozens of thousands of documents, at least. It would be an enormous effort, and the audience would be pretty limited. The most useful thing is to find a good edition in the original language, typically Latin, sometimes French depending on when they were written. Sometimes you can find certain documents translated in other works, as an appendix to a relevant book, or as part of an online "digital humanities" project for example, but not usually an entire cartulary. In addition to the above links, another person who works on this sort of thing in English is Theodore Evergates. There are many many others who write in French and English. Do you have any particular communities in mind? There are a ton of editions of cartularies from all over northern France (and all the rest of France). Adam Bishop (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abbeville would be the best, but anywhere in Northern France really. I just need the English translation of some of the statutes for a school project. Just to know what sort of things they discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.172.250 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know which statutes you need in particular? We could probably help you translate them here. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my assignment is to write a charter for a fictional but historically credible town my team is creating. It's a commune in Northern France with a Benedictine monastery. I've found some statutes from Laon and Lorris here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39227/39227-h/39227-h.htm but other than that I really don't know. Also I found this book but I don't speak French and it doesn't seem like it quotes charter provisions directly so I don't know which parts to try to translate: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39227/39227-h/39227-h.htm

Also thanks for responding! I wasn't expecting anyone to answer :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.172.250 (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer: no. I don't know what exactly I'm looking for. Anything really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.172.250 (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that sounds really interesting! The Customs of Lorris are an excellent place to start because they were very popular and were used by many other cities all throughout France (and even beyond). I see that book by F.A. Ogg translates some of them, but this book has the full text at the end. I guess you could use the ones translated by Ogg as the basis for your charter, since those are the main points. I don't see a longer translation anywhere, unfortunately. You'd want to include information about taxes and markets, legal rights (what the inhabitants can and can't be forced to do, what happens when there are disputes/violence, etc), buying and selling property, that sort of thing. Also, another thing to remember is that your Benedictine monastery would be pretty much separate from the town and would follow the Rule of St. Benedict. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.172.250 (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aquitaine

What happen to the Duchy of Aquitaine between Eleanor of Aquitaine's second marriage until it only consisted of Gascony during Edward III's reign? The Angevins lost a quite bit of it. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hundred Years War, or the lead up to it. See War of Saint-Sardos mostly. The loss of the bulk of Aquitaine was seen as the pretense for the deposition of Edward II of England. The King of France had always claimed full suzerainty over all of Aquitaine anyways, Edward II's terrible military exploits defending it removed practical control over much of it back to Philip the Fair. The Hundred Years War (and the conflicts before it) offered many swaps of land in the Aquitaine area between the Plantagenets and the Valois. Starting with the Treaty of Paris (1259) through the next several centuries, Aquitaine swapped hands every few decades, it was mostly under Valois control following the War of Saint Sardos, returned to the Plantagenets in the Treaty of Brétigny, returned to the Valois following the conquests of Bertrand du Guesclin, etc. Plantagenet control was only ever secure in the long term in the area around Bordeaux (Guyenne proper). --Jayron 32 03:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Hello! I am looking for sources on the following:

The Ergenekon incident in Turkey
The Susurluk incident in Turkey
The Turkish "deep state" in general.

As this is a controversial and shady topic, I would appreciate the most neutral, reliable and academic sources available. Feel free to email me if need be.

Thanks,

GAB^Hello! 02:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As it says at the top of the page, we don't email questioners. I take it you are referring to Ergenekon (allegation), Susurluk scandal, and Deep state. I have no knowledge of these articles or the incidents they cover, and no view of how neutral or comprehensive the articles are. You can check each one's page history and talk page, and look at the reference sections, to help you decide how much you want to rely on them. If you can improve them, with academic sources, Wikipedia would appreciate your help. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhs, Turkmens, Kyrgyz, and Tajiks in USA

How come there are no articles about Kazakhs, Turkmens, Kyrgyz and Tajiks in the US? and also where do they mostly live in? Please and thanks. Donmust90 (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer question 1) the answer is "because no one created the articles at Wikipedia yet". If you want information on various ethnicities and ancestral nationalities in the U.S., use the American FactFinder service from the U.S. Census Bureau. They have online searchable data bases, and you can absolutely find the answer to your question if you play around with it a bit. You can access it here and use the "advanced search" section to find the information you want. --Jayron 32 04:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And note that there are (improvable) articles on Kazakh Americans (not to be confused with Kazakhstani Americans) and on Tajikistani Americans (not to be confused with Tajik Americans). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Economy - are low interests for savings account a global thing?

Most savings accounts in dollar only pay some 0.0x% yearly. Are savings accounts in other currencies around the world also suffering from these low interests?--Scicurious (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's going to depend on the inflation rate on the currency in use. Interest rates should be similar to those, so in nations with hyperinflation, like Venezuela, interest rates should be much higher, as long as those accounts are in the local currency: [4]. (Of course, that doesn't mean those customers do any better. In fact, they may do far worse, if they are taxed on that interest without subtracting the inflation rate, in which case they can lose money relative to inflation, and also have to pay taxes for the privilege of losing that money. Under hyperinflation, you generally want to spend money as fast as you get it, or convert it into a more stable currency.) StuRat (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Britain has very low savings rates which are below the rate of inflation. On the continent some countries are imposing negative interest rates - that is, a firm has to pay the bank a percentage of the funds it has deposited. I believe Japan is looking into this as well. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"No" in Japanese names

What does "no" in Japanese names mean, such as Sugawara no Michizane? It looks like modern names don't have it. Was it something like "de", "von" or "di" in European surnames, meaning "of some place"? Thanks. 93.174.25.12 (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is explained in the article Japanese names. It is indeed like the equivalents you suggest, except that the clan name comes first. Sugawara no Michizane is actually Michizane of the Sugawara clan. This clearly has less relevance in modern Japan, where the clan system is no longer of much significance, hence the form now being uncommon. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"No" is the ordinary Japanese word for "'s". (i.e. it means "of", but the other way round).--ColinFine (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism and Buddhism

How are these two religions interrelated with each other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahil shrestha (talk • contribs) 06:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Indian religions#Similarities and differences. Loraof (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Buddha was born a Hindu. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sort of. The Buddha was born into the Vedic religion, which is a precursor of the Hindu religion (much as Judaism is a precursor of Christianity). StuRat (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is clear historical continuity from the Vedic religion to modern Hinduism, while Buddhism is a quite distinct faith which separated from Hinduism. In the same way Christianity separated from Judaism in the 1st century. Modern Judaism is the heir of the Old Testament religion, as modern Hinduism is the heir of the Vedic religion. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Christianity a "precursor" of Islam? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but Judaism is. I think they do list Jesus as a "prophet", but that's rather minimal compared with how much they borrowed from Judaism. StuRat (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus is considered an historical figure, not "listed as a 'prophet'." See Judaism's view of Jesus for a discussion. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Jesus in Islam for the details. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the average Jew would be a bit rankled by the notion that Judaism is a "precursor" to either Christianity or Islam. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jews are thoroughly aware that a Christian reference to "the Bible" includes what are referred to as the "Old Testament" and the New Testament, the so-called "Old Testament" being the Jewish scriptures called in Hebrew "Tanakh" - a Hebrew acronym for its three sections: Torah (the "Five Books of Moses"), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings"). Anglophone Jews who don't use Hebrew terms have adopted the word "Bible" as synonymous with the O.T. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "A--------- J--- who don't use H----- terms" means. All J---, so far as I am aware, use H----- terms and most of them appear to speak English. Ultra - orthodox Chasidic J---, when writing or speaking English will naturally use the word "Bible" to describe the Old Testament, which is identical to the H----- canon, and I would expect that Reform J--- do the same. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Anon censoring the words "Anglophone", "Jews" and "Hebrew"? Does it show that Anon subscribes to some sort of combined anti-Semitic / Anglo-phobe ideology? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. This is Edit Filter 731, presumably designed to shut up the anti - semitic troll. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 1

Salvation Army

A: Can the Salvation Army be considered a different christian church/protestant denomination or is it just an organisation whose members belong to other churches?

B: Are its officers considered ordained christian ministers i) by itself and ii) by mainstream christian churches? 2A02:582:C65:CB00:B0C0:D5:3C78:6A6F (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are a denomination, an offshoot of of Methodism. They refer to themselves as a denomination, distinct from others. That said, they appear to be fine with volunteers from outside their denomination (though local branches may vary). Further sources: [5], [6].

Officers are ordained clergy (ministers), even able to perform weddings and funerals in countries where other protestant ministers are allowed to do so. They're as recognized as often as ministers from other protestant churches.

Basically, think of them as Methodists with uniforms, more charity work, but a less open policy towards homosexuals. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much as a "less open" policy as an "openly discriminatory" policy. They've been advocating against laws protecting gays from discrimination in public accomodation and employment for more than a half century, having been instrumental in defeating New York City's rights law during the Ed Koch administration. - Nunh-huh 01:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my support for equal marriage rights, I suppose I'm a bit jaded coming from the American south. The mega-"churches" some of my extended family would exclude any openly gay would-be member until they somehow "repent" of the way God made them. The SA at least lets homosexuals worship, even if the rest of their policies are anti-LGBT. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gay people hardly need the assistance of the Salvation Army to worship! Most gay people wouldn't give a damn about the SA if they'd stop trying to use political actions and contributions to abridge their human rights. - Nunh-huh 06:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A rather more liberal approach to the issue can be found on this side of the Atlantic: "The Salvation Army stands against homophobia, which victimises people and can reinforce feelings of alienation, loneliness and despair. We aim to be an inclusive church where members of the LGBT community find welcome and the encouragement to develop their relationship with God." [7] Alansplodge (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They've taken to talking a good game lately, but I really do wonder if in fact LGBT humans find an unconditional welcome across the pond. I hope it's true.- Nunh-huh 06:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They had a lot of bad press in the UK last year, but most of it seems to refer to their US colleagues. Alansplodge (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK the Salvation Army will happily take money from gay people, and use us for good publicity, but gay people cannot be soldiers in the Salvation Army. DuncanHill (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is an extremely interesting way to "stand against homophobia!" 🙄 And good to know, thanks. - Nunh-huh 06:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so... SA stands against homophobia... As long as gay people don't stand next to them? Blueboar (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US debt 2

Question	Remark
Where can I find official correct data of (INTERNAL NON-TREASURY DEBT)? I have found some data here http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2015/deleveraging-and-recent-trends-in-household-debt-20150406.html but only through 2014.	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016_April_18#US_.28external.2C_foreign.2C_public.2C_intragovernmental.2C_total_etc..29_debt

37.53.235.112 (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to release https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/ (March 10, 2016) https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/z1.pdf page 4

D.3 Debt Outstanding by Sector	1	
Billions of dollars; quarterly figures are seasonally adjusted
					
					" Domestic nonfinancial sectors
				Households	
				Home	Consumer
		Total	Total	mortgage	credit
1984			1971.6	1243.3	526.6
1985			2322.7	1450.2	610.6
1986			2586.9	1649.0	666.4
1987			2788.9	1828.6	698.6
1988			3079.8	2054.8	745.2
1989			3347.6	2260.1	809.3
1990			3606.6	2489.3	824.4
1991			3810.1	2667.4	815.6
1992			4012.8	2840.4	824.8
1993			4277.4	2999.0	886.2
1994			4600.1	3165.5	1021.2
1995			4923.1	3319.2	1168.2
1996			5276.8	3537.3	1273.9
1997			5620.4	3753.2	1344.2
1998			6054.2	4054.7	1441.3
1999			6603.2	4431.6	1553.6
2000			7194.7	4813.9	1741.3
2001			7822.0	5322.0	1891.8
2002			8585.9	6028.0	1997.0
2003			9655.0	6909.9	2102.9
2004			10808.4	7859.5	2220.1
2005			11953.6	8912.5	2320.6
2006			13238.1	9910.2	2461.3
2007			14156.6	10613.0	2615.1
2008			14015.0	10580.1	2650.0
2009			13762.3	10419.3	2552.3
2010			13514.3	9921.6	2646.9
2011			13302.5	9702.0	2755.4
2012			13359.3	9490.8	2922.9
2013			13503.2	9401.2	3098.8
2014			13877.1	9400.6	3317.2
2015			14219.2	9490.6	3533.1
2009 -	- Qi		13869.6	10569.0	2630.4
	Q2		13844.5	10530.6	2597.7
	Q3		13800.1	10465.4	2577.0
	Q4		13762.3	10419.3	2552.3
2010 -	- Qi		13674.6	10275.6	2536.3
	Q2		13637.2	10212.2	2519.9
	Q3		13572.3	10127.9	2520.6
	Q4		13514.3	9921.6	2646.9
2011 -	- Qi		13508.7	9864.9	2673.6
	Q2		13429.7	9811.7	2695.9
	Q3		13323.1	9756.5	2722.6
	Q4		13302.5	9702.0	2755.4
2012 -	- Ql		13336.7	9648.2	2791.7
	Q2		13357.9	9594.3	2839.8
	Q3		13297.7	9539.0	2877.3
	Q4		13359.3	9490.8	2922.9
2013 -	- Ql		13365.4	9450.2	2966.2
	Q2		13383.2	9428.4	3006.7
	Q3		13470.0	9426.9	3055.3
	Q4		13503.2	9401.2	3098.8
2014 -	- Ql		13553.5	9382.9	3147.3
	Q2		13716.8	9382.5	3211.8
	Q3		13809.3	9381.3	3267.5
	Q4		13877.1	9400.6	3317.2
2015 -	- Ql		13924.0	9384.1	3363.4
	Q2		14062.0	9432.0	3434.9
	Q3		14109.9	9463.1	3496.4
	Q4		14219.2	9490.6	3533.1

page 14

F.101 Households and Nonprofit Organizations (1)										
Billions of dollars; quarterly figures are seasonally adjusted annual rates										
					2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	- 2014 -		2015		
										Q3	Q4	Ql	Q2	Q3	Q4	
1	Personal income			13254.5	13915.1	14068.4	14694.2	15341.9	14774.8	14955.7	15079.8	15277.0	15443.7	15567.1	
2	- Personal current taxes	1453.2	1511.4	1672.8	1780.2	1945.1	1792.0	1838.8	1900.1	1938.7	1957.3	1984.5	
3	= Disposable personal income	11801.4	12403.7	12395.6	12913.9	13396.8	12982.7	13116.8	13179.8	13338.3	13486.4	13582.6

But this data doesn't fit with http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2015/deleveraging-and-recent-trends-in-household-debt-20150406.html Figure1 [8]. Only income fits, but debt in e.g. 2013 is 12.5 trillion on figure 1 and 13.5 trillion in release on March 10, 2016.

37.53.235.112 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13.5 is not household debt. As the title suggests it's "Domestic nonfinancial sectors". Household debt is the sum of mortgage debt and consumer debt, which works out at 12.5. Nonfinancial debt usually includes also borrowing by corporations (except financial corporations), municipal borrowing, etc. No longer a penguin (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the title suggests it's "Domestic nonfinancial sectors".-- I have deleded Total column from D.3 Debt Outstanding by Sector. Second Total column is exactly Households' Home mortgage + Consumer credit - 37.53.235.112 (talk) Wed May 04 08:18:17 UTC 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.238.36.135 (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland GIS website

Most counties in Indiana and Ohio have mounted land records on GIS websites (example), and while the contents vary widely from county to county, most such websites provide the cadastral boundaries, recent sales histories, and minimal details about the buildings on the property — at the minimum.

Is such a thing available in County Antrim, NI? I don't know how to find it, if it exist; with these US counties, <[countyname] [state] gis> normally finds the site, but <"northern ireland" gis antrim> with Google finds almost nothing but ads for "GIS Jobs in County Antrim". Omitting <antrim> found sites like [9] (ROI, but it mentions NI in passing) and [10]. The latter looks useful, but not being familiar with UK state terminology, I'm not sure what to look for; it seems to be meant for mapping census data, not cadastral data. [11], found with <"northern ireland" cadastral antrim>, looked promising, but it's seemingly for a specific class of sites, not all properties. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant government agency is Land and Property Services, part of the Department of Finance and Personnel. Unfortunately, the agency only gets the briefest of mentions in our Land registration article. Tevildo (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Government of Northern Ireland - Land Registry search allows you to look up individual properties, but there doesn't seem to be any sort of overview. Alansplodge (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The dataset you want is Cadastral Parcels NI, and if you want buildings as well, LPS Buildings. Note that Northern Ireland lags behind the rest of the UK in implementing open data, so be careful if you're planning to include this data in a commercial product. Smurrayinchester 08:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, at government level, the constituent countries of the UK are a closer match to a US state than a county is. County Antrim itself is really just the name given to a historical region, and wouldn't be involved in publishing data. The local councils (see County Antrim#Administration) have similar powers to an American county (but not land registration), but would probably not undertake GIS work. That would be the job of a department of the national government – in this case, the Land and Property Services; in England and Wales, the HM Land Registry; and in Scotland, Registers of Scotland. For this reason, if there's something you're looking for, https://data.gov.uk/ is almost always the best place to start. Smurrayinchester 09:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East races

Is the Jewish race genetically different from the Palestinian race or any of the other Arab nations? In other words, where did the Jews originate? --178.103.251.111 (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a Jewish race nor a Palestinian race nor an Arab race. And except for identical siblings, all humans are genetically unique. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's always possible that a question like this is not in good faith, but assuming that it is, that's a thoroughly useless response...try Genetic studies on Jews for starters. And remember that this kind of question frequently (always?) has political motives. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He asked if Jews are genetically different from non-Jews. It's a meaningless question. And the OP has already been blocked twice recently for posting garbage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23andme.com can compare your DNA to the typical DNA of various population groups and say that, for instance you have 25% Ashkenazi, showing Jewish ancestry. Similary they can show Japanese, Native American, North African, British, Iberian, Subsaharan African, South Asian etc. It is misleading to say everyone is genetically distinct, or that everyone is genetically the same. Besides testing SNPs, you can learn your mitochondrial and paternal haplogroups, and they are distinctive for different population groups. Edison (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Population group does not = "race". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Race. Just because race is a construct does not mean it is not real. Gender is a construct too, but it doesn't make there isn't a biological difference between a typical "male" and a typical "female". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. What are the differences, if any, between the Israelites and the rest of the Arab nations? Are they just a different tribe from long ago?--178.103.251.111 (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article titled Genetic studies on Jews? Do you have any specific questions about what that article discusses which could help you in your research? More references we can provide that that article does not? There is a lot of good information there. --Jayron 32 01:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Semitic race for more details. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the second question, they originated from here, just like most of the world. --Lgriot (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2

To what extent does gross private domestic investment determine the rate of growth?

The article on gross private domestic investment says it "is an important component of GDP because it provides an indicator of the future productive capacity of the economy." To what extent does GPDI actually determine the rate of growth?

Please answer at Talk:Economic growth#To what extent does gross private domestic investment determine the rate of growth? thanks. EllenCT (talk)

Limbo (needs more definition)

Hello! I was just reading article about Limbo and i have watched Yu Yu Hakusho series English dubbed about 100 times and in episode 66 there is a not only a mention about Limbo but their explanation about it starting after 4-6 minutes depending the video source to watch. So i don't know about original language nothing but i think it should be added as a "reference" or more precisely maybe (Cultural references) in Limbo article what i was trying to find there but no "luck"? For me that is more natural to associate in this subject just like Matrix movies that contains many sub-levels of "religious and theological reality's" which drives the schemes under all violence's to be more "sexy" :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.81.207 (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! And thanks very much for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia. You are absolutely right that we like to have references. In this case, however, I don't think we can use the manga as a reference for the Limbo article. Because the article is about a theological concept in Christianity, the best references will be theological ones. The manga is a fictional story, and that means the writers may be putting their own spin on the idea of limbo. We've got a page on identifying reliable sources which explains more - but if you find it hard to follow, you can always ask questions at the friendly Teahouse for new contributors. And when you find a reference that fits the reliable sources criterion, the Teahouse volunteers can show you how to add it to the article. Many thanks again, 184.147.128.57 (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could add the mention of limbo in YYH to Limbo#Cultural_references. There's already a mention of Devil May Cry. Lots of our editors like to add things like that to articles. So feel free to be WP:BOLD and add it, I say, while also being willing to follow WP:BRD process if needed. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the thing is i see that at least mention should be there, but this is my first time ever to write anything in Wikipedia and English isn't my native language and i write wrong even my own language and it takes years to type. So my hope is that someone capable adopt the idea and nails it there some day? Or i get wiser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.81.207 (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subnational teams competing at the national level

In many sports tournaments, the Home Nations of the UK have an unusual status - although England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (and dependencies like Gibraltar and the Isle of Man) aren't sovereign nations, they can all enter their own teams in events like the World Cup. Similarly, there's a Faroe Islands national football team, Hong Kong and Macau maintain their own teams in most sports, and Puerto Rico takes part in the Olympics. Are there other examples like this, where subnational teams compete alongside national ones? (I'm not really interested in cases like the Commonwealth Games, Island Games or the Jeux de la Francophonie which put special restrictions on the teams; while it's true that Quebec and New Brunswick send their own team to the French games and Goa sends its own team to the Portuguese games, these are both regions with a minority language not widely spoken in the rest of the country taking part in games specifically meant for that language.) Smurrayinchester 11:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Iroquois Nationals compete as a separate team in the Federation of International Lacrosse. --Jayron 32 11:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's just the sort of thing I was looking for. Smurrayinchester 14:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Canadian Senior Curling Championships, in addition to each Canadian province being represented, Northern Ontario, which has no distinct political status, also has a team. --Xuxl (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Māori sport teams have competed against national teams in various second-tier competitions. jnestorius^(talk) 10:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National sports teams lists some others of the Isle-of-Man/Puerto-Rico type. jnestorius^(talk) 10:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia is interesting: it was expelled from roller hockey by Spain, but still affiliated in sports with no Spanish team: Racquetball, pitch and putt, and korfball. jnestorius^(talk) 12:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great Cleveland Sickout -- are RNC delegates really required to vote?

As I understand it, Donald Trump is expected shortly to gather enough delegates to win the 2016 Republican National Convention. However, many of those delegates, pledged to vote for him on the first ballot only, actually would desert to Ted Cruz at the first opportunity. And the Republicans have a tradition of using whatever means necessary, and not shying away from government shutdowns or other constitutional crises. So...

Some (all?) state ballots came with a vote for "alternate delegate". Are those delegates pledged to anyone? Does anyone know who they're pledged to?

If a delegate fails to show up, is the alternate immediately seated? Can the delegate take over if he shows up later?

If the state sends three delegates and the voters picked one alternate, and all of the regular delegates get stuck in an elevator, does the state get fewer votes in the first ballot? What if the alternates don't show up either?

Is there any real penalty for a delegate to violate his pledge and vote for the wrong guy? Is there any rule that makes that be counted as a vote for the guy he was pledged for anyway?

Is there any real penalty for delegates who intentionally stand outside the convention center eating hot pretzels and handing out Cruz campaign flyers and never bother to go in and vote for Trump on the first ballot?

Wnt (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See instructions above "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Please seek other forums on the internet to discuss wild speculations over who will do what at the RNC. --Jayron 32 13:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: These are all questions about the existing rules and what is possible. I'm sure there must have been delegates who did such things before at some time. Wnt (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the place to have a discussion over possibilities. However, if you want information about the Republican National Convention rules and operations, This looks like a good place to start. --Jayron 32 13:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem with that kind of document is the lack of a link to the Rules Report (or any past or draft Rules Report). And it doesn't actually address these particular questions. I didn't find the actual 2012 rules on a quick search ... must be out there somewhere - finding them would be a start. But even with those rules in hand, interpreting them, understanding the implications requires substantial legal-ish thinking (though it's not truly law, as the rules are not) so I'd been hoping someone would pull out a source that had run through a bunch of these scenarios. Wnt (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If sources do not exist for you to read, there's nothing anyone here can do to help you research the answers to your questions. --Jayron 32 14:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you mustn't have looked very hard. I typed "republican national convention rules 2012" into Google, and This was the first result. FWIW, the often-discussed "Rule 40" is there as well, and probably has some information to help you research the answers to some of your questions. --Jayron 32 18:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... there was a time when I had a better way to work a search engine. The content on the 23rd page of that PDF addresses voting for the wrong person. What I'm not so clear on is what happens if the regular and alternate delegates both come down with the Cleveland Flu. There is also an elaborate contest procedure, which has to begin by June 18, I take it. It would be interesting if there were some expert analysis of this, as it is not easy to read and accurately interpret the entire document. Wnt (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1972 and 1972 Democratic National Convention. In 1972 at the Democratic National Convention, committees ignored a rule against winner-take-all primaries and gave McGovern all the California delegates from their winner-take-all primary even though he had only a small plurality. Then they unseated the Illinois delegation, because it did not have enough women and minorities and seated the unelected Jesse Jackson-William Singer Illinois delegation which was pledged to McGovern, even though McGovern only got 0.3% of the popular vote in the state primary. Perhaps because it would have been futile or would have been detrimental to the party's chances, no one went to court to change the delegate seating nor sought a court ruling to alter the choice of McGovern. Humphrey and Muskie, strong candidates, quit campaigning and dropped out before the convention. So the question is, if a convention flouted or changed their rules out of process in 2016, how could the aggrieved candidate get a court to make it end his way? A convention could for example use a questionable voice vote to change the rule compelling a delegate to vote as pledged, or could allow abstentions/absences from voting which lowered the total on the first ballot below the required number even without the delegate voting for the other candidate. Could and would a federal judge or a local judge issue a timely injunction to seat one set of delegates rather than another, or to record a different vote total than the chair declared or to allow someone to be nominated if the rules required a win in 8 states to be nominated? Would a judge send police, state troopers or federal marshals to march onto the convention floor and impose his rulings, or jail convention officials for contempt of court? It would give to the world the appearance of a coup, perhaps less savory than a cinvention which was rigged and manipulated without a show of force. There was a recent news story showing a voice vote at the last Republican convention, where the chair, Boehner said the Romney side won a voice vote damaging to the Ron Paul side, reading off his prewritten vote announcement from the teleprompter, when the other side had actually been about as loud. The ruling stood. [Here] is a video of the scripted vote count, and the relative number of aye and nay voices can be heard. Edison (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People and places

There was recently a discussion here about places named after people. I know someone whose first name is the same as that of the road in which she lives, while her last name is the same as that of the road on which I used to live. Can anyone top that? 92.23.52.169 (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that we aren't here for idle chit-chat. If there is a reference you are seeking, can you rephrase your question as one we are likely to provide a reference to? The question "Can anyone top that?" is not one that I can find much in the way of reliable sources for you to research from. --Jayron 32 14:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cebuano wiki

How does it come that the Cebuano wiki is the third largest? That is, according to List_of_Wikipedias#Detailed_list. --Llaanngg (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cebuano Wikipedia says a bot built it. --Golbez (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a policy against posting automatically gnerated content? That looks more like spam than anything else. --Llaanngg (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is, I've never seen such a policy. Also, each Wikipedia sets its own policies. Here at English Wikipedia, our rules have no bearing anywhere else. --Jayron 32 17:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In fact the mass bot creation of articles is the main reason Main Page doesn't list all languages above the listed thresholds. For a time, Meta:Wikipedia article depth was used but it appeared some wikipedias started to get a lot of bot updates to articles. The system was then changed to a somewhat adhoc manual check of the length of about 50 random articles. There was no defined criteria at least initially, and I was concerned that we may be unfair, particularly since we weren't checking the existing ones. However I did a few checks of some of the top ones and while I think I found one or perhaps two that didn't belong, the difference was generally fairly stark.

Wikipedia:Volapük Wikipedia was I believe one of the first ones to do a mass bot creation but this they seemed to have mostly stopped now.

www.wikipedia.org also had concerns over how to choose the wikipedias for the globe, eventually they settled on number of visits as the criteria. (But for some reason I never understood initially used Alexa figures rather than finding wikimedia ones.) Those listed below the global are still listed by number of articles regardless of anything else however they list all wikipedias unlike the Main Page section. See also Meta:List of Wikipedias

Nil Einne (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I once tested 50 random Cebuano articles. All 50 were bot-generated stubs. I also examined the page histories. None of them had a single edit by a human. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really change you point, but the page on Microsoft Windows has some human edits: [12]. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I used ceb:Special:Random. With that it will probably take patience to find any sign of humans. They can be found with other methods. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots may be of interest. Warofdreams talk 01:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK Banks issuing MasterCard/Maestro Debit cards

Are there any high street banks that issue MasterCard debit cards? I used to have a Lloyds one attached to a current account, but when I got booted out to TSB, it was replaced by a Visa card. I like to have One visa and one mastercard credit card and one each of debit cards. It means that if one gets lost/damaged/disabled or if the bank in a particular location only accepts one type of card that I stand a chance of getting at some funds. All the main UK banks I've tried seem to be Visa only these days (Nat West, Lloyds, TSB, Halifax, Coop, Post Office, ...) I don't want advice on whether it is a good thing or not, just whether it exists and they have a local building (eg high street bank) I can visit to talk to them. I can't work out what Sainsbury and Tesco do. -- SGBailey (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's some information about Maestro card usage (or the abandonment thereof) in the UK at the Wikipedia article titled Maestro (debit card). --Jayron 32 18:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SO it looks as though the choice is "Yorkshire bank"! Thanks. -- SGBailey (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Bank issue MasterCard debit cards on their current accounts. DuncanHill (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Scotland.--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and death Statistics

How many people are born every second/minute/hour/day/month/year?
How many people die every second/minute/hour/day/month/year?

Apostle (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.worldometers.info shows a lot of real time day and year figures. Akseli9 (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

-- Apostle (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A census taker asks a citizen, "What would you say the birth rate is in your neighborhood?" The citizen answers, "I would say it's one to a person." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Every moment dies a man, Every moment 1 1/16th is born". DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BB & DH:

-- Apostle (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis

Does Atlantis exist or is it a myth because i beileve in Atlantis and i will find it and i will keep looking i will never give upΨΨΨΨΨΨΨΨΨΨΨΨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bk4687 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 20:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Atlantis - the historical data for some misinterpretations is looking pretty good. They might not have had big hoarking space guns, but the Minoans had indoor plumbing, and in those days, that was some pretty heavy-duty magic. (hmmm, on looking, that article doesn't give Santorini nearly as much weight as I'd expected) Wnt (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways it's nostalgia for "the good old days" when things were perfect - like the Garden of Eden, or Camelot, or 1950s America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have answered your own question. You will never give up your search for Atlantis, so no matter what anybody else says, as far as you're concerned it is, or was, a real place. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting that you will never stop searching for something is, by implication, a recognition that you know you will never find it. After all, most people stop searching when they find what they are looking for - they don't keep searching forever. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ocean bottom is pretty well mapped, and there's nothing there that looks like a sunken continent-sized land mass. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that the entirety of the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean floors have been mapped. Not that Atlantis was ever supposed to be in the Indian Ocean, but there are still vast areas of that ocean that are unmapped, which is why Australian hydrographic vessels are still searching for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, and mapping the ocean floor along the way. I believe they're due to wind up their search/mapping exercise at the end of June, but after 2.5 years they will still leave c. 95% of the Indian Ocean unmapped. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how much detail you're looking for. Here's an article from last year on this subject:[13] It's at a scale of 5 kilometers, which is obviously much larger than an airplane. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Bugs and This article notes, the entire ocean floor has been mapped to a resolution so the smallest feature we can see has a scale of about 5 km. An entire missing continent (for which we have no mechanism for explaining how it would suddenly disappear) would be easily findable under those conditions. --Jayron 32 12:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it evolved into the ocean named in its honour. I mean, look for wings on a T-Rex and you'll come away disappointed, but we're reliably informed dinosaurs evolved into birds. Just sayin'. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Front matter

In the front matter of the Penguin Book of Love Poetry exists the following:

"First published by Allen Lane 1973

First published in the United States with the title A Book of Love Poetry by Oxford University Press, New York 1974

Published in Penguin Books 1976

13 15 17 19 20 18 16 14 12"

What might be the meaning of these numbers? 2A02:582:C65:CB00:F4E6:21A5:5B7B:AF57 (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've always understood them to be a form of issue number. You have the 12th reprint of this particular Penguin edition. The lowest number is removed with each reprint. All OR, sadly, for the moment. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go - Printer's key --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!!! 2A02:582:C65:CB00:F4E6:21A5:5B7B:AF57 (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom left - hand corner of the front page of the Daily Telegraph (where the barcode now is) there used to be the letters ABCDEFG, of which one was overprinted with a mark. I took that to indicate the edition number. Looking at my copy of this morning's paper I see that the word FINAL is printed at the top left - hand corner of this page. In the old days, you could tell how stale your copy was by glancing at the STOP PRESS column on this page, but maybe now it's easier to just update the text on the word processor. One other thing I've noticed is either two or three asterisks (**, ***) beside the page number (the front page doesn't have a page number). Can anyone explain their significance? 92.23.52.169 (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the Telegraph, but this book on the Boston Globe states that asterisks also indicate the edition of the newspaper. Warofdreams talk 01:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 3

Judaism and the law

Following on from the ongoing discussion about Jewish use of English I would like to ask about the law. A High Court judge has recently prohibited the ritual circumcision of two Muslim brothers aged 4 and 6 [14], [15]. She said they could not be circumcised until they are old enough to decide for themselves whether they "wish to continue to observe the Muslim faith".

British law already prohibits female genital mutilation, and a certain latitude is allowed in ritual slaughter - for example shechita is permitted because the draining of blood from dead animals is forbidden so it is allowed to simply stun them first. Without this exemption the practice would be illegal.

Jewish boys are ritually circumcised at eight days old. Because of marriage out the London community has shrunk from 410,000 in the last century to about 250,000 now. If a Jewish woman marries out, under the definition of Jewishness her sons will be Jewish. Does this ruling pose any threat to traditional Jewish practices? 92.23.52.169 (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@92.23.52.169: I'm not sure what the "J-----"s were about, but they're really distracting. We want these questions to be accessible for people to answer and read later. I've taken the liberty of converting them to "Jewish" or "Judaism" as seemed appropriate. Hope you don't mind! Wnt (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC) -- Note: I've been informed that some bright bulb came up with an edit filter, and that was what the IP was reduced to to post. I'm OK with using edit filters to flag edits for inspection by people, but I don't want machines ordering our questioners around. Wonderful servant, terrible master etc. Wnt (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to female circumcision is intriguing, but rather misses the OP's point, doesn't it? Get a room - or at least, start a question of your own. Wnt (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To equate male circumcision with female genital mutilation is absurd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FGM is unlawful, circumcision is not. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then what's the issue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both forms of circumcision mutilate the genitals. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Male circumcision doesn't involve chopping off the glans and carving out part of the shaft. Male circumcision also doesn't impair sexuality when done in infancy (and only causes recoverable psychological impairment if done properly in later years), while FGM pretty much renders a normal sex life impossible regardless of age. The comparison is asinine and insulting to both circumcised men and women who've suffered from FGM.

So, I suppose you could say they're the same in the same way than an appendectomy is the same as seppuku. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Not sure now I didn't edit conflict adding the new line. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making a comparison, simply stating a fact that both actions mutilate the human body to one degree or another. If you don't like the reality, tough. I know plenty of people who have been circumcised and have had "issues" into adulthood that require "correction". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say you're not making a comparison while trying to tie the two together, that is pretty much the fundamental definition of making a comparison. Trying to compare the two is used way too often as fodder by Men's rights movement and modern antisemites (not saying you are either, but you are only reinforcing the idea in the heads of any reading this page), it helps no one, it only disgusts those who are actually familiar with circumcision and FGM, and it does a major disservice to anyone who has suffered from or may come to suffer from FGM. That is the reality that you need to deal with. The fact that Jews, Muslims, and many Americans keep having kids rather trumps your anecdotal evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, you need to calm your hysteria a little. Both events damage the body. I am not making any comment beyond that. You are the one making comparisons, you are the one who is attempting to muddy the waters and back-handedly accuse me of things, you are the one who needs to deal with that. You clearly feel very precious about this, I'll leave you to have the last word as you obviously feel the need to vent. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just try to actually know anything about a topic before blabbing off about it, because the only reality to deal with here is your ignorance. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Nothing I have said is incorrect. You are accusing me of lying? You are trying to back-handedly accuse me of being an anti-semite? You think you know how my friends who have botched circumcisions aren't mutilated? You're more deluded than ignorant. Now disappear back to self-righteousness land and stop attempting to lecture, lie and falsely accuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I have to say The Rambling Man seems to be taking a much more measured and reasonable approach to this than Ian.thomson. To deny that circumcision involves the mutilation of the penis seems to me to be to deny obvious reality. To then poison the well by bringing anti-Semitism into it is just low. DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did I not say "not saying you are either" earlier? Who's really muddying the waters here? I'm pointing out a simple fact that the MRAs and antisemites love to bring up the comparison either to draw attention away from FGM (as is the case with the MRAs) or to decry Jews and Muslims (as is the case with antisemites), and that repeating those views only bolsters that thinking in their heads. This is not a private conversation. To call circumcision "damage" and "mutilation" is insulting to the countless Jews, Muslims, Africans, and Americans who clearly have functioning penises, anecdotal evidence be damned. "Damage" and "mutilation" imply impaired function, which is, statistically, not the case. Notice that our article on the topic avoids such language. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, have you stopped hitting your wife? You need to get a grip, and stop accusing me of lying. If I know male individuals who consider that they have been mutilated because of circumcision, it's not your call on whether that's right or not. Who mentioned anything about "statistically" anything being the case? Stop (attempting to) preach, it's not welcome, it's not needed and it's completely vulgar. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you were lying, I was pointing out that you talking to a few people is anecdotal evidence. You can't take what a few friends told you (especially when they could have been influenced by your obvious misconceptions about circumcision) and use that to trump rather obvious scientific proof that circumcision generally doesn't cause problems. You're saying I'm engaged in unwelcome preaching and that I'm being vulgar when you're the one calling significant portions of the world's population damaged in a way that lessens the severity of FGM? Absolutely hypocritical. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, you are lying when you suggest that The Rambling Man was in any way lessening the severity of FGM. Please stop. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing FMG both to "damage" comparable to circumcision is lessening the severity. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone incapable of understanding that there are degrees of damage shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how my entire argument is that FGM is so severe and circumcision so (from a worldwide and scientific perspective) inconsequential that sticking the two in the same box is absolutely atrocious, there's no way one could honestly imply that that's the case with me. Unless, of course, you have decided to muddy the waters and misrepresent my words after just accusing me of misrepresenting The Rambling Man's. Now, if you weren't talking about me, the only other relevant part of this discussion would be TRM's words "Both forms of circumcision mutilate the genitals." A statement which does not actually include "degrees of damage," even if it was meant to be implied. However, I'll grant that TRM is otherwise a reliable editor, and would not make a personal attack by implying that he shouldn't be editing at all just because of this disagreement. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The statement did not need to include "degrees of damage" because a good-faith reader moderately competent in English would understand this to be implied. You ar being highly disingenuous, you have deliberately introduced anti-Semitism in a way that blackens TRM undeservedly. You really need to take a step back from this subject. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained repeatedly, I was warning that the conversation was including material they feed off of, because I trust that TRM is not an antisemite. If I had believed he was (which, for the fiftieth time, I do not and have not believed), there would have been no point in letting him know that that rhetoric feeds them. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting thomson, disgusting. I have taken note of your tactics, and will be making sure you don't make such accusations in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, bullshit thomson. You are lying, tacitly accusing me of being anti-semitic, and you have no idea about my beliefs or thoughts of circumcision, although I note your assumption of bad faith ("obvious misconceptions"). Having part of the body that you were born with removed without a medical reason which can often go wrong is a form of mutilation. Even reliable sources back that up. I have NEVER SAID ANYTHING that lessens the severity of FGM, not at all. I simply stated that male circumcision is a form of mutilation, and can often go wrong. Everything else, like your rampage into anti-semitism, is just your vulgar ignorance. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never said you were being antisemitic, I just warned you that you are feeding any MRAs and antisemites reading this page. There is a very clear difference, which I have spelled out for you before. If you cannot see the difference, you are too emotional to either to understand what I'm saying or else too emotional to take it in good faith. As I have pointed out for you, if circumcision was so harmful, significant portions of the world's population would have a hard time reproducing. That's obviously not the case, and as our article (based on WP:MEDRSes instead of tabloids) will point out, the attitude of most health organizations toward circumcision is an accepting neutrality. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not feeding anyone anything. I'm telling you of my personal experiences with multiple individuals who are mutilated. You have attempted to "spell out" something which actually equates to "preaching your own viewpoint". You are clearly incapable of reading rational English right now. I also hope that you will one day find some time to understand the difference between reliable and unreliable sources. And finally I hope that your or your children never suffer the indignity of having your genitals mutilated without any choice in the matter, particularly if it's done without your or their personal consent. Time for you to stop your vulgar preaching, and to stop your veiled accusations. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one pushing a Eurocentric POV regarding circumcision, citing something that totally fails WP:MEDRS. At no point have I told anyone that they need to get circumcised. What then, puts you in more of a position than any major medical organization to act as though parents have no right to determine what happens to their children's bodies when their children are too young to think, let alone decide anything? You keep turning my plain and upfront statements into veiled accusations, and then you accuse me of assuming bad faith and being unable to read rational English? You keep bringing up your anecdotal evidence (and a source that fails WP:MEDRS), in the face of our well WP:MEDRS-sourced article and the almost countless Africans, Americans, and Muslims who don't appear to have any problems from being circumcised, and you want me to learn about sourcing? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "pushing" anything, much unlike you and your introduction of anti-semitism into the debate. You disgust me, and I will ensure you will not be able to tarnish other editors in the way that you have attempted to tarnish me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How was that "I hope" bit not a smear on circumcision and on parents who decide to circumcise their children? And what part of "I do not think you are an antisemite, but I would like for you to be careful because you are coming a little close to feeding them which you might want to be careful about because, again, I trust that you are not an antisemite" do you not understand? I've been rather clear about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I hope you've stopped beating your wife. You know exactly what you're up to and it's disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my post before you drafted that response? Because it barely actually address only part of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you're smearing me. I see you have form. And you disgust me. And I will not allow you to do that to anyone else. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would start to ask where I did smear you, but the fact that you're making that accusation at all indicates that there's no use talking to you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's got his argument confused with a smear test. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going by a strict dictionary definition, it would really be a stretch to call circumcision "mutilation":[16] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going by a strict dictionary definition, it would be impossible to deny that circumcision is mutilation - see Chambers 20th Century Dictionary - "mutilate - to maim: to remove a material part of: to deform by slitting, boring, or removing a part". DuncanHill (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision doesn't maim the penis, though. To say it deforms it is an aesthetic opinion, not an objective fact. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only those obsessed with their own genitals would consider circumcision to be "mutilation". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Only those unreasonably obsessed with little boys' cocks would want to cut bits of them off". Try that on for size Bugs. DuncanHill (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most backward thing I've read on Wikipedia ever. But not surprising in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And we're acting like Bugs is trying to circumcise people because...? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We were pointing out how ridiculous his comment was, the quotation marks were a clew, obvious to anyone reading in good faith and competence. DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not just vulgar and deceitful but incompetent too. What a disgrace. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't read the whole definition - "to remove a material part of". Or are you saying that no part of the penis is removed in circumcision? That might explain your apparent confusion above. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is contextually tied to the other parts. You wouldn't refer to opening a bottle of soda as "mutilating a bottle of soda," because you're not especially maiming or deforming the packaging. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not contextually tied to the other parts, that is not how Chambers works. It offers three definitions, the second of which unequivocally applies to circumcision. I am sure you are not deliberately misrepresenting what the source says in order to further your agenda, simply that you are unfamiliar with how a major English dictionary works. DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's pretty obvious that the definitions in Chambers are meant to be taken as a whole rather than in parts, otherwise the definitions are woefully incomplete. To break someone's leg would maim them, but not necessarily mutilate them (barring a chunk of bone boring through). To tear off their leg would maim them as well as remove a material part, and so would mutilate them.

Also, if you check the current edition, you'll see that it defines mutilate/mutilation with "Mutilation 1 to cause severe injury to (a person or animal), especially by removing a limb or organ. 2 to damage something severely, especially to alter (eg a text, song, etc) beyond recognition. mutilation noun 1 severe physical injury, usually visible and permanent injury. 2 severe damage." Notice the word "severe" throughout." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, you don't get to lie about how a dictionary works to suit your own purposes. The edition I have lists definitions separated by colons. I was wrong to think you weren't misrepresenting a source, clearly you were and are committed to continuing so to do. DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that Chambers 21st Century is not the current edition of the Chambers 20th Century - rather Chambers Dictionary is the successor to the Chambers 20th Century. The 21st Century is compiled on a different basis, and is generally less scholarly. But you'd need to know something about the subject to know that. DuncanHill (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clitorectomy is severe mutilation. Circumcision is nothing of the sort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you accept that there are degrees of mutilation - hence your use of severe? Or is any mutilation that is not "severe mutilation" not mutilation at all? DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision is not mutilation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you have a citation for that? Because as seen above, I have one which says it is - "to remove a material part of". It is not as severe a mutilation as clitoridectomy to be sure, but a mutilation none the less. DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only those obsessed with their genitals consider the foreskin a "material part". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation for that? DuncanHill (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the users who are the fiercest edit warriors on circumcision articles here, and you'll have your answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without addressing your main point, I should point out that you have slightly mis-represented the news item that you have linked to.

Firstly, the Judge's ruling specifically applies to these two boys only, because the parents are separated, and while their father wants the circumcisions and had applied to the Court to have them ordered, their mother who has their custody does not.

Secondly, the judge did not prohibit the circumcisions, rather she refused to order them, and suggested that they be postponed until the boys were old enough to each make the decision for themselves. A contributing factor to her decision was that while circumcision soon after birth is relatively unhazardous, circumcision at the boys' ages (and still more after puberty) is significantly riskier. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Converts to Judaism (and there are some) are presumably circumcised. I was not aware there was an issue over this. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But they generally don't exactly take converts who are 4 or 6 years old, and they don't require such converts to be ritually circumcised until before their Bar Mitzvah. In fact, if a Jewish boy is circumcised outside of a Brit milah, the rabbi may not count that circumcision and require just a single drop of blood be drawn before they can have a bar mitzvah (why a friend of mine refers to himself as a "lapsed Jew"). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Societal evolution of taboos

OP blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The discussion above, where several posters vigorously defended genital mutilation, inspired a question. Is there any term for the process how something that in any other situation would be considered taboo becomes a cultural norm in a specific country? I was thinking normalisation, but there's probably something more specific I'm guessing? 213.105.166.119 (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to restart an argument that's irrelevant to my question 213.105.166.119 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

No one was defending genital mutilation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating the facts. Please don't start an argument here, that is not the point of the question. EDIT: Actually this is a perfect example of what I mean, where norms have shifted so much that people deny reality when it's in black and white on the same page. Isn't perception powerful? Food for thought! 213.105.166.119 (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you shouldn't have brought it up. According to your definition, trimming one's nails would be "mutilation". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see engaging you in discussion is pointless. 213.105.166.119 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article Norm (social) has some promising leads to help with your research. --Jayron 32 19:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See cultural relativism. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting links both, thank you. Guess there might not be an exact term for what I'm thinking off. 213.105.166.119 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You made an accusation about some editors wrapped in your question. That accusation cannot stand. Remove it, or someone will do it for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asks a reasonable and interesting question, you jump in to start an argument, the OP asks you not to, and your reply is to block them?! For shame Baseball Bugs, for shame! Even by your standards that's outrageous behaviour. I do hope that the OP is appealing their block as we speak, and will report this blatant abuse of power. Fgf10 (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the OP started the argument, by asking a coatrack question wrapped around an attack against other editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a valid question, no attacks whatsoever, and the block was ludicrous. I see the OPS appeal has been denied, even by wiki standards this situation is insane! Fgf10 (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...several posters vigorously defended genital mutilation..." was a total lie. The OP coat-racked that lie with a theoretically legitimate queation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it was a total fact. The fact that people use the euphemism "circumcision" doesn't alter the fact. But since I'm arguing against a Yank, formal action is not going to be undertaken, so I'll just give up, I guess. To the OP, I'm afraid this is how wiki works..... Don't let it put you off! Fgf10 (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision is not mutilation. And coat-racking is not how Wikipedia works. Also, it's not "wiki", it's "Wikipedia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there are people who legitimately view circumcision as a form of genital mutilation (it's the cutting away of sensitive flush, leaves a scar etc)...and it is basically social norms that cause most people to not view it this way (I don't think it's considered at all medically necessary any longer)..but in any event, having the OP blocked makes no sense over a little spat (little spats happen all the time)...you should do the right thing and ask OP be unblocked or at least post to his talk page that you overreacted and the administrator overreacted...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only those who are obsessed with their genitals consider this bit of nothingness to be "mutilation". And the discussion had already been closed, so the OP has only himself to blame because he re-opened it. It is the OP who should apologize. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it either...objectively the question is totally proper by the standards of questions often asked here...and people even answered it substantively...subjectively it could be thought of as a subtle put down of other editors...but even if subjectively viewed this way I don't see how it possibly warrants a ban...I write this as someone who strongly feels I have been improperly banned in the past...I notice the editor appealed the ban but was denied in a kind of superficial way...68.48.241.158 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne may not have seen this [17]. The edit filters coded by the "bright bulb" (nos. 52, 731 and 743) are coded to affect only our unregistered editors. In the spirit of WP:HUMAN can someone disable them? The reason why I have not addressed this request to the person responsible is that (s)he is no longer active. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a few years, after the Nazi troll has moved on to other things, maybe the filters could be disabled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OP may be interested in reading about Stockholm syndrome, or about how people often paradoxically defend their abusers [18]. These relate to the original question of how something that many people see as taboo can become to be seen as normal, and is related to Normalization_(sociology). Other general articles at social mores and see also Dual_inheritance_theory#Cultural_drift. OP may also do well to consider that a great number of WP editors are men in the USA who have had a part of their penis removed during infancy, and it is understandable that some of them have very strong feelings about the matter. Discussions of circumcision and related bodily truncations never go well on the internet, and the previous kerfuffle is just another instance of a long pattern. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the anti-circumcisionists who are the POV-warriors on Wikipedia, and the only abuse involved is abusing the term "mutilation". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bugs that the definition of mutilation and mutilate does not match the reality of male circumcision: "inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on" or "inflict serious damage on" or [19]. But also agree with those who think circumcision unnecessary. --Lgriot (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, mutilation is a loaded term. We call things mutilation when we don't like them, and we don't call it mutilation if we think it's ok. I'm not going to argue about that word and whether it describes male circumcision, I didn't even use that term in my post. It's not helpful. If anyone needs to discuss male circumcision, call it what it is: removal of part of the penis. Lots of people think it's ok to remove part of an infant's penis without the infant's informed consent. This is not the place to express our opinions, but that's not an opinion, it's a simple fact. If anyone wants to discuss what body parts it is acceptable to remove without permission, please take it to an appropriate forum. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The anatomical equivalent to male circumcision for females would probably be Clitoral hood reduction (the clitoral hood being the female equivalent of the male foreskin). Would that procedure be more cruel than male circumcision? My guess is no, as many thoroughly westernized adult women voluntarily have it done on themselves, as our article states. Removing the entire clitoris is anatomically equivalent to cutting off a man's penis. Not sure whether this has anything whatsoever to do with the discussion here. 110.140.193.164 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it exactly right. And whatever the OP thought he was accusing any of us of, I can only say that I am neither opposed to nor especially in favor of circumcision. But I do oppose mutilating the language! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've said something similar before and in re-reading the above comments perhaps this reply is not as on topic as I thought. But IMO a big untouched? issue here is that cruelty and emotive issues, aside female genital mutilation seems to cover things which are obviously called mutilation but seem less significant than male circumcision.

collapsing since less ontopic than I thought Nil Einne (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As our FGM article somewhat makes clear, any form of traditional ritualistic genital modification seems to be considered FGM and highly taboo. Perhaps the most obvious example is the way the American Academy of Pediatrics withdrew their view that "pricking or incising the clitoral skin" was a harmless procedure that might satisfy parents" due to complaints.

To be clear, that isn't the only example. Having read other discussions and commentary, it does seem that generally there's a reluctance of many researchers, advocates etc involved to consider anything classified as FGM as a tolerable cultural practice. And FGM seems to cover any and all ritualistic "harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes". And remember harmful includes "pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization....nicking of the clitoris (symbolic circumcision), burning or scarring the genitals" which are all under type 4 FGM.

Gishiri cutting and angurya cutting seem to be some of the few practices over which there's question. Mostly it seems because they aren't generally ritualistic but more like harmful and pointless traditional medical procedures. (There was some mention of a lack of research on consequences, but it's not clear to me that there's evidence pricking is a particularly consequential procedure presuming there's proper sterilisation.)

Likewise it's interesting that type I FGM covers both clitoridectomy (Ib) and removal of the clitoral hood (Ia), despite the fact this seems to be quite different procedures in terms of severity. To be clear, what evidence there is suggests Ia alone is rare. However it also seems to me this is a typical case where categorisation limitations could easily influence results. Particularly as it's not clear how well the subcategorisations are applied in research. And especially as there's now an increased focus in different communities like those in South East Asia. (This isn't to suggest I have any reason, to think Ia is common anywhere, rather simply that given the way things are now, there is a risk we'll never know.)

And to be abundantly clear, I'm not denying the horrific nature of many common forms of FGM which IMO well and truly deserve the name. The nature of these forms of FGM is likely a big part of the reason why there's so much concern. It may be this legitimate concern (combined perhaps with other factors) which lead this difference in treatment compared to male circumcision even when we're talking about FGM procedures which seem less significant. BTW, while there appears to be a medical advantage to male circumcision, many circumcisions aren't performed for this reason and I think it's unlikely things would be that different if we didn't have those relatively recent results. One additional point is that it's probably true that a number of people comparing FGM to male circumcision generally (rather than specifics), probably don't really know what a lot of FGM entails. Or if they do, aren't helping their case by often including all forms of FGM in their comparison. Note in case there's still confusion, I'm not interested in general idea of whether male circumcision should be called mutilation.

It's possible that part of reason is because these limited FGM procedures alone are truly very rare in area of current focus. And there may be good research which implies pushing the procedures with relatively low harm as a replacement is likely to be less effective in eliminating the highly harmful forms of FGM. And maybe if it's found that relatively low harm procedures are the norm in any communities with new focus (be they in SEA or elsewhere), then things will be handled differently there. I don't know nearly enough to reliably say, but does anyone in this discussion?

BTW, it's true that non-ritualistic cosmetic genital surgery carried out on adults, particularly in the developed world aren't generally counted, regardless of any societal pressures. And even though the admitedly rare cases where the FGM procedures are carried out on adults with some form of consent (albeit often with probably even stronger societal pressures) are still generally seen as harmful FGM. Our article also touches on this to some extent and it's an interesting albeit IMO mostly seperate topic.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Condeming Condemning/Denying permission to make a movie

This is an attempt by the OP to promote his book. No answerable questions here. Move along. Go about your business. Return to your homes.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I’m writing a book, it consist of WP articles. I’m condemning people from making a movie about it (anything that’s got to do with me really), because it’s involved with religious stuff and other stuff. – sanctions will be laid in simple terms of course; as long as they know, that’s all it matters.

What are the chances of people/individual(s) performing satanic deed(s) knowingly?

Note: They are allowed to copy the WP stuff if they are writing a book, but not the story i.e. kept separate...

Apostle (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Copyright and Derivative work. Depending on jurisdiction, if your book is sufficiently original to attract copyright protection (which a set of pasted-together Wikipedia articles may not be - see sweat-of-the-brow), it may very well qualify for protection against unauthorized works derived from it. However, for definitive advice, you will need to consult an appropriate professional. Tevildo (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the OP is difficult to understand...my sense is the post isn't appropriate for the reference desk...but it certainly has me curious...can you clarify what it is you're doing? and what it is you're asking??68.48.241.158 (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make sense out of this. Note that we're not supposed to give legal advice here -- if your book ends up being considered CC-by or whatever, you don't get a refund from anybody here. The only serious question I see here is about the satanic deeds, which you would have to define better. Obviously Satanism is a thing; but sometimes Satanists are driven by a desire for good, and sometimes the truly satanic call themselves Christians, and build a fine church in which to commit their abuses. Wnt (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm confused too. The header is "Condeming to make a movie", which is about forcing people to make a movie, against their will. But in the q, it's "I’m condemning people from making a movie about it", which is not an idiom I've ever encountered, but if I had to guess, I'd say it means the exact opposite, ie. denying permission for people to make a movie, even threatening legal action if they do so. Oddest question I've seen here in many a year. Please suitly emphazi. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP is saying he wishes to write a book based on things written in WP articles... And does not wish any one to make a movie based on that book. Not sure how "satanic deeds" fits into that... Perhaps making a movie is somehow satanic? Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing "satanic deeds" is a bad machine translation of something like "crimes", the crimes in this case being copyright violation. jnestorius^(talk) 10:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that must be it..an odd question made even odder by a poor translation..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1st: Thanks for the summary Tev. I'll definitely go through the formalities; no doubt about it as I never disagreed. Thank you for understanding what I meant. Kind regards.

Now others including 68.48.241.158, Wnt, Jack of Oz, Blueboar:

I didn't seek a legal advice, I should've have wrote "list of possible ways of denying permission", than I could've spoken less about it and only received the references...sorry about my English, and the ways of explaining, yet again...

Yes, you lot are right (in a way) with the word “threat” – Whoever disturbs and distorts my life, I will destroy their afterlife. I will hold my grudge(s) against the people who disturb and distort my life. I will complain to God in the afterlife By the way, I don’t threat, I state. And my statements are clear as water; it’s up to you, if you want to turn it into fire

You cannot fix a broken glass. – A guided one can stop itself from writing a destiny (as past) (can stop itself from doing something), whereas an unguided one will continue to write its destiny (as past), until one day a choice it would have to make, with which it will still fail if it is bad; be it in life, if not, and or as well as in the afterlife (depends completely on the deed(s)).

Yes there are good people, bad people who turn[ed] good, and the bad and the evil people – God knows about them (not me) as he manages and maintains them all. Note: God is not the same for everyone, same goes for the life you live. However, Satan and satanic activities/bad and or evil deeds is for everyone! Therefore, I'm still going to hold my grudge(s) upon thee for afterlife purposes It’s the best I can do

Now, I never worry of the “bad” and the “evil” people, as they always get justified by the Devil in the afterlife. - according to WP article(s) understandings...

I worry for the “good” people and the “bad” people who turn[ed] “good”, because everything depends on their understandings/logic/consciousness, e.g., when they realised… These are the people who are justified by God. - according to WP article(s) understandings...

Of course, I'm not God, the merciful and the forgiver of all, the all-knower and the Justifier of all life and afterlife, living to non-living things, so its between you, me and God. And, if Satan justifies you, than Note: At least a choice is there for the people I repeat, you disturb and distort my life, I'll destroy your afterlife with my grudges

Now again, I wish/want to be responsible for what I do. At the end of the day, its my life-time and I'll have to answer for the life I lived, to God. If I get enough money (which could/would be never), I'll make a movie myself and or with my own team (which could/would be never too). The main reason for this is, when a person does something with/without your permission, for you, on behalf of you (and so on), they sometimes create/make unnecessary problems knowingly, unknowingly, intentionally, unintentionally, overtly, covertly, with/without your knowledge (and so on), because they think its right - what goes against your judgement.

Yes I know, you need people like this in the world because of the word "trust" factor, regardless of whether it is your boss or employee, family, friends, associates and so on – we all associate with each other based on trust, and trusting others benefits (which is always/mostly the case). And bla bla bla bla bla...

But, in my case in my life (i.e. is not yours) I've entrusted people my whole life and they've always back-stabbed me one way or the other; 100% of the time So I trust only God

Also, Satanism might have derived from Christianity, but performing a satanic/bad/evil deed(s) doesn't require a religion, e.g., t_r_o_i_t's of the Muslim world.

Yes, I manipulated you guys so that you guys love me and buy my book; sorry. The book is rubbish so I thought the sock puppetry role is a cunny way My main target were the ladies, cause 70% of the world is filled with women. I wanted them to drool over my fictional character just like they all drool over for Superman. But all the gents are more interested over my fictional character, which is about 30%.

Let me know if you guys want to buy my book! Message me

Apostle (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

Are the remaining Republican Party presidential primaries still held if a nominee already has the required number of delegates?

Let's say that right now -- today -- Donald Trump had already secured the 1,237 delegates needed to be the Republican nominee. Do the remaining states still hold their primaries? And, if so, why would they bother? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they would, in case Trump withdraws, dies, etc., before the convention. StuRat (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The primaries are about a lot more than just the presidency. There are also House and Senate races, and local races as well. For example, in Indiana today, a Republican establishment candidate defeated a Republican tea party candidate for the Senate.[20] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that all makes sense. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "Republican tea party"? Is it something to do with the Boston Tea Party"? 92.23.52.169 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs said "a Republican tea party candidate". See Tea Party movement. There are also primaries if a sitting president is nearly unopposed like Republican Party presidential primaries, 2004 and Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it refers to the Boston Tea Party, although there is no analogous "taxation without representation." Another way I could have said it was "tea party candidate running in the Republican primary", although that's a bit redundant, as they pretty much always run as Republicans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primaries are for alot more than even electing a presidential candidate. One of the purposes not mentioned yet is that the primaries have a main purpose of electing delegates to the party conventions to be held in July, the 2016 Republican National Convention and the 2016 Democratic National Convention. At the conventions, they do a LOT more than simply pick a presidential candidate; the conventions also establish Party platforms and legislative goals, party rules, elect party leaders, and a whole slew of other important business. The delegates selected through the primary process are vital even if the presidential candidate is already a forgone conclusion. --Jayron 32 12:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Henry Dimond

Can someone help me find sources about William Henry Dimond's (1838–1896; could be spelled W. H. Dimond, William H. Dimond, etc) service in the American Civil War. He became a Major-General in later life. There is three William H. Dimond [21] and there is still no direct source that I can find about the service of this specific person in the Civil War. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lengthy newspaper biography here – Dimond was in Hawaii when the war began and offered to bring president Lincoln 100 soldiers – this was turned down for political reasons so he came alone and was made a captain under Major-General Rufus Saxton at Beaufort, South Carolina. He resigned from the army after the war and returned to Honolulu.

Another newspaper biography is reproduced here (I couldn’t find the original), which adds that Lincoln appointed him assistant adjutant-general of United States volunteers as well as captain.

And finally, a footnote in Mark Twain's Notebooks & Journals, Volume I: (1855-1873) says he was a lieutenant in the Hawaiian Cavalry Company when he went to the US (“left the Sandwich Islands on 28 August 1864 to volunteer for service with the Union forces”) and that his captaincy in the U.S. was in the cavalry. 184.147.128.57 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Exemptions from Conscription

In Mulan (pretty much all versions of the story, including the Disney version), the main character's father was conscripted into the army in spite of his physical condition at the time, which, as we all know, led to a rather unorthodox result. I figured that in most modern societies with conscription, this man's physical condition would almost certainly have been more than enough grounds to exempt him from conscription. Thus, was it true that in some ancient societies, physical/mental impairments were not considered sufficient grounds to avoid conscription? 96.246.144.195 (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with such exemptions is that people would try to fake them to get out of serving. And, back then, they wouldn't have much in the way of diagnostic methods to tell who was lying. So, unless it was something obvious, like a missing leg, they would just have to take the person's word for it. Some rulers might have decided it was worth taking in a few unfortunates to prevent anyone from getting out of service. StuRat (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the standards for conscripts tend to go down the more desperate for manpower the military is. In both WWI and WWII, the losing sides wound up conscripting increasingly unfit soldiers as they grew closer to defeat. For instance, the Nazis set up the Volkssturm in late 1944 and started filling it with barely-trained teenagers and middle-aged or older men. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is always a need for Cannon_fodder. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In some societies/cultures who operated Conscription, someone conscripted was allowed to send a substitute (who might be paid by the original conscriptee): the conscriptors were happy so long as they achieved their due quota. See also, more relevantly, the first paragraph under 'Medieval levies' in that linked article, where a family had to provide one conscript, but it didn't matter which individual went: this situation fits the case of Mulan (except for her concealed gender), and versions of the legend say that it applied in her particular (assumed) historical context. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These pages have recorded the names of "highly patriotic" rich powerful and famous Americans who got out of the Vietnam draft as a result of some mysterious medical condition written up by their doctor which never imposed any apparent limitations on their activities previously or subsequently. Edison (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Selective Service System#Classifications for the US, specifically the designation 4F. Loraof (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A medieval topic related to this may be Scutage, which was a fee a holder of a Military tenure that allowed the payee to avoid military service. --Jayron 32 16:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Hua Mulan for the original plot of the story first written down in the 6th century AD; "...one male from each family is called to serve in the army to defend China from invaders. Her father is old and weak and her younger brother is just a child, so she decides to take his place and bids farewell to her parents". Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conscription (linked above) mentions hiring substitutes in the Babylonian empire and a per-family requirement (similar to the system in Hua Mulan) in medieval [somewhere, probably Europe]. It doesn’t discuss any physical qualifications other than age. Another relevant article is Corvée; the French section refers to an able-bodied requirement, and there is a similar reference in Impressment. 184.147.128.57 (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mexico willing to exhange land for Baja California?

Today it is very difficult to buy a country or part of a country. Does anyone know if Mexico willing to exhange an entire small amazonian country (eg. Suriname) for the entire north Baja California or Baja California Sur? 173.34.246.242 (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely can't make any sense of your question. They're sovereign states and nations, they're not really owned "commodities" that someone can trade, not even the government. Vespine (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Territory does get exchanged from time to time - see Category:Treaties involving territorial changes - but nothing on this scale in a long time. Why would Mexico want a non-contiguous plot of land, especially considering the great cost of relocating whoever is living on the land it would have to cede, with all the costly economic and social disruption? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a game show let me win my pick of Suriname or Baja but the offer's good for 3 seconds only I think I'd pick Baja. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) As Vespine has said, your question doesn't make much sense without context. Clarityfiend has already raised the issue of why would Mexico want Suriname. There's also the question of Suriname would want to exchange with Baja California or Baja California Sur. Even if there as advantages to these lands, moving your entire country somewhere else is fairly extreme. If there's a specific reason for it, for example, some North Korean pilots got lost on their way to nuke "Siri mum" and nuked Suriname instead, there's even less reason why Mexico is going to want it. If the US managed to acquire Suriname somehow, they may like to exchange Suriname for Baja California. But again it seems Mexico's motivation is going to be fairly low since besides the factors Clarityfiend mentioned, there's the obvious question of how difficult it will be to keep Suriname depending on how the US acquired it. (This applies to some degree even if it's just the Suriname government. Sure the government may have, but what about the people? Even if there was a referendum and over 75% of people agreed, that's still up to 25% of people plus whoever didn't vote to worry about. And some people may change their minds when it starts to happen anyway.) OTOH, if it's clearly a case of the US indicating "we're taking Baja California whether you like it or not, but you can have Suriname and not get destroyed if you cooperate", perhaps Mexico will have little choice. In other words, without a specific scenario it's impossible to even try answer although the answer is generally going to be fairly unlikely. Note that this is really an RD question even if you had a specific scenario Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question doesn't mention the USA at all. (But then the question is poorly phrased and unclear.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, that's why I first raised the question of why Suriname as it is now would want to relocate to Baja California. Really the most likely scenarios seem to be where Suriname has largely been destroyed so I mentioned the North Korea nuke scenario (admitedly it would take more nukes than North Korea has, and it seems unlikely that many will even make it); or if some other power has somehow already "acquired" Suriname but would prefer something else. For the later case, given the location and current balance of power, the only power that could realisticly be is the US. The US are also perhaps going to be the most interested in acquiring Baja California. This still doesn't settle the unlikelihood of Mexico being interested in such an exchange. And these scenarios are so implausible anyway I guess you could say the OP coming up with an even more implausibe scenario of why there would be interest in such an exchange doesn't mean much. As much as anything, I was trying to explain why the precise scenario matters a lot in deciding whether something is likely. Probably I'm trying to hard to make sense of the OP's weird question but I decided to give the benefit of the doubt they weren't trolling even if their question doesn't seem to be suitable for the RD. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is unanswerable by the rules of this forum, which is to provide references. If you have a question about an actual event which is supposed to happen or proposed to happen, please provide us with a link to it; perhaps we can then find more information for you. However, simply speculating on random ideas is not what we do here. --Jayron 32 12:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Land/population swaps have been posited humorously at least in the early20th century. Will Rogers,said ""I've got a plan that'll stop all wars. When you can't agree with your neighbor you move away. Now that's my plan. Move nations away from each other. Take France and Germany. They can't agree, so take France and trade places with Japan. Let Japan live there by Germany. If those two want to fight, let 'em fight. Who cares. We'd run excursions to a war like that. We don't always agree with Mexico. Well, trade Mexico off for Turkey, harems and all. Now we got men in this country that would get along great with Turkey. And that would solve the Irish problem. Take England and move 'em away from Ireland. Take 'em over to Canada and let 'em live off their son-in-law. When you move England away from Ireland don't you let Ireland know where you're taking 'em, or they'll follow 'em and get 'em." [22] It would be no more strange than transporting the Arcadians from Canada to Louisiana to become Cajuns or other geopolitical/religious population mass transports of the late 20th and early 21st century, wherein masses of people born in Eastern Europe move to a tiny area in the Southern Levant or millions of people born in North Africa migrate to Northern Europe. Edison (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battleships which never saw combat

In the 20th century the cost of armaments, especially battleships was a concern to some. Each major power spent a lot of money in an arms race to build battleships which were faster, with bigger guns and heavier armor. HMS Dreadnought (1906) made obsolete earlier battleships, but apparently never fired a gun in anger as was not fired on (it did once ram and sink an enemy sub, but that was hardly the reason it was built). Is there a list somewhere of 19th and 20th century battleships (including Pre-dreadnought battleships but not destroyers, cruisers, aircraft carriers or earlier sailing "battleships,") which got completed, launched and commissioned but never saw combat? I.E., they were built at extremely high cost as state of the art weapons systems to enhance the prestige of their country, to project power all over the world and to defend the homeland. They may have sailed around showing the flag, and intimidating other countries, but became obsolete and were relegated to secondary roles, or just happened to have been launched during a protracted time of peace for the owner, or suffered a mishap, or were done in by the 1920's arms limitation treaty, then were broken up for scrap or intentionally sunk by the owning country or by their conquerer, or were scuttled to avoid surrender. Edison (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see South American dreadnought race for a good example. --Dr Dima (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the United States Navy battleships, early 1900's Kearsarge and Illinois classes (BB5 -BB9) saw no combat as far as I remember. --Dr Dima (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given your commeng about "hardly the reason it was built", you may want to consider most of the US WW2 battleship fleet. Virtually all were engaged in anti-aircraft combat and shore bombardment, but comparatively few used their main batteries to engage enemy warships -- ostensibly the primary reason they were built, and the role that best set them apart from something like an anti-aircraft cruiser. US battleships that did see surface combat in WW2 include the Iowa, New Jersey, South Dakota, Washington, and the six battleships at Surigao Strait. The WW1-era battleships don't appear to have been generally engaged either (several participated in the late-war blockade of the German fleet, but the major engagements were already past), and so there may be further candidates there. — Lomn 22:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See fleet in being for some justification of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Vanguard (the Royal Navy's last battleship and the last battleship ever to be launched anywhere) never saw combat, but after completing in 1946, cruised around Britain's declining empire. She ended up moored in Portsmouth harbour as an exclusive dinner venue for senior dignitaries including the Queen, before being scrapped in 1960. It was about as useful as a Trident submarine. Alansplodge (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheaper though, especially when the guns are already available. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cruz' last week or so

I'll admit I haven't been paying close attention to Ted Cruz, so I apologize if I'm missing something obvious. But why would he choose a running mate and then just 6 days later pull out of the race? Was choosing a VP candidate a Hail Mary pass of sorts for the Indiana primary? Dismas|^(talk) 20:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes [23] [24] [25] [26]. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 23:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

May 5

What happens if a nominee for U.S. President ...

Let's say that in the Republican Convention, they select Trump as the nominee. After the convention, he dies or gets incapacitated or he decides not to run after all. What happens then? (Same question for Democrats and Hillary Clinton.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, the Electors will vote for a viable and willing candidate. In practice, I don't think it's happened before, but I can't say for certain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the Electors will vote for a viable and willing candidate, what do you mean? They hold another convention? Or some mini-convention? Or they just do some procedural/administrative voting? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The electors" is the term used in the US Constitution for the people more commonly described as the Electoral College. They never meet as a unit. In the situation described, it is reasonable to conjecture that they would take guidance from the party leadership. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it happened in 1872. Grant had effectively won the election handily anyway, but the opposition electors had to vote for someone other than the deceased Greeley, so they did, splitting their votes among several new candidates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have rules in place to handle the untimely death of a nominated candidate before the general election [27]. However, there could be a serious problem if the death occurs very close to the election - based on legal and logistical issues, it may not be possible to change the ballots in every state. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 650: / Line 650: @@
 ::: When you say ''the Electors will vote for a viable and willing candidate'', what do you mean?  They hold another convention?  Or some mini-convention?  Or they just do some procedural/administrative voting?   [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 05:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
+::::"The electors" is the term used in the US Constitution for the people more commonly described as the [[Electoral College (United States)|Electoral College]].  They never meet as a unit.  In the situation described, it is reasonable to conjecture that they would take guidance from the party leadership. --[[Special:Contributions/69.159.61.172|69.159.61.172]] ([[User talk:69.159.61.172|talk]]) 07:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 ::In fact, it happened in [[United States presidential election, 1872|1872]]. Grant had effectively won the election handily anyway, but the opposition electors had to vote for someone other than the deceased Greeley, so they did, splitting their votes among several new candidates. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 04:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)