Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 29

SCOTUS vacancy

Suppose H. Clinton wins the presidency and the Republicans in Congress refuse to approve any nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court (as they've said). Is there any way to fill that position? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

According to this article,[1] the answer is no. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

If the Senate goes into recess, the President could make a recess appointment, but that would expire at the end of the next session of Congress. John M Baker (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This seems to cover such a possibility. It is technically possible; one Supreme Court Justice, William J. Brennan Jr., was a recess appointment. However, he was confirmed by a near unanimous vote once the Senate came back into session. It seems unlikely that ANY Obama or Clinton nominee would enjoy such an easy confirmation. Also, the ability of the Senate to dodge recess appointments by simply refusing to go into recess indefinitely is a likely possibility, so even if technically possible, it may not be practically possible. --Jayron32 13:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but wouldn't the point of a Recess Appointment be to force congress into actually voting on the candidate, at least, to stop them using their current tactic of simply refusing to even give the candidate a hearing? Of course, if they continued their current tactic, the appointment would expire next time congress went into recess, whereby the process could be repeated? Of course, this wouldn't stop them voting down the candidate, but it might force them to actually hold hearings.

Also, according to my previous question at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016_October_15#Hillary_Clinton_and_the_Merrick_Garland_supreme_court_nomination, congress must adjourn, necessarily before noon January 3 (In practice, it will probably do so in December. Why must they adjourn? To allow the new senators to take their places?). So wouldn't this be an opportunity to pounce and make a Recess Appointment? Also, at what other times must congress adjourn? After every Congressional election, right? So they can't simply refuse to go into recess indefinitely, can they? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It may, but as I noted, that's entirely beside the point. The Senate would actually have to call a recess, and as noted in the article I cited, and supported by Supreme Court decisions, the Senate cannot be forced into recess. They can literally hold pro forma sessions indefinitely and never actually have to have a recess. Thus the catch-22 here: The Senate needs 60 votes to break a filibuster, and even though the Democratic Party could possibly get at most 50-52 seats (and thus reach a simple majority), the Republicans can indefinitely block any nominee coming to the floor for a vote. A recess appointment would eliminate the filibuster option, all but requiring the Senate to hold a a vote. However, you can't have a recess appointment without a recess. And the Senate, if it were to retain a Republican majority, never actually has to hold a recess. According to the Supreme Court ruling, a recess must be at least 3 days long to hold a recess appointment. If they adjourn for only a few hours, that doesn't qualify. --Jayron32 15:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said, congress must adjourn in either December or early January, to allow new senators to take their seats. Are you saying that an "adjournment" (one lasting over 3 days) and a "recess" are different things? What will happen in practice when congress takes its late December adjournment? Will they in practice continue to schedule pro forma sessions at which no senators actually turn up? What's happened in the past in these situations (mandated adjournments)? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The Senate only has to adjourn for a few seconds (and thus establish a recess of only a few seconds) in order to allow old members to leave and new members to take their seats. This is according to the article I already cited (which itself cites a recent Supreme Court decision on the matter). I won't quote the article for you in its entirety, because it deals EXACTLY with the scenario you present, so please read it again yourself before asking the question again. It HAS been answered. --Jayron32 16:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for pestering you, I've just read the article (should've done it before posting my reply, my apologies). Just one omission - it talks about what the Senate could do (the scope of its powers to refuse to adjourn), not at all what it will likely actually in fact do. Is there any precedent on this point? What has the Senate done in the past? What's the longest time (months / years, whatever) the senate has ever gone without formally adjourning for at least 3 days? Before you get cranky, the article you linked to says nothing about that. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Will likely actually in fact do is a contradiction in terms. "Will likely" means it hasn't happened. "Actually in fact" means it did happen. If you can't ask a question without introducing ridiculous time paradoxes, I don't really feel anyone should be forced to answer such impossibilities. --Jayron32 23:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

An adjournment is different from a recess. When newly elected Senators are seated, it is a new Senate. Each Senate makes its own rules, by simple majority. Supermajority filibuster rules may or may not be included. So a simple majority after an election is enough to end any stand-off. In fact Senate simple majorities can change the (supermajority, filibuster) rules during a session, rather than beginning one, though that is not usual practice.John Z (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This is speculation, a question rather than an answer, but supposing Clinton wins and the Republicans maintain a majority of the Senate (thus also the power to avoid recesses), what would happen if she simply forced the issue? Write up the same form she'd usually use if the Senate had confirmed an appointment, write that the Senate had its chance to advise and consent but didn't, so she deems the appointment complete? Technically it would be a constitutional crisis, though since Garland would have to recuse anyway and this would doubtless rise to the top of the agenda this would only be nominal. And technically, if you can't guarantee the Supreme Court continues, isn't it already a constitutional crisis, and a more severe one?

Then the court would have to decide; they might hear a motion from her that the 9-justice court has reached the level of being more than tradition and is an actual "compelling government interest" or something, and hence the right of the Senate to play games can be limited. (Maybe) And that if they didn't hold the 9-member court was anything important, then to avoid future shortages she would be appointing enough to bring it up to 12 or 13 if and when she lined up enough senators.

It's hard for me to picture any line of play that would give a confident ruling for the Senate to simply never hear a confirmation, without leaving open the possibility of an out and out FDR style court packing depending on the election. Is there one? Wnt (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary could ask the high court for some advice on what to do. That doesn't mean she would get a satisfactory answer. But it would be worth a try, if it comes to that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

So, it all comes down to what Anthony Kennedy will decide? Count Iblis (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I thought about taking it to the Supreme Court to decide, but what if they are split 4-4? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue won't come to a head until the number of Supreme Court justices drops below the level set by Congress as a quorum, which is six. At that point, the Supreme Court is likely to get involved, rather than just close down, as that would violate the spirit of the separation of powers set out in the Constitution. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

When the Republicans get tired of losing cases due to the 4-4 ties, they might decide to hold some hearings on nominees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a very simple way that "President Hillary" could avoid having a Republican dominated Senate block all her nominees for SCOTUS... all she would have to do is consult with the Republican leadership first... ask for a list of 100 jurists they would find acceptable... and nominate one of the people on that list.

It is sad that in our polarized political environment, everyone focuses on the consent part of "advice and consent" ... and ignores the advice part. asking for (and listening to) advice can resolve many issues. Blueboar (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Given the current political climate it is virtually certain that all 100 names would be hard-line right wingers in the mold of Thomas or Scalia. Hillary knows the Republicans would make political hay out of this -- "see, we gave her a list of 100 names and she didn't consider even one of them!" -- so it's unlikely it will happen. A good idea in principle, but... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Would it be possible for a president to issue an executive order requiring the senate to formally confirm or reject a nomination within $timeframe of a nomination (with or without hearings)? Obviously if so there would need to be some defined thing that happened if the senate failed to do this, the most obvious (to me) being the nominated person being appointed until after the next elections to the senate (at which point the new senate must confirm or reject (with or without hearings) within $timeframe, if they don't they stay appointed until after the following elections, and so on). Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that isn't possible. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thryduulf, on the contrary - congress can overturn an Executive order, but an Executive order cannot boss congress around. To quote from our article:

Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).

The Executive order you propose falls into neither category a far as I can see, and would be quickly either overturned by congress, or struck down by the courts. The power granted to the Executive by the Constitution in this case (appointing Supreme Court judges) explicitly requires the "advice and consent" of the Senate, and no Executive order can order the Senate around, unless there was some legislative provision to give the President that power, which obviously there isn't, and will likely never be. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Is Grumpy Cat really the world's most valuable animal?

Apparently, Grumpy Cat, during her prime popularity years, brought in $50 million a year (I have no idea what the figure is now). Assuming this figure is true (owner Tabatha Bundesen calls it "completely exaggerated", but won't say what the true figure is according to her), does this mean, bizarre as it sounds, that during this time, Grumpy Cat was the world's most valuable animal - worth far more than even the most elite racehorse? It does strike me as bizarre, but would this in fact be the case? And regardless or not as to whether she was the one, which would be the world's most valuable animals, and where would she rank?

I told the staff at Healesville Sanctuary to make sure their critically endangered Orange-bellied parrots were well-guarded - a breeding pair might well be worth a small fortune to a collector. There's a good reason the CITES convention was created, partly as collectors of exotic species were in some cases a significant force in reducing numbers in the wild. But I still can't see them coming anywhere near grumpy cat. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Tapit is worth approximately $30 million per year - see this article. Tevildo (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It would depend on how you define 'value'. According to this (admittedly not entirely reliable source) list of richest animals, there's a dog out there named Gunther who's got a cool $127 million in the bank. Is he as valuable as Grumpy Cat? Tough to say; he doesn't earn anything apart from interest. Some more perspective here, where they attempt to break down where Tardar's money came from, but they don't apply dollar figures to any of it. Matt Deres (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Rin Tin Tin got higher billing than his human co-stars, and was certainly worth millions.

• Adjusted for inflation, Lassie Come Home took about $63 million, suggesting that Pal the dog was worth roughly Grumpy Cat-levels of money. Rin Tin Tin probably was too - although I can't find much solid data that far back, the dog was called "the mortgage lifter" by studios for a reason. Smurrayinchester 09:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

(Using Box Office Mojo's ticket inflation numbers, Lassie Come Home took even more - nearly $135 million - but that's arguably comparing apples with oranges.) Smurrayinchester 09:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating. Particularly as both these dogs had real talents. Grumpy Cat just has her dwarfism to thank - and a bunch of facebook-hooked humans who just adore their memes. Just wondering, are there any current film animals in Hollywood which show elite acting trainability skills and command millions to appear in a film? Koko was something of an elite canine actor, but given that he appeared in a relatively niche film, I doubt he earned much. In any case, he's no longer alive. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Pudsey was at one point worth millions (although not Grumpy Cat-levels), but Pudsey the Dog: The Movie flopped and now he appears in panto. Not sure how accurate this article is, but it suggests Keiko the orca from Free Willy is the only other animal from recent times to command a multi-million fee (and he died in 2003). Smurrayinchester 15:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

(For a slightly different angle, the best-selling film about a real animal is, I think, Hachi: A Dog's Tale, about Hachikō. So you could argue that Hachikō earned the film studio $46 million.) Smurrayinchester 16:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

(OP here - needed to log in due to semi-protection) According to The New Yorker Rin Tin Tin was being paid $2,000 a week by Warner Bros, not adjusted for inflation, and was still considered a bargain, practically single-handedly giving the studio its survival. This is in addition from the income he earned from endorsement deals for dog food and other products. So yes, he definitely provides genuine competition to Grumpy Cat in the "highest earning animals" category. Eliyohub (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Children of unwed mothers in 1830s France

Watching Les Misérables, it struck me: Cosette was born an illegitimate daughter to an unwed mother - a mother who at one point had worked as a prostitute, to boot. Yet Marius Pontmercy does not seem the least bit bothered by this fact when he declares his undying love for her, and eventually marries her.

Now of course, people do fall in love, even with those far lower on the social status ladder than themselves. This is hardly uncommon. But my question is, back in 1830s France, would a young woman with Cosette's background expect to easily find herself a husband? Or would she find herself widely shunned by potential suitors and their parents, on account of her origins? I mean, it was only a few decades ago that even here in the western world, unmarried girls who fell pregnant were hidden away until they gave birth, and practically forced into relinquishing their babies forever at birth. A travesty, but it happened, and on quite a wide scale. So how likely would it be in general in 1830s France for the daughter of an unmarried prostitute to find herself a husband? 110.140.69.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe social class had huge importance here. Being illegit would be a massive burden in the upper classes, but in the lower classes it would be common, so not as big of a deal. In the lower classes, a "common-law marriage" was common, meaning they just shack up and have kids. StuRat (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The popularity of common-law marriage amongst the lower classes - was that due to the cost of marriage (holding a wedding and all that), or was it due to the cost of divorce if things didn't work out between them (No-fault divorce was more than a century away, and divorce was an expensive and torturous process, from what I understand?). What deterred the lower classes from holding proper marriages?

Also, where would students such as Marius themselves fit in the social class hierarchy? Would attending a university convey a degree of social status, as I assume only the upper classes could afford to give their children a university education? (In those days, were the lower classes still illiterate?)

(I do note that regardless of how they fit into the social class structure, they claimed to care deeply about the poor starving masses - the "beggars at your feet" as the musical puts it - , in whose name they launched their revolution, and whom they expected to rise and fight by their side - people most of the upper class probably wouldn't give a damn about, other than perhaps throwing them the occasional coin to quiet their conscience). 110.140.69.137 (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If StuRat's guesses are good enough for you, so be it. However, if you're interested in what scholars or historians have to say, the book The Family on Trial in Revolutionary France by Suzanne Desan seems like it would have some insight (excerpt here). Likewise Poor and Pregnant in Paris: Strategies for Survival in the Nineteenth Century by Rachel Ginnis Fuchs (excerpts here). We also have an article about Women in the French Revolution which has some background. Matt Deres (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the biggest reason for marriage was so your children would legally inherit your estate, and poor people had no estate to pass on. What few possessions they did have could just be divided up by the children without legal intervention. StuRat (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You are all forgetting that the OP's question is firmly placed in post-revolutionary France, where even terms like 'upper class' need to be redefined.

Which you have not. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

As much as revolutionaries like to claim they have wiped out the upper class for all times, it never happens. If they do manage to wipe out the old upper class, they just replace it with a new one. France was no exception. StuRat (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, who managed to prosper under any form of government. StuRat (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you disputing that Les Misérables was set in 19th century Paris? Matt Deres (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, there were definitely both rich and poor people in post-revolutionary France, obviously. Perhaps there might be less formal or official class division, but there were still vast differences in wealth. The musical portrays hordes of beggars and prostitutes (poor harvests and cholera had decimated the poor areas, though the latter did not always spare the rich - Jean Maximilien Lamarque succumbing to it). In any case, no one has answered my question about the students - where did they stand in the pecking order? Was university education generally confined to the rich? Were the students truly passionate about the starving masses? Were the masses of that era generally illiterate, or was there some form of public education? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Prince, of Washington

Who is "Prince, of Washington"? He was a photographer active in Washington, DC during the 1890s.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The 1895 DC city directory (which I'm seeing via a pay site) lists George Prince, photographer, 1015 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, home 1827 R Street Northwest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This is the Library of Congress' collection of his work, if that helps. Tevildo (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

October 30

coastline length for British counties and Canadian provinces and territories

Does anyone know of any reliable sources that give the length of coastlines for individual Canadian provinces/territories and British (or at least English) counties? Finding the length of the coastlines of the country as a whole is trivial, and I found good sources for US states and Australian states/territories but nothing for the UK or Canada. I know about the coastline paradox but I'm not looking for an exact measure, indeed the accuracy doesn't matter too much for my purpose as long as all the counties are measured with approximately the same length meter as each other (and likewise for the Canadian subdivisions, whether that is the same measure as the UK one doesn't matter). Thryduulf (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

For Canada, http://schools.ednet.ns.ca/avrsb/070/tawebb/Oceans11/2CoastalZones/Coastline%20vs%20Shoreline%20stats.doc 06:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but it doesn't look like a reliable source? Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Isn't http://ednet.ns.ca an official site of the government of Nova Scotia? How much more reliable do you want? How about the source given under the table on that doc, "Sebert, L.M., and M. R. Munro. 1972. Dimensions and Areas of Maps of the National Topographic System of Canada. Technical Report 72-1. Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Surveys and Mapping Branch"? Rojomoke (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

See British Columbia Coast, Geography of Ontario, maritime regions of Québec, Geography of Newfoundland and Labrador, Geography of Manitoba, New Bruswick, Nova Scotia coast, Geography of Alberta and Geography of Saskatchewan have no coastline. Can't find PEI or Yukon. This says that the NWT and Nunavut (about 16,000 km) have 21,131 km of coast between them and this says that Nunavut has 104,000 km. The last two indicate that there is obviously a huge difference in how they are measuring coastline. The second may be adding in the islands but the first looks small compared to some of the provinces. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for those. Anything for the UK? Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Have constant length accounting/business/tax years existed? (or months or quarters)

i.e. a 364 day year that starts the same day of the week or one where all months are 30 days. Or the very symmetrical 48 week year with 12 week quarters and 4 week months. Not the International Fixed Calendar formerly used by Kodak, that has leap days. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The ISO week date comes close by alternating a 364-day, 52-week year with an occasional 371-day, 53-week year to bring the calendar back into alignment with the Gregorian Calendar. Similarly, the 4–4–5 calendar uses "months" of a repeating 4-4-5 week pattern, thus has exactly 4 13-week periods per year (and like the ISO calendar, 52 weeks). Like the ISO calendar, it has an occasional 53-week year to avoid getting too far off the common Gregorian calendar. --Jayron32 19:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Ammon Bundy's opinion on Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Has an enterprising reporter asked Bundy or any of his fellow occupiers of Malheur Refuge about their opinion of the protests in North Dakata, and about the arrests that have been made? If so, what did they answer? thanks! 155.97.8.166 (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Here. --Jayron32 23:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Is "the government" developing the pipeline? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bakken pipeline is being developed by Energy Transfer Partners, but has access to Government powers in the form of eminent domain used by the government to seize property to allow ETP to build the pipeline, and government police are being used to disperse protesters. --Jayron32 10:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

October 31

Multi-level political advertising in the US

Having recently moved from Ohio to Virginia's 6th congressional district, I've been surprised to see a new-for-me variation on political signage: the "Trump Pence 2016" signs are familiar, as are the "Hillary Kaine ==>" signs, but a high percentage of the Democratic signs are instead "Hillary Kaine Degner". One can always find unusual signs, many created by the people who own the land where the signs are placed, but these are obviously done by whoever's responsible for creating the Democratic Party signage for this area: I've never before seen ads that advocate both the US House candidate (or anyone else) on the same physical sign as the POTUS/VP candidates, but they're all over the place here. Is this common anywhere else in the USA, or is it merely a local eccentricity here? Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Pretty common, in my own experience (having lived in a few different places); it's just a matter of what signs the congressional or local candidate wants to pay for. It used to be more common, I think, when yard signs and bumper stickers and such were more common, but candidates have figured out that such signs aren't a particularly useful thing to spend money on. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

What are/were some of the least power hungry absolute monarchs?

Especially from less modern times. Did some stay in power till death without being killed by an enemy? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The term you seem to be looking for is benevolent dictatorship - our article lists some examples, but isn't the greatest. See also enlightened absolutism and List of enlightened despots. Matt Deres (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The List of enlightened despots is a horrible article. It does not add anything of value to enlightened absolutism, it has just some dubious opinions, and reddit as a source. Hofhof (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Bear in mind that the papacy has been an absolute monarchy for many centuries of its two-millennium history. I can't speak to which popes were less power-hungry than most (although of course Pope Innocent III wouldn't be one of them), but while there are exceptions such as several who reigned during the Saeculum obscurum, most popes have died in office, in a non-murderous fashion. Aside from martyrs, the last of whom died in the seventh century, the List of murdered popes includes only ten names, and aside from noting the allegations surrounding the 1978 death of John Paul I, the most recent allegedly murdered pope died in 1303. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

There have been absolute monarchs who have (without a revolution forcing their hand) given up powers. Alexander II of Russia might be a good example - he emancipated the serfs, he reconvened the Diet of Finland, and he attempted to create a proper constitution for Russia. At the same time though, he did come down brutally on uprisings in Poland-Lithuania. Alexander II was assassinated in 1881 by the revolutionary socialist group Narodnaya Volya. Smurrayinchester 10:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The history of India affords several examples: Samudragupta, Harsha, Akbar and especially Ashoka, who, according to Buddhist legend, started out very badly but became a benevolent ruler and a unique (or at least very rare) example of a ruler who renounced war as a means of policy. Basemetal 11:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Renouncing war? That's incredible. Even Popes didn't do that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe there is in Rock Edict 13, one of his major edicts, a place where he says something like "Victory by Dharma is the highest victory" (as opposed to military victory). There are other places where he criticizes the desire for (military) glory, etc. And historically there is no doubt that, after the Kalinga war, he never waged war again. You can find the text of all of Ashoka's edicts on the net in numerous places. Also of interest are the WP articles about his edicts among which are Edicts of Ashoka, List of Edicts of Ashoka and others, some of which give summaries of the various edicts. There is also data about his life that comes not from his edicts but from other sources, especially Buddhist writings. Basemetal 12:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• How does one quantify "power hunger" as a numerical value for which we can then rank monarchs? --Jayron32 12:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Jayron32, for modern-day absolute monarchies, Freedom House reports and ratings are a reasonable (though not entirely uncontroversial) source for getting a picture of their relative level of power hunger, particularly when it comes to their rating on "civil liberties" (i.e. non-political rights), or whatever term they use for it. (All absolute monarchies will, by definition, rank extremely poorly on the "political rights" rating). Eliyohub (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Civil servants

In the U.K., do civil servants have employment contracts with the crown? What about executive agencies, police and armed forces? Are their employment contracts with the crown or with the organisation itself? 82.132.187.145 (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, civil servants appear not to have employment contracts - "For historical reasons, servants of the Crown are treated in common law as a separate category of employee and are not regarded as having a “contract of service” in the normal sense. The main difference is that theoretically a Crown servant is dismissible at any time at the will of the Crown. However, various aspects of employment legislation have been extended to “Crown employment,” particularly in the areas of employment protection, trade union rights and discrimination. researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03698/SN03698.pdf Wymspen (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what subtle distinction that document is trying to draw there. I suspect they are talking about "contract" in the sense that emphasises "duration" rather than the sense that emphasises "legal relationship", i.e. "I have a 2 year contract" rather than "This document is your contract of employment" - because the government definitely and frequently uses the word "contract" in the latter sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC

As I understand it from the document, and my own knowledge, the argument seems to go like this:

A contract requires an intent to create legal relations;

However, the Crown is (was) immune from suit - so no meaningful legal relations can be created;

Therefore, Crown employment is not a contract (and even if it was, the Civil Servant could not enforce it).

There is then a later point about whether (since the Crown is no longer immune from suit, and so the above does not apply) the contract is a contract "of service", i.e. an employment contract. (In my area of law, this is often contrasted with a contract "for service" - essentially the difference between an employee and a contractor, but I'm not sure if this applies here.) MChesterMC (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

To the OP's question: as I understand it (but this is more or less hearsay, as a brief Google search didn't turn up anything definitive to confirm this), there is always an "appointing authority" for each civil service position, which is usually the relevant Secretary or Minister of State, or the Prime Minister for very senior roles. The "appointing authority" hires ("appoints") the person on behalf of the Crown. What I'm not sure about is how the appointing authority for each position is determined, I don't know whether this is set down in legislation, or whether the Civil Service Commission or Minister for the Civil Service just makes it up. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I think they do have a written terms of employment and other than very senior roles, appointment is delegated to managers but I'm not sure. 82.132.237.192 (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Dumb question: Who's in charge after a government falls but before the next prime minister?

The old guys? There's no other choice right? If it's so easy to remove a political party from power without replacement that'd be a great time to invade the country if there's really no executives anymore. So why can governments resign? It makes parliaments sound so banana republicy to US ears but of course we had an annual extort minutiae with world recession thing recently so we're even worse. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

There is always at least a caretaker government in power. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

In the UK, the Privy Council has ultimate executive power, and can keep the government operational (through Orders in Council) without a working cabinet. This would only be used in emergencies (such as in time of war) - normally, the functions of each department are just suspended until the new minister is appointed. Tevildo (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

When David Cameron resigned recently, he actually continued to serve as Prime Minister even after announcing his intention: only when the party had appointed a successor did he go to the queen to formally resign, and she then immediately appointed the next person. If the government as a whole fell, the same process would happen: the existing prime minister would continue in a caretaker role either until someone from another party was in a position to form a government, or until there was an election. The convention is that a caretaker in such circumstances just keeps thinks functioning, and would no introduce anything new, or take any major decision except in an emergency. Wymspen (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's difficult to give a general answer encompassing all parliamentary systems, but if we look at the example of the United Kingdom, the executive power can kind of be considered "shared" between Parliament and the monarch, under the fusion of powers. Parliament is formally summoned into being by the Queen-in-Council with a Royal Proclamation (see Dissolution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom). Remember, Parliament has its origin as a body of advisers summoned by the monarch. In extraordinary circumstances where Parliament had been dissolved and it was deemed necessary to call Parliament into session immediately, a proclamation doing so would simply be issued, being considered a legitimate use of the monarch's reserve powers. The monarch formally is the one who appoints Prime Minsters as well, so if the previous Prime Minister was unwilling or unable to serve, the monarch can just pick somebody. The Westminster system is rather more flexible in matters like this due to its reliance on precedent and unwritten conventions, compared to a system like the U.S.'s. Note all the questions on here this year (and every Presidential election year) about various scenarios involving the U.S. Presidential race; there are a number of grey areas in the laws relating to Presidential elections and succession. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The reliance of the Westminster system on such matters also occasionally creates problems, c.f. the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, where the dismissal of the Whitlam government was technically de jure legal, but practically de facto not; that is on paper it was fine, but given how the Australian government had always worked prior to that point, it looked shifty as hell. --Jayron32 13:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

In a Westminster-derived system, conventions can have actual constitutional effect, so something which is against constitutional convention, even if it is technically in compliance with the words of the constitution, can be unconstitutional. The drafters of the constitution were drafting against the background of the unwritten British constitution, and even today Australia's constitution remains part-written and part-unwritten. I support your implication that all we can say is that it looks dodgy, different people have had different interpretations of whether the dismissal was or was not against the established unwritten constitutional principles as they stood in 1975. But if one's view is that it was against those principles, then it's actually illegal, even if those principles aren't written down in the Constitution Act. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's kinda the point of the problem with unwritten laws, isn't it? If you arrest someone for spitting on the sidewalk, and he says "How would I know it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk?" You can't very well say "It's just not how we do things around here..." Due process says that he has the right to have known, before he actually broke the law, what the law was. Otherwise, you're just making it up as they go along. Or more to the point: How was Kerr supposed to have known (that is, where could he read about it) that what he was about to do was against the law? Where would have been told that his actions were not allowed? --Jayron32 17:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the view that Australia's constitution is party written and partly unwritten. There's the written bit (the Constitution of Australia), and then there are various unwritten conventions that place limits on how it is exercised and how the governor-general operates. For example, the convention that the GG, in significant matters, acts only upon prime ministerial advice, is and has only ever been a convention. The High Court of Australia would never deign to hear a case concerning the governor-general acting contrary to prime ministerial advice, as Kerr did in 1975 (viz. his seeking of advice from the Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, contrary to Whitlam's express disapproval). As far as the High Court is concerned, this is not a constitutional matter, as it does not relate to anything written in the Constitution. The HC judges are as aware as anyone else that these conventions are important to the efficient operation of the system; but they are right in their view that the conventions are not part of the law of the land per se. Law is justiciable; lore is not. That is, there's more to the running of a Westminster parliamentary democracy than whatever is in the written constitution. That would be true in any country, not just Australia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@JackofOz: There are two aspects to this. First, whether or not something is justiciable by the High Court is not the correct yardstick to measure whether something is unconstitutional. The UK Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to rule whether an act of Parliament or a Monarch's exercise of a reserved prerogative is unconstitutional, but if the Queen appointed the leader of a minority party in Parliament to be Prime Minister, that would clearly be unconstitutional. The second aspect is that the Australian High Court has incorporated some of the unwritten rules into their jurisprudence. They interpret the constitution - and read implications both structural and verbal into it - in light of the unwritten principles.

@Jayron's question about Kerr, he should have taken legal advice from people who are there to give that kind of advice, in the same way that the King took legal advice in 1914 and the Queen took legal advice recently when faced with a hung parliament. One controversy surrounding 1975 is that Kerr informally consulted Sir Garfield Barwick, and for some reason no formal advice was ever given by the Solicitor General, though it seems that Whitlam might have played a role in stopping this advice being given. Had Kerr successfully obtained this advice and followed it, I think he could have argued more convincingly that he acted within the constitution.

Australia is a common law country, and the common law is used to having things unwritten or partly written. The fact that the Crimes Act does not define what is a "murder" does not stop "murder" from having a clear meaning (but which is capable of evolving and adapting), the written Constitution is supplemented by conventions, which are capable of evolving and adapting, but which are nevertheless part of what defines the constitution. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

PalaceGuard008, I am not an expert on constitutional law, but surely this defines "unconstitutional" quite loosely in the sense of "outside what people are accustomed to accept"? My understanding is that in the UK, the queen can appoint whoever she wants as Prime Minister, from Theresa May to her lady-in-waiting. Sure, doing so would immediately cause a political crisis, since the new Prime Minister would have no ability to participate in the House of Commons and pass laws. But as far as I am aware there is no law obliging her to appoint a specific person as Prime Minister, and I understood that if the political parties in Parliament (for whatever reason) just decided to say "sure, we'll accept that" (let's say that the UK had entered default and the creditors had said that they would only accept a non-political Prime Minister like Mario Monti who would be given a peerage to govern from the House of Lords) then she could do so, no? That would be "unexpected", but not "unconstitutional" in the meaning of the word that (say) Americans are used to. Blythwood (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

See Constitutional conventions of the United Kingdom. The Cabinet Manual determines who can become prime minister - while it doesn't have the power of full-blooded constitutional law, it is a written document that would be violated by the appointment of anyone other than parliament's consented party leader. (For a real world example of the appointment of a constitutionally invalid prime minster, see Alec Douglas-Home. Given a Conservative Party that was torn between leadership candidates, McMillan recommended the queen appoint Douglas-Home, a Lord. He immediately resigned his peerage and stood for election to Commons in the Kinross and West Perthshire by-election, 1963. A fudge, but one that just about worked. No-one liked Douglas-Home, but he didn't cause a constitutional crisis.) Smurrayinchester 09:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Blythwood, Smurrayinchester's example is absolutely a good one. I'm detecting from the discussion above a popular notion of "constitutionality" which is tied to the text of the written part of the constitution. I can see how this would come about in countries (like Australia) where there is a single written Constitution. But it is different from the notion of "constitutionality" in legal theory, which in common law countries is based on a notion of "the constitution" which is wider than the written Constitution (if any). A Mario Monti scenario would only happen in a Westminster democracy if Mr Monti first (or immediately after) ran for parliament and then could show that he commanded the support of a majority of the lower house. The conventions that (i) the Prime Minister must be a member of the Parliament; (ii) the Prime Minister must command confidence in the lower house; and (iii) the Monarch/President/Governor-General cannot themselves maintain a government other than that which commands confidence in the lower house (a principle of responsible government), are all very strong conventions so that there is almost no question that a breach would be unconstitutional, creditors or no creditors - even if these principles are not written down in a statute. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

In Australia at least, there's in practice never a break in executive power. As everyone here probably knows the instant a sovereign departs the next-in-line instantly becomes the monarch, so there is never any break in sovereign power. Formally, executive power is vested in the Governor-General. Even if there is a break in Governors-General (for example, because the previous one has died or is on a boat back to England and the new one has not arrived yet), there is always someone with a dormant commission who instantly steps up to become Administrator of the Commonwealth. So there is never a break in formal executive power.

The Governor-General is required to be "advised" by the Federal Executive Council in many matters. Appointments to the Federal Executive Council is for life, so there is always a pool of Executive Councillors who can make up the numbers if for some reason the entire incumbent cabinet is wiped out.

In practice, there is never even any break in Prime Ministers. If a Prime Minister advises the Governor-General to call an election, that previous Prime Minister stays on in a "caretaker mode" until the new Prime Minister is commissioned. Similarly, if a Prime Minister is overthrown by the party room, that Prime Minister stays on until the new Prime Minister is sworn in. Even if the Prime Minister suddenly dies or goes missing while swimming, the Governor-General will as soon as possible appoint a temporary replacement (usually the deputy), until a new Prime Minister is chosen by a majority of the House. In all of these cases, the caretaker or temporary Prime Minister is meant to keep the country running for as long as it takes to find the new Prime Minister. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Palaceguard008, I want to put something about Blythwood's default scenario. I just want to make it clear that "commanding the confidence of the lower house" and "being the leader of the largest party in the lower house" do not need to be identical. If the UK did fall into default, or some other crisis hit it, it may well be possible that a majority of the lower house accept someone other than the leader of the largest party (or rather, in the UK context, either of the two largest parties) to become prime minister. Something of this sort happened in Israel (admittedly a different political system) back in the Israeli legislative election, 2009. Kadima won the most seats, but Likud had more allies overall in parliament. So Likud got to be the party to form government, even though it itself held one less seat than Kadima. Similarly, if the Liberal Democrats in the UK won enough seats to make them a significant third party, and attempted to drive a hard bargain, they might be able to bargain with their coalition partner for a rotating prime ministership. (Israel has definitely had "rotating prime ministership" deals when the two biggest parties are identical or near-identical in size, and a national crisis strikes which forces them into a Grand Coalition - I think this happened back in the 1960s in the lead-up to the Six-Day War), I don't see why in theory, a similar deal in the UK would be unconstitutional. Peter Slipper got to be speaker in Australia in a Hung Parliament, and whilst it was a clever piece of political gamesmanship, I see nothing unconstitutional about the Gillard government giving him the post, even though he was an independent (precisely why he made a good speaker, enforcing the rules firmly on both sides of the house). I think Blythwood is almost right. The Prime Minister must be a member of parliament, but if for whatever reason, a majority of parliament says "sure, we'll acccept him / her" (meaning they command the confidence of the lower house), which party they come from is irrelevant, isn't it? Couldn't they be an independent, for that matter? It's an unlikely scenario, (barring some sort of crisis) but I don't see anything unconstitutional about it. Do you? Once Alec Douglas-Home became a member of the lower house, how is it unconstitutional to make him prime minister if he enjoys the confidence of the house, regardless of his party affiliation? ugh, the signbot is malfunctioning again 110.140.69.137 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Chinese immigration and other immigrants to the nations

My cousin and I were having an argument about why Chinese barely come to UK and a lot of them come to Canada for immigration. I told him that there was a BBC article, which I think it is gone, that said Chinese people go to Canada and not UK because of land size. He didn't believe it. He said (meaning my cousin) said why not? A lot of South Asians go to UK, a lot of Algerians, Francophonie Africans, Moroccans, Tunisians and Vietnamese come to France, and Arabs come to Libya. My question is that how can I prove him wrong? how can I prove that Indonesians don't go to Netherlands despite being a former colony of Indonesia, Syrians don't go to France despite being a former colony of France; Congolese, Rwandans, and Burundians don't go to Belgium despite being a former colony of that and etc? Donmust90 (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say Indonesians don't go to the Netherlands. Our article Indonesians says there are about 1.8 million Indonesians in the Netherlands, and our article Indo people says there are 431,000 mixed Dutch-Indonesian people in the Netherlands. That's significantly more even than the number of Canadian Chinese.

Most former colonial powers have a lot of immigrants from their colonial empire, although specific patterns of immigration differ depending on the extent of historical cultural interaction between the countries, the colonising country's historical immigration policies, and more recent events post-decolonisation. Nevertheless, colonial history is one factor that helps to explain, for example, why there are more Vietnamese restaurants in Paris' Chinatown than London's. It also helps to explain why the UK's ethnically Chinese population is (or was, until recent decades) dominated by immigrants from Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong and their descendants, rather than those from mainland China. I think you need to rethink your premise if you want to prove your cousin wrong. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See History of Chinese immigration to Canada and History of Chinese immigration to the United Kingdom for background as to how each group came to their respective countries. As far as Syria vs. Algeria in France, part of the issue is that Syria was never part of France. It had a very short history as a League of Nations Mandate (see French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon) and a Mandate is not really a colony; it was always set up as a temporary situation to allow for Syrian self-government once they could be so organized, in response to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the 1920s. On the other hand, Algeria was France from 1848 until 1962. And by that, I don't mean a colony, or a dominion, or a semi-autonomous region; legally, practically, and literally Algeria was as much a part of France as was Provence and Brittany and Normandy were. That's why you find a lot of Algerian people in France; because from 1848-1962, the Algerians were French people. And visa-versa. Until they were driven out in the 1960s, there were also a lot of Metropolitan French who had moved to Algeria as well, see Pied-noir, of whom Albert Camus is perhaps the most famous. --Jayron32 15:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking for 19th C. artist

Looking for poss. 19th C. artist/sculpture Franz Waager and bio. information.Nishnawbe (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I could only find Franz Waager - Figures on a Venetian Bridge. Alansplodge (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Human population 2^33; when will this be true??

This is an interesting question for reasons related to the following problem:

Let's assume that there was just one vampire at any time in history. To stay alive, a vampire must bite one person a week, and then the person being bitten also becomes a vampire. How many vampires would there be after 33 weeks?? This problem is an easy way to show that vampires never did exist. Georgia guy (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Vampires realize they might be hunted if they kill humans so they drink animal blood instead. They realize a population explosion of vampire animals would not be keeping a low profile so they bite animals in north-facing caves at dawn and incinerate the evidence by throwing them into the sunlight. Or they keep livestock for their blood and ensure a secure diet. Since they get the blood with a knife instead of their teeth they don't have to imprison vampire livestock that's much stronger than when it was alive. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

They could also start biting each other. Who's to say that a twice bitten vampire necessarily experiences any inconvenience? Two vampires biting each other in a cave could survive for ever. They could even have fun that way, or at least while away the time. But seriously, the OP's argument is hardly a proof there can be no vampires. It is just a proof that vampire population cannot explode exponentially indefinitely, but that's true for any, er, life form, since any life form needs some resource to stay alive. There is always some limit since on a finite planet resources are limited. With that "proof" you could easily "show" there can be no vampire bats, or lions, or ants, or bacteria. Basemetal 16:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You're ignoring the part of my argument that the people being bitten become vampires after being bitten. Georgia guy (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The biting vampire just has to kill its victim afterwards (using a suitable method for killing vampires, e.g. decapitation, staking, etc), to prevent them rising and becoming competition. Iapetus (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

How does that change anything? Basemetal 16:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This property of vampires is not shared by the animals you're talking about; the animals they bite stay the same species. Georgia guy (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The analogy is not exact in every respect, but that difference does not change the fact that with a limit amount of resource there will always be a check on growth without that being a proof that life form can not exist in the first place. In the vampire model a vampire is "born" when a human is bitten and becomes a vampire. That's no different than any life form being born. The fact that that vampire used to be a human is completely immaterial. From that point on there is no difference in the model between mosquitoes and vampires, or generally any life form that is born and needs resources to survive. The fact that those resources are limited and so that the growth of the life form is checked by the availability of resources does not by itself mean that life form could not exist. If that's not clear how about this: suppose that all the people the original vampire bites are idiots who turn into incompetent vampires who are not able to find anyone to bite and so they die. So the original vampire stays alone. He keeps biting people. He survives. But all the new vampires just die because they are too dumb to find someone to bite. Does that prove that original vampire cannot exist? Btw, I'm not arguing for the existence of vampires. I'm just saying that your argument for their non-existence is not valid. Basemetal 17:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, Vampires would still be subject to the same properties that govern normal population dynamics, specifically resource availability. Not EVERY Vampire will get enough blood to thrive; some will starve to death. There's a classic problem of looking at the gestation period of flies, and then calculating how long it would take for the mass of flies to exceed the mass of the Earth. It's a shockingly short amount of time, and is the sort of reductio ad absurdum argument to show that there is more to population dynamics than simply births. --Jayron32 17:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I got this by reading a Childcraft book called "Mathemagic", the 1989 edition. Does Childcraft lie a lot?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, if that is Childcraft's proof there can be no vampires, then I would return the book and ask for a refund. Basemetal 17:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Replace Vampires with <random life form> In order to exist <random life form> must reproduce. Assuming that <random life form> produces "X" offspring in each <random time period>, then after "Z" time periods there should be X^Z <random life forms>. Since I don't see X^Z <random life forms> all around me, then <random life form> cannot exist. It may be sound math, but it's bullshit logic. --Jayron32 17:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously the Van Helsing cartel needs to maintain strict discipline in its ranks to avoid overharvesting. Each stake brings immediate cash rewards from frightened peasants, but if hunters were allowed to stake vamps indiscriminately, their industry would collapse in months. There are also marketing issues with allowing the number of vamps to grow too large, since there are only a few wealthy burghers with budgets available to pay suitable commissions - meaning that allowing the number of vampires to double would mean receiving only half as much per stake. A solution reconcile these pressures, resembling those favored by fishermen and whalers today, is to set up a nature preserve in Transylvania where the vampires can breed to high numbers; then hunt those who stray into other territories, emphasizing to the wealthy patrons of those realms how rare and dangerous a resource these vampires are in order to command the highest price. But unlike with fishermen, it is possible for the Van Helsings to coordinate with the vampire royalty back in the preserve; they understand that by going off-reservation to bite people in particular cities at particular times (then returning safely to the fold after planting their seed), they can command a certain personal leniency when time comes to cull excessive populations in the reserve. In this way the Van Helsings are always right on the spot to deal with a vampire scourge whenever it appears in a city where they had been only rumors and legends, forestalling any hope for competition without even needing to resort to unpleasantness with a crossbow. Wnt (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting - as our article at vampire does - that the question is nonsensical (the original formulation was once per month) because people bitten by vampires do not automatically become vampires, either according to folklore or standard fictional representations. In the novel, Dracula, Lucy Westenra only becomes a vampire after multiple feedings - and feeding on Dracula's blood. Mina Murray, despite being bitten and also partaking of Dracula's blood, does not do so to the extent that she becomes a vampire (though the novel makes it clear that she is nearly there by the end). Matt Deres (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This actually makes Basemetal's idea so much more plausible and funny. I am now imagining young vampires biting people indiscriminately, making no attempts to cover their tracks, or even do it properly to sire others (since the pop-culture version is quite simplified), and then being surprised when they get staked without contributing to the population! Double sharp (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, given that there is not exactly a sample of "real" vampires to compare against, who's to say that any of the fictional possibilities are any more valid than the others? I'd probably just stick to whatever the OP tells us in his formulation, while recognising that this may not apply to the more classical formulations, not that it actually increases the nonexistent risks at all. Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the modelling takes into account the implications of a vampire biting someone who has silver in the fillings of their teeth or happens to be wearing any silver jewellery at the time of being bitten, or, and this is the most fundamental of all, those who are bitten, don't realise they are now vampires or even those who (like most of the members of my family*) aren't well up on vampire memes and therefore wander out into the sunshine. All of which must surely serve to keep the vampiric community numbers low, almost to the point of being endangered. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC) * I plan to run a short lecture series for my family to ensure they are properly prepared for vampire, zombie, were and other, similar problems as they are dangerously ignorant of the dangers of apocalyptic horror memes. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Here [2] is some slightly more sophisticated modeling of vampire population dynamics. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This question is especially funny to me because, while conversing with Basemetal on my talk page just a few weeks ago, I mentioned the population dynamics of Madoka. Reality is getting too crowded, indeed. (Also, I find it says a lot about ourselves that we haven't actually answered the title question of when the human population could be reasonably expected to reach 8.6 billion.) Double sharp (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Classic lighthouse question

Bald Head Light, the oldest lighthouse in North Carolina

As rare as it is for it to be worth reading, the Refdesk talk page just clued me in on a service called ASK NYPL, which allows people to call in and get answers to questions might like the Wikipedia Refdesk, but by professionals.

One of their classic stumper questions was:^[3]

I am from Wilmington, North Carolina, and my daddy owns the second oldest lighthouse in the country. Where can I sell it?
NP Jan 9, 1961

Now we have easy searches, and Wikipedia, and so I can see that Bald Head Light is "the oldest lighthouse in North Carolina", built in 1817 (replacing a first attempt that suffered erosion in 1794). By a process of logic similar to one of those questions in a riddle book, I suppose it is not the oldest lighthouse in the United States, and if the oldest lighthouse were in North Carolina then this would be the second oldest lighthouse in NC, therefore... this must be the second oldest lighthouse in the United States, unless the caller was saying something false. Our list of lighthouses in the United States list several older lighthouses in New England, though there some have xxxx/yyyy dates that have xxxx older. So I'll assume the question is genuine, but it would be nice to have a source so that we can put in the article that Bald Head Light is, by any definition or twist of logic, the second-oldest in the U.S., if true.

The other question is ... where (or did) they sell the lighthouse? Our article says the lighthouse was decommissioned in 1958 so it seems quite plausible it could have been up for sale in 1961. Can we get a source on how the transfers took place? Was it first auctioned off to the daddy before he went to resell it? It was since put on a register of historic places in 1975 and restored. How much can we figure out? Wnt (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You have jumped to conclusions not supported by the original question. There is nothing to indicate that the lighthouse concerned is in North Carolina, and nor is it absolutely necessary that the country it is in be the USA. Wymspen (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that jumping to the conclusion that it is in the USA is a reasonable jump, as both the question asker and the audience of the question would have been Americans, so "In the country..." is, by context, implicitly the USA, and obviously not any other country. However, your other point is valid: His father may not have owned Bald Head Light, but some other light house. He never mentions Bald Head Light at all. I don't know if the situation was the same in 1961 as it is today, but today this list notes that the oldest lighthouse is Sandy Hook Light. From that article, it seems like today Boston Light is the second oldest in the U.S., and the Wikipedia article confirms this; though both Sandy Hook and Boston are qualified as "working" light houses, and the 1961 question does not specific "working". --Jayron32 18:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems it wouldn't have been Boston Light or any working lighthouse, as This article on the history of Boston Light indicates that in 1932, the Coast Guard nationalized all of the nation's working light houses, presumably by a form of eminent domain. The 1961 claim must have been, at that point, a privately owned non-functioning light house. --Jayron32 18:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This list of unmaintained light houses from 1993 may also be useful. --Jayron32 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Of those, the New Point Comfort lighthouse was from 1806, which seems relevant; the others are more recent. As for the North Carolina assumption, what I actually searched for was a lighthouse in Wilmington, NC, and when I saw that the approach to Wilmington had the oldest lighthouse in NC it seemed like a fair assumption. But no, it's not guaranteed to be right. I also assumed the oldest lighthouse standing now is the same as in 1961, which is even more dubious, come to think of it... Wnt (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Am I being obtuse in thinking that since it's the questioners' daddy that owns the lighthouse, the answer is that the questioner can't sell it at all, as it isn't his? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Archdeacon George Mason

Who was Archdeacon George Mason? He was in Hawaii during the 1860s. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

He was a priest in the Anglican Communion who served under Thomas Nettleship Staley, the first Bishop of Hawaii. Mason features in Staley's memoir Five Years' Church Work in the Kingdom of Hawaii' (1868). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Are there any other later biographical information about him that gives his lifespan, time in Hawaii and what he did there? He helped found St. Alban's College or the modern ʻIolani School.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The best I can find is reference to "George Mason, Priest and Schoolmaster" in the Britisih Columbia Historical Quarterly XV (1951). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR: Much to my surprise and by a lot of luck, I found Britisih Columbia Historical Quarterly for Jan-Apr 1951 which has a detailed biography starting on page 47 and even a photograph on the preceding page. Google eventually led me to the May-July issue, so I tried changing the last digit in the URL from 2 to 1 and bingo! Alansplodge (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Bingo, Alan. When I dug up the mention of the biographical article yesterday, I didn't think it would be quite so dull, but each to their own. The author, historian Andrew Forest Muir, left papers at Rice University [4], where it's possible there's more on Father Mason, as Muir refers to him. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Calling him Father Mason indicates that (like Staley) he was an Anglo-Catholic. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, this article calls him a "Tractarian" which was the term used in those days. I thought it was quite amusing that, fuelled by missionary zeal, he and his family rushed off from Plymouth to Hawaii without paying their unfortunate maid. Alansplodge (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Mason and Staley were about as High Church as possible. The person I'd like to hear about is the governess who went out with the family at the beginning of their adventure. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the return to Catholic ritual within Anglicanism was highly controversial at that time and reading the Muir account above, it seems that the mainstream English Anglicans already in Hawaii ganged-up with the Calvinists to make Staley's life as difficult as possible. Staley didn't help himself by calling his new diocese "The Reformed Catholic Church". I can't help thinking that perhaps Staley was sent to Hawaii so that he would be as far away from England as possible. Alansplodge (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

November 1

President of the Board of Health of the Kingdom of Hawaii

Can someone help me find a list of the President of the Board of Health of the Kingdom of Hawaii? The Board was established in the year 1850.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Not having any luck with a list but Sumário, Adolpho Lutz (pp. 158-159) says that Walter M. Gibson was Minister of Foreign Relations and President of the Board of Health in 1887, and Hanseníase, Adolpho Lutz (p. 369) says that Dr J H Kimball was President of the Board of Health of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1890. Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• worldstatesmen.org has a list from 1850 to 1900. I have no idea how reliable it is. "HAWAII (TER) BOARD OF HEALTH" in Index to the Honolulu Advertiser & Star-Bulletin, 1929-1969 has some potential matches for that period. jnestorius^(talk) 14:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Surplus males and surplus females = population interchange

We have an article on List of countries by sex ratio. As you can see from the chart, some areas, such as India, China, and South Korea, have a high number of surplus males or marriageable age, who will inevitably find themselves without local wives. On the other side of the equation, we have Russia and Eastern Europe, with a significant number of surplus females (although interestingly, the top three countries with excess females in the 15-64 age group are all African). Likewise, many African-American women find it hard to find a husband, as so many young men of their own race are behind bars. In any case, my question is, wouldn't we logically expect to see a population movement between these two areas (those with surplus males, vs those with surplus females, each looking for a partner of the opposite sex)? I do understand that it would be a culture shock for an Indian or Chinese man to marry a girl from Djibouti or Eastern Europe, but given that the alternative may be no partner at all, wouldn't we expect to see at least some of the people in this situation try to find a partner of a different race from a country where the sex ratio is skewed opposite to theirs? Has this happened to any significant extent? And if not, why not? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• There's no official government policy along this way, but there are some organic market-based solutions that have sprung up on their own. See Mail-order bride. You'll notice that many such women come from eastern Europe. Even if not explicitly for marriage, there are many programs to move young women out of countries where there is a surplus of them; in many cases women from these countries make up a significant portion of foreign au pairs for example. --Jayron32 13:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

<edit conflict> This is because human beings are human and not machines. The best reference I can give you is human behaviour but honestly, I think you can probably answer your own question without sources. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Or, because a country with a large surplus of men has a large corps of potential soldiers with no family obligations, maybe this is working as intended. --Golbez (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Soldiers without family have less to die for. --Error (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

They also have fewer/no dependents to discourage them from risking dying. (As a completely OR guess - I suspect that soldiers having a families would be an advantage in a defensive war or allegedly defensive war ("Join up and save your families from the depredations of the Hun!"), while unattached soldiers would be better if you want to launch an aggressive war of conquest or plunder).Iapetus (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Besides Japan foreign marriage with 16 links under References, here's an article published in the New York Times in mid-2002 on Japanese men seeking foreign brides. If you search the web, try including the name of a source you trust to avoid getting "mail-order brides" sites. This topic might also be covered by academic research in the fields of Sociology and Cultural Anthropology.-- Deborahjay (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The imbalances affect poor people most, who can't appear as desirable matches. Hence they can't afford to emigrate. Besides, there is significant male emigration from China and India but I doubt their main reason is getting married. I'd say that, if successful, they bring compatriots to marry to. --Error (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not putting quite as many black males in prison might help balance the ratio in the US? Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I am reminded of hearing an African-American argue that we need to "close the gap between white and black life expectancy", which would be satisfied by making whites die earlier to match blacks. So, using that same logic, another solution to the black gender-inequality would be to jail more black women. StuRat (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the track record for convicted felons becoming desirable as husbands and fathers? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

See History of Australia. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

(ec) @Baseball Bugs: if you don’t convict people then they don’t become convicted felons, which is kind of the point. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 00:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If people don't break the law, they are less likely to become convicted felons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I'm sure Kim Jong-un agrees. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, Kim has never incarcerated anyone into an American prison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

What's that got to do with anything? The point is if people complain about the unjustness of North Korea society because people are locked up for reasons most of the world consider fundamentally wrong, he often has the same excuse. These people wouldn't be locked up if they didn't commit crimes. Practically of course the justice system in North Korea is so unfair that a fair few people haven't even committed the crime they were accused of, or at least there wasn't sufficient evidence to lock them up to a standard any decent society expects. But that is also true of the US to a less degree. Note I chose North Korea, rather than say Nazi Germany for a reason. North Korea does appear to punish whole families which is different from your point (since in these cases someone else has committed the crime) but for various reasons they don't seem to have so much of a level of punishing people for just being, like the Nazis (Jewish people etc) and some others did which again is a point the US does have in their favour. Although it gets complicated. If you stop and frisk a black person just for being black, and some of them respond in way you don't like which you then use to likewise respond in a way you may not have done so if the person wasn't black but which ultimately results in the person being imprisoned, you have to some extent locked the person up just for being black. Nil Einne (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You brought up Kim. But it's apples and oranges. The entire country of North Korea is effectively a prison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not apples and oranges. If your defense of unjust laws, unjust sentences, selective enforcement of the law etc etc is that people should just not commit crimes, then the same could be said for North Korea, or any other country of the ilk. This doesn't mean that the US is anywhere as bad as North Korea. In fact it may be that there is nothing wrong with the system in the US. However you can only know that by actually looking at the laws and how they are enforced. Not by simply saying "don't break the law" which was all you basically said in the response I replied to. Otherwise any horrific regime can equally say "don't break the law". It's true this doesn't apply certain parts of the North Korean law, or that of other brutal regimes i.e. cases where you can't actually not break the law (cases when you are punished for actions of family members, or because of who you are such as being of Jewish descent are obvious ones) but that's about it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Also on point, if you don't write unjust laws, then people cannot break them... --Jayron32 12:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I know Americans probably don’t want to hear this (especially coming from a German – it’s not as if we don’t have problems of our own ...), but your justice system is seriously flawed. Also, the systemic (often but not always racial) discrimination certainly doesn’t help. Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 18:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

What percentage of convicted criminals in America did not actually commit the crimes they were accused of? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably more than enough (although some of them seem to get themselves shot before they can be put before a court of law ...), but that’s not the point, really.

The question is why there are so much more criminals in the US than in any other country, and why a disproportionate number of them seem to be black guys. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 23:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The question wasn't about race. People of all races can be criminals. Like the white guy who was just arrested for ambushing a couple of white cops. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

How can it not be about race when the comment you replied to which started this was "Maybe not putting quite as many black males in prison"? And who ever denies that people of all races can be criminals? The point is that black people in the US are much more likely to be convicted felons in the US. And there's evidence they're more likely to be convicted felons if they are criminals than white people, and more likely to be convicted felons if they aren't criminals (at least of the crime they were accused of). Also, as Jayron32 and I have mentioned, if laws are unjust and make people criminals and convicted felons even if they shouldn't be, this can become about race when for various reasons people of a certain race are much more likely to be affected by these unjust laws. Nil Einne (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

What specific laws are you complaining about? And it's often the case that low-income persons of any race may be more tempted to engage in criminal behavior. But it's still their choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, take the law that says that use of crack cocaine (popular with often-poor blacks) is punished far more harshly than use of powdered cocaine (popular with whites, particularly white celebrities). To put someone in jail for six years (that's the federal sentencing guideline - admittedly, state laws may vary for those prosecuted at the state level, but crack is still often punished far harsher than powdered) merely for using crack cocaine, whilst the white celebrity who snorts powdered cocaine gets a far more lenient sentence (one year maybe?), if, in practice (s)he gets prosecuted at all. Is there not in practice a racist element, and possibly a class element, to this law? The poor black man who uses cocaine is given a crushing sentence, whilst the white celebrity who snorts cocaine is treated with kid gloves. If we started aggressively identifying, prosecuting, and convicting white celebrities who snort cocaine, and sentencing each of them to six years' jail, I think they would finally get a taste of the way poor black drug users are treated. In general, there are issues with a huge number of blacks locked up for long sentences (far longer than any other western democracy) for non-violent crimes such as drug use (not trafficking), though the issue of extreme sentences does admittedly affect whites too. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sex imbalances in the population have often led to creative matrimonial solutions. Bride kidnapping is still surprisingly widespread, for example. Recently a Chinese economist suggested letting men share a wife, i.e. polyandry. Rural Chinese men have turned to foreign, especially Vietnamese, brides. "These years, many single men in rural China have looked for wives in Vietnam, paying a substantial fee to marriage agents. The risk is that it may involve human trafficking or fraud. Yet more people are doing it." [5] (Re a comment above: note that au pairs are meant to return home after a year or so. They may not all do so, of course.) There are historical precedents for organised gender-based emigration/immigration, from the Filles du roi of New France (Quebec) to the many Victorian societies to deal with the "surplus" women of Britain. (Great names: the Colonial Intelligence League, the Female Middle Class Emigration Society, the South African Colonisation Society, the Society for Overseas Settlement of British Women.) [6] Carbon Caryatid (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

(OP here) Error makes an excellent point above that the poor people (being less desirable matches) are the worst affected, and the poor can't afford to emigrate. Possibly the best response to this question of all. The question is how to overcome this problem. Assuming a system could be designed where even the poor have access to quality education (including tertiary education - a big "if"), I could possibly imagine those countries (either government or private enterprise or a public-private partnership) with a surplus of women sponsoring the immigration of Indian men, for example, to work in those fields where the Indians have a surplus of talented workers (e.g. Information Technology and possibly Accounting), and the recipient country (such as many in Eastern Europe) has a skills deficit. Even poor countries need tech and communications systems these days, and this is an area where both the Indians and the South Koreans are strong. Could this work?

Also, if you're a poor Indian man of marriageable age, wouldn't your chances be drastically improved if you and your parents agreed to totally forego a dowry from the girl's family? Or would you still find it difficult? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2

He Shi Bi

So according to Chinese traditional history, the jade disc He Shi Bi was carved into the Heirloom Seal of the Realm. My question is how was a flat jade disk carve into a seal (which is usually depicted as a raised square with a sculpture on top)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Well... according to the article, the disk was carved. Blueboar (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If it lacks the depth for the full sculpture, perhaps something more in the line of a bas relief was done. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's true that the seal is usually depicted as a raised square and the He Shi Bi as a disc, and it seems difficult to imagine how one would have been reworked into the other - but it's not impossible, the disc could have been quite thick or as StuRat points out the seal might have been quite shallow. Perhaps the disc contributed only the imprinting surface (the die), fitted into a separate object that acted as the press or handle. There is also a different theory that it was carved from an entirely unrelated piece of jade. But there are at least three different imprints known from historical records, so it's quite likely that the same seal was not passed down through the dynasties as is claimed. Plus, neither object has been seen for hundreds of years so all the theories are more or less speculation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

What we need here are sourced illustrations or descriptions from ancient literature - I'm not sure how to find these, but arguing from first principles is kind of silly. If you do a search like [7] you can get a sense for what a regular jade bi looks like now and in neolithic times, but that may be misleading. And you can get images for imperial seals made hundreds of years after the first one was lost, which are indeed very thick. I mean, I could speculate that layers of jade from the original object could have been stacked up or so, but not with my mouth, only the other end. Wnt (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

INEGI and Google cooperation

Every Google Maps page contains the copyright attribution "Map data ©20XX Google, INEGI" at the bottom.

1. Where can I read more about this cooperation between INEGI and Google?

2. What's special about Mexico's geographical service that resulted in this unique partnership? As in, what advantage does INEGI have over other geographical services like the British Geological Survey or the U.S. Geological Survey for example? Pizza Margherita (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've just looked at a couple of Google Maps pages, Pizza Margherita, and I get that only if I'm looking at a place in Mexico. If I'm looking at a place in the US or the UK, it says "Map data ©2016 Google" at the bottom: no mention of INEGI. --ColinFine (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It does seem to vary from country to country: I see that China is just labelled "Map data ©20XX" (without the word Google), while Japan has "Map data ©20XX Google ZENRIN." I have looked at a few other countries, but not spotted any other variants - though the INEGI one does appear on maps of Cuba. I imagine that in these cases Google have been unable to find free maps, so have had to pay copyright and acknowledge that. Wymspen (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Slavery

During the transatlantic slave trade, were women also shackled and chained during the middle passage? --Pike-Pilet (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This seems to answer your question directly. --Jayron32 12:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

How much of the Chechen-Ingush ASSR declared independence?

On November 1, 1991, a region declared independence from the Soviet Union as the "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria". However, at the time, "Chechnya" was not a separate republic in the Russian SFSR - it was part of the Chechen-Ingush ASSR. Chechnya was made a separate republic in 1993. So, what specific region declared independence? (Or, to put another way: What were the self-proclaimed borders of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria) Was it the entirety of the Chechen-Ingush ASSR, or was it solely the area that would later become the Republic of Chechnya in 1993? Our article on the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria says it is the "secessionist government of the Chechen Republic," but since said republic did not exist until 1993, what were its claimed borders from 1991 to 1993? --Golbez (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Voting question, United States

Is it true that in strongly republican states, there are fewer polling sites in predominantly African American areas?144.35.45.56 (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This Mother Jones article might be a good place to start. -- ToE 00:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

We have various articles here on Wikipedia detailing the "dirty tricks" which allegedly take place in U.S. elections, and the various means used to frustrate your opponents' supporters' ability to vote. I will say that I believe both sides of the election play this game. Can someone provide some links to the relevant articles? It's probably not strictly about race, per se - as I said, it's about making it difficult or impossible to vote, for those who are likely to vote for your opponent (and blacks tend to vote Democratic more often than not). Groups besides blacks do get attacked with these tactics too. I know we have an article on the subject, but I forgot the title - can anyone provide the OP with a link? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I found it. See Voter suppression in the United States. It's a long article, but it probably best describes the phenomena you're interested in. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there any Asian thinker regarded as an Analytic philosopher? (please see two other related questions below)

European and American analytic philosophers argue that the values and aspirations of the analytic tradition, such as clarity and rigor, are meant to be universal. Some writers even say that analytic philosophy has already taken roots in Asian and African academic societies. But when we study analytic philosophy, we almost never hear about the involvement of any non-western thinker in the development of the tradition. In fact, in most philosophy books or online sources, the term "analytic philosopher" refers almost exclusively to British, American, and other European thinkers. The under-representation, or probably non-inclusion, of Asian thinkers in the 21st century analytic philosophy is a direct blow against the aspiration to make this tradition truly universal.

There is no doubt that analytic philosophy is a western invention. But I find it hard to sustain that up until now, not a single Asian thinker has produced any serious work enough to qualify him or her as an analytic philosopher. One might say that Jaegwon Kim is an exemption. Yes, he has Asian roots, but technically, he grew up and received education in a western country. What I am really interested in are those Asian "analytic" thinkers who grew up and spent most of their lives in their native country.

This brings me to my three questions -

(1) Is there any contemporary Asian thinker regarded as an analytic philosopher?

(2) Am I wrong to think that analytic philosophy was meant to be confined in western, English-speaking countries? And

(3) Is there any movement in contemporary philosophy aimed at making analytic philosophy, or any other western philosophical tradition, truly inclusive and universal?Dpa2019 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a category titled Category:Analytic philosophers. You're free to look through it to see if it helps your research. --Jayron32 01:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed Tsang Lap Chuen there. Also Joseph Raz if you count Israeli's as Asian although a fair amount of his career seems to have been spent outside Israel. Then there's Nayef Al-Rodhan and Anil Gupta (philosopher) who seem to have a similar story to Jaegwon Kim (well I'm not sure where either grew up or in the case of Gupta even where he was born). Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

November 3

Military medicine in ancient warfare?

How were injured soldiers treated in ancient times? There was no antiseptic, no antibiotic. How were woulds from spear, arrow, swords were treated? Were there MEDIVAC in ancient battlefields? What was the chance of survival of wounded soldiers? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Some information for the Medieval era at Wounds and Wound Repair in Medieval Culture, Ground Warfare: An International Encyclopedia, Volume 1 by Stanley Sandler (p. 559) and Medicine in the Crusades: Warfare, Wounds and the Medieval Surgeon by Piers D. Mitchell.

For the ancient world, try Man and Wound in the Ancient World: A History of Military Medicine from Sumer to the Fall of Constantinople by Richard A. Gabriel, and The Healing Hand: Man and Wound in the Ancient World by Guido Majno.

Alansplodge (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

There were ways to sterilize surgical instruments then, such as amputation saws, if they had known of the importance. Fire would work, and alcohol would, too, if they could manage to distill it to a high enough purity. Urine is usually sterile, too. Medical leeches could also help, if used properly, to pull stagnant, infected blood from an area and restore circulation. Trepanning could remove pressure from the brain, but the risk of infection was a major problem. As for chances of survival, they would be much higher of the wound was to a limb, which could then be amputated if it became infected. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• The question was about what they did do, not what you imagine they might have done if they had known it would work. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

We also have the article battlefield medicine that has a timeline of medical procedures used in battle but it is perilously short on sources and doesn't have any mention of medicine prior to the 1400s. Sterilization wasn't really implemented until the mid-1800s, when the study microbiology really started to take off. Joseph Lister is considered the father of modern surgery for introducing it in to common use. Which is well after what the OP was looking for. uhhlive (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Ignaz Semmelweis was the first doctor to bother to wash his hands between patients in 1847 - nobody else listened and they locked him up in an asylum where he was beaten to death by the guards. Alansplodge (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

How do primary schools get a fresh batch of kids every year?

Is there ever a moment where the neighborhood population ages, with no new population growth? Do primary schools have to recruit students from other districts or just shut down? Do local governments re-distribute people to the local school districts to make sure that all the schools are filled up with a fresh supply of students, even at the cost of providing school buses that may have to travel longer distances? Do people make sure that one school is not overloaded with students at the expense of other local public schools? Finally, how do the children of undocumented immigrants attend school, or is school registration too risky for these children because they may not have a US birth certificate, passport, social security number, or valid government-issued ID? My questions are all interconnected, dealing with the logistics of student assignment to local public schools in the USA. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

(US) A lot of shuffling around is done within school districts and between them. Some examples:

1) Age change. My high school changed from 9th grade-12th to 10th grade-12th, to distribute the 9th grade to the middle schools, to deal with overpopulation at the high school.

2) Reassigning students. They can be moved to another school in the same district, or the district boundaries can be redrawn to move students from an overpopulated district to an underpopulated adjacent district.

3) Changing use of schools. In my district the same building was alternately used as a high school, middle school, and elementary school, depending on the demand at the time.

4) Trailers can be used for quick extra capacity on a temporary basis. I had one class in one.

5) Merging districts. Merge an underpopulated district with an overpopulated one to solve both problems.

6) Extended school year (this links to something about special needs students, not what I meant). This spreads the kids out over more days, so fewer are in school at any time, to get more use out of the building and staff. For example, if you can divide the students into 4 tracks, and only 3 of the 4 are in school at any one time, you can fit 1600 students in a school with capacity for only 1200 at a time. However, the down side is that students must go to school during summer and can be separated from their friends, if on different tracks. One variation on this puts students in class, but outside the school building, for example in a camp, for part of the year. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

(US) Regarding financing, schools generally get a stipend per student, so if they take on more students they get more money from the district or state to pay for them. StuRat (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

(US) As for undocumented immigrants (or their children) attending school, some more liberal areas will have a policy that info used for registering students will not be passed on to authorities, in order to encourage everyone to enroll in school. It comes down to which is considered more important, deporting illegal aliens or educating children. StuRat (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that the law of large numbers ensures that the number of new students each year will be approximately the same, unless some fundamental change has occurred, like if the major employer in the region has shut it's doors and people started to move away. One new potential issue is the Zika virus, which may cause people in infected areas to put off having children, reducing school age populations in a few years, and then increasing it later, if the disease is cured. StuRat (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• In Malcolm Gladwell's book David and Goliath he devotes a chapter to the issue of dying school districts and plummeting enrollment in Connecticut. I recommend reading it for a pretty good analysis of it; but yes, there are towns where aging population coupled with fleeing industry leads to lower enrollment in elementary schools, to the point where the schools drop below a threshold that is sustainable. In other districts, there is massive growth. the Wake County Public School System, where I live for example, adds about 1000 new students every year; that means that if they had 150,000 total students this year, there would be 151,000 students next year, and so on. That kind of growth necessitates a new elementary school almost every year. In other districts with stable populations, you'd have roughly the same number of students graduating as coming in to first grade, and the entire system stays in equilibrium. And yes, the situation is VERY complex, as you note. Immigration, mobility, fecundity, etc. all play a role. --Jayron32 16:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Add state funding to the mix as well. In PA there are fights over funding because with a proposed new formula, dying school districts will lose money. Right now some districts have huge surpluses of money and offer great services to students since there's lots more money to go around. School districts can also merge to combat shrinking numbers and also utilize online schooling. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Rogiet is a small village in South Wales, with a new school. From the 1960s though, the village kept its old school, in an increasingly outdated building. The reason was an unusual connection between the local railway engine shed, desirable tied housing for railway workers and the withdrawal of steam trains in the UK. Railwaymen who retired could keep their houses, those who changed jobs would have to move. When the steam shed closed, those who changed job to the expanding steelworks nearby tended to move to the adjoining villages and those who stayed behind were increasingly of retirement age. There were thus few children in the village, even though the population was otherwise growing slowly. This demographic blip took decades to work through. Only when new housing started to develop, doubling the size of the village, did it become apparent that a new school was needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

To bring up another country, Japan is having huge problems with rural areas emptying as the country's population declines, leading, among other things, to schools closing because there aren't enough kids in the area to justify keeping them open. Here's a Guardian article on the topic. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Voting age for 1975 UK Referendum

I've had a look at our article but can't find any mention. At what age were people entitled to vote in the 1975 Referendum on whether the UK should stay in the EU?--TammyMoet (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

From our article: Timeline_of_young_people's_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom, I can see this:

1970 United Kingdom

Having concluded that the historical causes for fixing 21 years as the age of majority were no longer relevant to contemporary society, the Latey Committee's recommendation was accepted, that the Age of majority, includingvoting age, should be reduced to 18 years.

So I must assume that in 1975, the voting age was 18 for all types of votes. --Lgriot (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The UK age of majority, and therefore also the age at which you could vote, was reduced from 21 to 18 on January 1st 1970. That was therefore the date on which I came of age - being then between 18 and 21. Wymspen (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I remember that I was too young to vote in 1975, being 16 years old. Can't find a reference online, but that probably confirms that no special arrangements were made. Alansplodge (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Which US metro area's white people are the most diverse?

(I guess this question's kind of like "who's the shortest NBA player"). If it's unfit for the reference desk due to fuzziness then I'll pick the arbitrary proxies "most countries 'about half' the commonest or more" (say 45+% the most common descent) or "most countries over 5%". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you mean by "diverse". Irish vs. Norwegian, for example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Self-determination in part of an occupied territory

Ugh, as much as I understand the need to semiprotect the refdesk it makes me feel like I'm missing out on potential answers. So If you have a view on this question but no auto-confirmed account, please do post your reply on the talk page, and ask for it to be posted here.

I don't think this is an entirely hypothetical question. Israel annexed East Jerusalem under the Jerusalem Law. The U.N. responded with United Nations Security Council Resolution 478.

Now here's the question: Let's assume Israel held a referendum amongst the residents of East Jerusalem alone. Let's assume a majority of them voted to remain part of Israel, rather than join Palestine (not at all fanciful, by the way!). Would Israel then be allowed to annex the area, claiming that doing so was in accordance with the democratically expressed wishes of the residents, and thus respected their right to self-determination?

Of course, the tough question here would be defining who is a legitimate "resident of East Jerusalem". But assuming that this question could be resolved, could this be legal? The West Bank has no competing Sovereign power - it's simply (according to the U.N. at least) subject to Self-determination of its residents. My understanding is that if Israel were to hold a free and fair referendum throughout the West Bank on the West Bank becoming part of Israel, and the residents voted "yes", Israel could annex the West Bank legally. Of course, this is unlikely to happen, not so much because the Palestinians would vote no (bizarre as it may sound to some, I could see them possibly accepting the deal), but because doing such a thing would mean enfranchising the West Bank's Palestinian residents (giving them citizenship and the right to vote), frustrating Israel's goals of remaining "both Jewish and democratic". But in theory, it would be legal, as it respects self-determination. So if the residents of part of the territory (in this case, East Jerusalem) vote to join Israel, may the area be legally annexed? Has this question ever been explored?

It should be noted that at one point Israel actively encouraged Arab residents of East Jerusalem to exercise their right to take up Israeli citizenship, with the view that doing so would strengthen Israel's claims to the area. Not sure what the policy is now.

I note that the Serbs of Croatia tried something similar (declaring Serbian majority areas not part of the newly independent Croatia) without success upon Croatia's independence, and in Bosnia, with some success. But I have no idea if either case reflected International law, as opposed to status quo acceptable of the outcome of gruesome battles. Eliyohub (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Recognition of referendums seems to be very much done on a case-by-case basis - see United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories#Referenda. Palestine is not technically eligible to be declared a Non-Self-Governing Territory, since the UN declarations that created the list only named a few European/former-British countries as colonizing powers, but there is certainly precedent for the UN declaring a sovereignty referendum illegitimate because it was organized by an occupying power (eg. the Crimean status referendum, 2014) or because the majority of the population were settlers (Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 1967). I don't think there's a single law that would definitely make the referendum legal or illegal - rather the interpretation of any law would depend on the votes of the Security Council (which would deadlock) and the General Assembly (which would likely lean more towards Palestine than Israel). Smurrayinchester 09:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement in the Vedas about people living a hundred years

Is the statement in the Vedas that "Man lives a hundred years and has a hundred powers" the truth about how long people lived during that time? Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No, the whole thing about man living a hundred years back then was merely wishful thinking. The hundred powers thing gives it away. "Man lives a hundred years and has a hundred powers" was something Hindus recited if they wanted long life. If man lived a hundred years back then, there would be no reason for Hindus to wish to live for "a hundred autumns". The statement in the Bible that "The days of our years are threescore and ten.", on the other hand, was not wishful thinking, but was a fact, and THAT was how long people lived since the beginning of time. VRtrooper (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Life expectancy has more details. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)