Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 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)

• The OP stated "There was no antiseptic". This wasn't technically correct, so needed clarification. They had antiseptics, but just didn't know how to use them properly. StuRat (talk) 01:18, 5 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)

Although the medical profession originally scoffed at Ignaz Semmelweis's ideas on hygiene they were not the reason why he was locked up and killed. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 13:03, 8 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)

Related, see Wink-Loving Independent School District, plus search for "pupils" at Mentone,_Texas#History. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 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)

Thanks all, I remember (like Alansplodge) being just too young to vote but couldn't remember by how much! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

November 4

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)

I found Scranton-Wilkes Barre, PA who's white people are over 21.59% Irish, 19.7% Polish, 19.23% Italian, 19.04% German, 6.67% English, 4.97% Welsh, 4.39% American etc. (over cause this is out of the general population and clicking the links shows higher numbers for the same census meaning the 9.27% who didn't tell were counted as a group of their own). The top 4 countries of origin are within about a power of 2 of each other (this would be impossible in an undiverse area like Fond-du-Lac, Wisconsin where c.70% of white people are German by first ancestry). And 6 or 7 countries are 5%+ out of a maximum possible 20. Can anyone beat that? It's white people might be diverse because it's one of the closest metro areas to Ellis Island but inland enough to be in Appalachia and the German Belt. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to get good information, since many white Americans list their national "ethnicity" as "American". Indeed, as you can see at American ethnicity, there are at least 4 U.S. states where "American" is the most common ethnicity by self-identity. This discusses the issue as well, and notes the top ethnicites for Americans. --Jayron32 13:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

So I'll consider American an ethnicity just like English, Italian etc. to make the question answerable. The Census also separates French Canadian Americans from French Americans but I'll call both French and I'll call both Scottish and Scots-Irish Scottish even though not every Ulster Scot was Scottish. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

As a "French Canadian American" myself whose first documented ancestors moved to North America before the United States existed, that's probably not a great plan. French and French Canadian are as distinct as Spanish and Mexican are... --Jayron32 03:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that. Very well, the Census knows more than me then. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

They told me when I worked in Queens that it was the most ethnically-diverse county in the U.S., but according to this article from The Atlantic (with cool map!) that Queens is only third, after 2 census areas in the Aleutians. Catrionak (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I've heard that before about Queens. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:38, 7 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)

Just saying, Crimea is a bad example, as it was part of another sovereign state, which the West Bank is not. Self-determination is a much murkier concept when it comes to tearing territory off existing states. My understanding is that U.N. resolutions regarding the Palestinians clearly and explicitly refer to their right to self-determination. So wouldn't this clearly infer a right to join Israel, if the democratic process expressing that choice was acknowledged as free and fair, and settlers were excuded from the vote? Anyway, my question is more about whether the West Bank has some sort of right to "territorial integrity" per se, or can this self-determination be decided by the residents area by area? In South Sudan, I believe they did allow individual districts along the border to decide which country they wanted to be part of. Could the same apply in the West Bank? Eliyohub (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem in general with binding referenda like this is tyranny of the majority, the notion that one group of people is allowed to violate the civil and human rights of a different group of people that share a territory with them merely because they have a numerical advantage. Oppression enshrined in a vote is still oppression, and it doesn't become right because it was agreed to by more people than those that opposed it. --Jayron32 11:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Whilst "tyranny of the majority" is a problem in democracies, I rather fail to see how it applies to this specific case any more than any democratic initiative. "Tyranny of the majority" usually occurs where the majority and the minority are distinct groups e.g. different tribes, or white Americans' at times shameful treatment of blacks, even after blacks got voting rights. Here, I think all Palestinians are "in the same boat" regarding their practical situation vis a vis Israel. I don't see any civil or human rights being violated any more than the situation where a majority of Scots decided to stick with the UK. Did those who wanted out have their civil and human rights violated? And if yes, in all fairness, what approach should the UK have taken? Kicked out Scotland, against the wishes of the majority of Scots? As I said, if Israel were to annex the West Bank with the majority consent of its residents, it would need to give ALL residents full Israeli citizenship and voting rights, end military law and have all justice administered under its civilian justice system, and treat the residents as equal citizens, so where's the oppression? Are Northern Irish Republicans who opposed the good Friday agreement also victims of oppression? Where does your reasoning end?

The California referendum system HAS produced some politically popular but crooked (from a human rights perspective) laws. But how does that apply to this particular proposition? Besides, I'd like no to stray TOO far from the question as to whether the self-determination can be applied part by part, giving residents of East Jerusalem a separate choice. Eliyohub (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Binding referenda do not guarantee tyranny of the majority. But it allows it. You seem to be implying that "tyranny of the majority" does not exist as a concept because there are sometimes votes where no one gets oppressed. I'm not sure I follow you. Clearly, one can have a just society, where votes do not produce human rights violations. But that doesn't mean that every society that votes is always just. --Jayron32 17:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

OP, not sure whether you are aware of this, but (according to the current state of international law) self determination is a right enjoyed by a "people". The line between what is a "people" and what is not is not clear, but to be general about it to be a "people" the population in question needs to be the population of a "country" that is capable of being recognised as such in international law. There are some cases where an argument could be made clearly one way rather than another, for example Taiwan, which is clearly functioning as if it were a country in most respects, and there are many borderline case where arguments could be made both ways, but I think to argue that the residents of half a city satisfies the definition of a "people" would be quite a stretch.

There is a separate question of who is there to "allow" or "disallow" such a move by Israel, but if the question is asked against the framework of established international law, then no it probably would not be "allowed". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where you get the notion that Self-determination requires a sovereign country or equivalent (that is either an internationally recognized one, or one that operates as such, like Taiwan). Self-determination#Defining_.22peoples.22 states, with reference, (bold mine): " Present international law does not recognize ethnic and other minorities as separate peoples, with the notable exception of cases in which such groups are systematically disenfranchised by the government of the state they live in." If a people group is "disenfranchised by the government of the state they live in", either de jure (through laws specifically banning them from full participation), or de facto (such as laws which, through selective enforcement, act to disenfranchise them even if the wording of said laws appears neutral, or through the governments systematic refusal to enforce laws designed to protect such people groups) then those people are being denied their representation and thus have the rights to self-determination violated. --Jayron32 19:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Jayron32, you put far too much stock in random words in a Wikipedia article. Like in several previous instances, the important distinction is between the accepted, mainstream, orthodox discourse, and other competing theories. I appreciate that, unfortunately, without a degree of familiarity with the subject it's not always easy to distinguish between the two relying on Wikipedia. But the inhabitants of half a city are not going to be a "people" under any widely accepted interpretation of international law as it stands, no matter how oppressed they are. If that article implies that they would be, then it's either pushing some very minority view or it's badly phrased. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that my job here is not to provide my opinion on the matter, only to provide references to other people looking to do their research. I was merely providing information from the Wikipedia article. I have no opinion on the matter. If it is important for you to be correct, you can be, because being "correct" (beyond providing sources) is not a goal of mine. If the you have sources that disagree with what I have provided, feel free to give those. --Jayron32 17:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Indian reservations in the United States, maybe? 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The answer of the OP's question is almost certainly not, nobody would recognize the annexation as legal- for roughly the same reason that people, states and organizations would be OK with a referendum that voted to make the whole of the occupied territories join Israel. First, Background: Israel did not follow its earlier practice of now generally-recognized annexations in the "annexation" of East Jerusalem - so it isn't exactly annexed. The strongest purely legal basis for Israel's sovereignty over its territory is General Assembly Resolution 181. After the 1948 war, Israel imposed citizenship on all the residents, including those in the 'annexed' territories between the armistice lines and the UN proposals, which was about half of the proposed Arab state, the West Bank & Gaza being the other half. Over time, these lines have become the basically recognized borders of Israel.

The votes of the other Palestinians, in the WB & G and almost certainly refugees beyond would have to be considered for an annexation of East Jerusalem to be viewed as legal, not just those of the East Jerusalemites. These would almost certainly not be forthcoming. As, PalaceGuard008 notes, the self-determination and sovereignty, even over a part of a territory, is usually understood to apply to the whole group, not a part, not even the part who lives there. It would be seen as dividing up a country by force and obtaining assent under duress. If Israel tried to do such a thing, Egypt & Jordan would surely consider it a violation of the treaties with Israel. Israel hasn't proposed this - and it has excellent international lawyers - and IMHO judges very well how to craft its diplomatic and legal positions, judges what will be countenanced by the rest of the world. The wisdom of these positions is of course another matter.John Z (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Even accepting your logic that chopping off East Jerusalem would not be legal, putting aside the issue of the refugees (who may or may not have voting rights), I fail to see how a referendum amongst all the Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza on joining Israel would violate self determination, as you seem to be implying in the first sentence of your answer, assuming the referendum could be assured to be free and fair. Israeli settlers would obviously need to be excluded from the vote, as per the Gibraltar precedent. As a practical matter, the barrier to such a move is not the Palestinians, but Israel. If Israel were to undertake such a referendum, any smart Palestinian would vote "yes". The resulting state would have an Arab majority, or nearly so, effectively allowing Israel as a Jewish state to be abolished without a shot being fired. Hence Israel would never consider such a move. "Bi-national state" proposals are not new, but it would be Israel who opposes them, not so much the Palestinians. Also, I understand your point about "dividing up a country by force", but I'm puzzled about your reference to "obtaining assent under duress". I don't think Israeli Arabs, including residents of East Jerusalem, feel any duress in Israeli elections. Israel is not Zimbabwe, where neighborhoods which vote for the wrong candidate or option get bulldozed (at least not based on their vote - demolitions over actual or supposed "illegal construction" or "terrorist activity by a family member" are another matter). The Israeli judiciary has, in fact, been remarkably deferential to claims brought by Arabs, including Palestinians, against the Israeli government. Eliyohub (talk) 08:12, 6 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)

See allegory, Parallelism, etc. --Jayron32 11:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that while the average lifespan has gone up dramatically over the centuries, the maximum life span has not. Since some people do live past 100 now, some would have then, too, but far fewer than do now. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the Vedas was trying to state a fact like the Bible was with its "threescore and ten", but rather making a wish. 130.65.109.81 (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

North Korea and subsidies from China, Russia

Would it be fair to say that the United States (and her allies in the region, Japan, S.Korea etc) are agitated that Russia and China are delivering economic subsidies to North Korea through cheap energy and food prices? Is there any evidence of how this annoys the U.S government? --Lostus-Poii (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The U.S. supplied two light water reactors, funded by KEDO, to North Korea.
Sleigh (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article titled North Korea–United States relations which is fairly extensive. This article has some information on the U.S. stance towards the China-N. Korean relationship as well. --Jayron32 13:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem with cutting off all subsidies to NK is they might then decide they have nothing to lose and attack SK, possibly with nukes. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That may or may not be an actual problem - citation please, suggesting the possibility of North Korea reacting this way? One of the real problems, from what I gather, is that evil though the North Korean regime may be, not many are keen to see it collapse, as what lies beyond the collapse is one gigantic gaping void of starving (and cult-style brainwashed) masses. If the regime DID collapse, feeding those people would require a huge percentage of the world's entire food aid budget. The nearest precedent is the reunification of Germany, and West Germany paid a heavy economic price. Or the chaos of the collapse of the Soviet Union - see the results in modern-day Central Asia (strongmen still rule mostly), or the perpetual chaos in Ukraine, or replacement dictatorship in Belarus, or a poor Russia, ruled by a combination of dictaorship, organized crime, and oligarchs, with more abortions than births. The reunification of the Korean Peninsula, and rehabilitation of the void north of the border, would cost South Korea and any contributing allies literally trillions. And China would fiercely oppose such a thing happening (if necessary, by force of arms) unless it could feel assured that the reunified country would fall sufficiently under its sphere of influence so as to allow them to prevent any potentially hostile power, such as the Americans, setting up camp there. China has been invaded many times throughout its history via the Korean Peninsula, so to them, this fear is very real, however impractical or impossible any invasion of China may seem at the present time. Intents and capabilities can change (sometimes quite quickly, such as the rapid rearmament and launch of mass invasions by Germany under Hitler, when the country had been a powerless wreck a mere two decades or so earlier), but geographic realities remain unbudgeable. I daresay Russia feels similar fears over Ukraine moving out of Russia's orbit. Today, nobody wants to invade Russia, and nobody can invade Russia. But a Ukraine under a hostile power puts the Russian core potentially under direct threat, should intents or capabilities change. Eliyohub (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Different meaning for Extended School Year

In my school district, ESY had a completely different meaning than presented in the article. It wasn't for special needs students, but was a way to accommodate more students than the facilities or staff could handle normally. The students were divided evenly into 4 tracks, and only 3 of the 4 were in class on any one day, extending into the summer to give all tracks the required number of days. So, do we have an article on this concept ? StuRat (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That's called 4-track Year Round School. (see this example calendar) It is different from extended school year because the idea behind year round school is just distributing the days differently than a traditional school calendar. In the U.S., a standard school year is 36 weeks (180 days). Traditional school calendars in the U.S. typically have these 36 weeks distributed over a 40- or 41-week period, with the remaining 11-12 weeks as "Summer vacation". The type of 4-track year-round school you are describing breaks those 36 weeks up into four 9-week blocks of time, and then staggers the 4 tracks so they are 3-weeks offset from each other, so that EVERY student follows a schedule of "9 weeks on/3 weeks off" in 4 increments through the year (the remaining 4 weeks of the year are usually 1 week at Christmas and 1 week in mid summer everyone has off, as well as about 10 days littered throughout the year as regular holidays). Extended School Year, as usually unders[[tood in most U.S. jurisdictions, refers to going LONGER than the standard 180 day year (say 200 or 220 days or longer) so that students have extra instructional time to learn more. ESY can be provided to students on any calendar. In summation:

• Traditional school calendar = 180 days, with a short-ish (1 week or less) break at Thanksgiving, Christmas, and early Spring, and then a 12ish week summer vacation.
• Year-round school = 180 days on a regular pattern of shorter sessions and shorter breaks (commonly four 9-week quarters and four 3-week breaks, but there are also schools on a trimester system of three 12-week quarters and 3 4-week breaks). Year-round school can be "single track" (one set of students in a school following the same track) or "multi-track" (students with staggered schedules so the school building is used every day of the year)
• Extended school year = Students with documented special needs (in the U.S. this means they have a Individualized Education Program or IEP) that designates that the student gets extra time to learn the material, and so are in school for longer than the standard 180 days, sometimes 200 or 220 or even more.

Hope that helps. --Jayron32 17:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I added dabs in each article to the other. StuRat (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

In the US, when do presidential candidates stop campaigning?

I know the US has not such a thing like election silence. But is there some self-imposed stop on a campaign? Or do candidates campaign until the last poll (is that Hawaii?) closes? --Llaanngg (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

In practice they keep going until they think it can't make any difference, which can be til the polls close in the western US if there are contested states there (Oregon etc). Hawaii solidly votes Democratic in presidential elections so there's not likely to be much presidential campaigning there. Here in California we're deluged with campaigning for lower offices right now, but there's not much Presidential campaigning for the same reason (see swing state). In 2000, a lot of what could be called campaigning continued after election day, as the Florida election recount became a political contest in its own right, and went on for more than a month past the election. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Does the 2002 version of the Uniform Parentage Act allow sperm donors to personally be the ones who inseminate women while giving up all of their parental rights and parental responsibilities afterwards?

Request for legal advice.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does the 2002 version of the Uniform Parentage Act allow sperm donors to personally be the ones who inseminate women (for instance, having a sperm donor masturbate in a cup and then personally using, say, a turkey baster (or whatever) to artificially inseminate a woman (with her consent, obviously)) while giving up all of their parental rights and all of their parental responsibilities to any children who are conceived as a result of this artificial insemination? Futurist110 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC) They could market a line of specialty baster/inseminators, but they should get away from the turkey associations, and dispense with having to ejaculate tawdrily into a cup. One device should cover the entire dubious episode. Maybe "Masturbaster" would do nicely. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC) For the record, this appears to refer to Uniform Parentage Act. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel I can make some points on this which are not legal advice.

1. Rights and responsibilities are by definition only an issue if at least one side seeks to exercise or enforce them. There is obviously no obligation on a parent to sue for custody, visitation, or child support. Plenty of parents would have the right to sue for one or more of these things, but for various reasons, choose not to. So selecting your mate carefully with a clear understanding of expectations would be a start as a smart move. But it offers no legal guarantees. There's one guy who was featured in a magazine as having over 100 kids, all naturally conceived, and not one of their mothers has yet sued him for child support. They would clearly have the right to do so, but there's clear understandings about things reached between them before he has sex with them with the intention of them getting pregnant. These understandings almost certainly have no binding legal effect, but in practice, they've worked, and the women he's knocked up have respected them. (This bit is clearly not legal advice, just practical advice and common sense observations).

2. If the mother is on welfare, however, do note that if the child has a legal father, welfare to the mom may be docked in consideration of the child support she would be entitled to if he was paying. (This can be complex, particularly if she refuses to say who the dad is, and calculations if she does name the dad and he admits paternity or is declared the putative father by the courts (i.e. he disputes paternity, and the court rules against him, such as based on DNA evidence), as to how much of her welfare payment is docked). The government doesn't want to pay what it sees as being the dad's job to pay. Of course, this doesn't mean she has to actually chase that child support, if she's willing and able to survive without the child support. And for those moms or potential moms not on welfare, this is obviously not an issue. And obviously, if you're legally deemed a sperm donor not a dad, this doesn't matter either, and you have zero obligation to pay child support.

3. If you want to donate sperm, it need not be to an anonymous recipient to be legally classified as a "donation" and treated accordingly. But it may very well need to be done by a doctor in a clinic, not at home by yourselves (don't want to give an absolute answer, as it would be legal advice). You can go to a doctor or clinic legally authorized to perform artificial insemination under state law with the recipient woman of your agreement (i.e. you and her reach an agreement to be donor and recipient, and trot off to the clinic together). The law as to paternity almost certainly does not change just because the donor and recipient are known to each other. A donor is still a donor. If they're deemed to be in a "de facto relationship" (or married), it may be a different story, as assisted reproduction performed on a "couple" may see the man viewed differently. (again, I can't give an absolute answer, due to legal advice prohibitions, and also that I don't know. If you deem this second or third paragraph to be legal advice, please keep the hat off the first paragraph). Eliyohub (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Do you have a reference for any of that? This is, after all, the reference desk, and our job is to provide leads for research, not merely tell people what we think the answers to their questions are... --Jayron32 19:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I remember a book with the title "bioethics and the law", I think, which specifically mentioned a turkey-baster case. The guy ended up paying child support if I recall correctly. Oh, these two get at it: [1] Just as when people are put in jail for killing their pets themselves, we find that the licensed and expensive professionals doing artificial insemination are, first and foremost, a priesthood with special powers granted by law, not by any ordinary technical competence. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Think of it this way: If you were going to buy a used car, would you buy it from someone on Craig's List? Or would you go to a licensed used car dealer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"Bearable arms"

In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding"

Can we define what "bearable arms" includes in: "to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding"? Ottowolff (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Does the Court itself address this question? Presumably the meaning of "all instruments that constitute bearable arms" is "all kinds of items that can be borne as weapons", with the meaning of "bear" being trickier to pin down. The SCOTUS being fond of including multipart tests (try searching for "three-pronged test"; most of what you'll get is related to SCOTUS case law), this opinion may well have create a test to determine the meaning of "bear" in this context. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

They can't mean literally any bearable arm. Regular civilians aren't allowed to purchase hand grenades, submachine guns, shoulder-fired missiles, etc. and I don't think that has changed. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

See Firearm case law in the United States for our summary article and Caetano v. Massachusetts for the case the OP mentions. The leading case on the meaning of "bear" is Muscarello v. United States, where Justice Ginsberg defined it to mean "wear, bear, or carry... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." This opinion was favourably cited by the majority of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. Tevildo (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Muriel Perry OBE

I would be interested to learn more about Muriel Perry OBE, the mother of Sally Grosvenor, Duchess of Westminster. The Telegraph obituary of Sally's sister, the biographer Diana Petre, says that Muriel was "a brave and admired nurse in two World Wars who was awarded eight medals and an OBE". Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a photo of her from 1917, and there are other various references (here, for example), referring to her role as quartermaster of the Free Buffet for the armed forces at Victoria Station during the Great War. This photo from the Imperial War Museum collection shows a field kitchen that she took to the Italian front in 1917, but it's not clear from the caption whether the lady standing on the step is Muriel Perry or Jean McKersie. Tevildo (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, a good start. It says it's Jean McKersie on the step for the last pic. DuncanHill (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Tiny amount of stuff in [2], and I think probably a lot in [3], and maybe [4]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Count Alexander Münster, Maresfield Park, ADC to the Kaiser

An exhibition in Lewes of photographs by Edward Reeves (the oldest photographic studio in the world) and related material from the First World War has inspired me to try to find out more about Count Alexander Münster, who lived at Maresfield Park in Sussex before the war. I am particularly interested in his war service and what happened to him after the war. I am also interested in what happened to his wife, Lady Muriel Henrietta Constance (née Hay), Princess Münster of Derneburg (1863-1927), daughter of the 12th Earl of Kinnoull. There is some information about him on the Weald website and on the Maresfield parish website. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not much use, but we do have an article on her father, as a start. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC) (Addendum: I made this comment at a point when the OP had not linked to the 12th earl. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC))

There is a German article on his father: de:Georg Herbert zu Münster. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW: Muriel (Hay) zu Münster was readmitted to British nationality 1923, and died in Berlin 1 January 1927. THey had at least two children, sons, Friedrich George Konstantin Hervey Ernst Alexander zu Münster (20 June 1891-7 January 1942), and Paul William Alexander zu Münster 27 November 1898 Maresfield, England- 24 January 1968 Bampton, England. The latter has descendants born in England as recently as 2006. His elder son, who married a Fugger von Babenhausen, was wounded, recuperated for about a year and a half, and then sent to the Eastern Front. For some interesting photos and some chatty information, see here.- Nunh-huh 20:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

November 5

UCV buildings

In the northern United States, Grand Army of the Republic halls and other GAR-related buildings are everywhere (see Grand Army of the Republic Hall for a few that have been named historic sites), and they can even be found in some southern towns that attracted sufficient numbers of GAR members moving south. But what about the United Confederate Veterans? Did they construct lodge halls, memorial buildings, or other community buildings? Confederate statues and other war memorials are plentiful in the South, especially on courthouse lawns, but I don't remember finding or reading about buildings constructed for UCV local chapters. Google finds 123,000 results for "GAR Hall", while "UCV Hall" finds just 35 results (it says 380, but it ends at page 4) — and a lot of those are OCR errors or other false positives. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I've found Confederate Memorial Hall, Vanderbilt University in List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

But how is that related to the UCV? What I mean by "memorial buildings", by the way, is stuff like Grand Army of the Republic Memorial Hall (Ironton, Ohio), places that the GAR built as memorials and as their own meeting places, in contrast to places that they funded for other people's use or places that they funded purely for their own use. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It isn't neccisarily, its merely the closest thing to it, I have yet to find anything matching your description. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

A number of confederate-related sites have been renamed in recent decades (example) as the Confederacy has become less glorified. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Cannibalism or Starve

Looking for any confirmed historical accounts or examples of people choosing to starve rather than resort to cannibalism given the option. Thanks 2601:602:9602:70C0:C3A:5118:4B2:5A44 (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find that isn't particularly well documented due to a lack of witnesses, however if you search for parents refusing to eat children you may find more luck. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

All sieges and all famines.
Sleigh (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

David Pisurayak Kootook and the reference. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice, just what I was looking for. Appreciated! 2601:602:9602:70C0:195D:64AA:F71F:241F (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Straightened and Sharpened Bicycle Spokes as Weapons

Looking for references to this. First came across it in the context of apartheid era South Africa as a tool for sneaky assassinations but having trouble finding confirmation. Jab the point into the back of someone's neck. Thanks! 2601:602:9602:70C0:F576:4B59:2DA9:4CF2 (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Friedrich Glauser, [5], [6] --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Major nuclear accident during the fall of 1958?

Resolved

I'm looking through the old archives of Svenska Dagbladet, and I come across this headline from their March 19, 1959 issue: "Reactor accident in the Ural mountains with hundreds of casualties". At first I thought it was referring to the Kyshtym disaster, but it goes on to say "an accident at a Russian atomic reactor in the fall of 1958 caused 192 casualties - 172 people were badly burned, and 20 went completely blind" and that "an area the size of 8 000 square kilometers was contaminated with radiation". Svenska Dagbladet attributes the story to the Viennese newspaper Die Presse. I can't find this specific incident in any of the articles listed on "Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents". Any idea which accident the newspaper could be referring to? Gabbe (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I suspect it would be that accident. It wasn't publicised by the USSR until 1958 and although fallout measurements by the West (who were monitoring mostly to try and study effluent from the working plant, thus to work out what they were doing) revealed it much earlier than this, Western military secrecy in turn kept it from Western civilians, for some time, and with much detail. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see that this source confirms it's Kushtym. Thanks! Gabbe (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Royal Marines Crest

How come the Royal Marines crest isn't centered around UK? It appears to be centered around somewhere in Pakistan/India and UK is barely visible on there. Is it remembrance for some significant event that happened there?

What projection is the map using? A lot of the countries are misshaped. Pizza Margherita (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

This page explains the meaning of all of the elements of the crest. It does not attach any special significance to the orientation of the globe. --Jayron32 00:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

What it looks is like a view of the world that includes as much inhabited land as possible while keeping north or less at the top and not pushing the UK all the way to one edge. This is an outright guess, though. For related concepts see land and water hemispheres and geographical centre of Earth. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• According to our article, "The "Great Globe itself" was chosen in 1827 by King George IV in place of Battle honours to recognise the Marines' service and successes in multiple engagements in every quarter of the world." Note that in 1827, Britain had just captured Singapore, Malacca, and Burma and the British Empire looked something like this. Given that the Royal Marines main purpose was to fight overseas, it makes sense that the globe would focus on the sites of great Marine victories. Smurrayinchester 09:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

(The map projection looks like a bit like a stereographic projection to me, but I don't think it's a mathematically accurate one. Rather, I think it's just an artists impression of a globe - don't forget, the crest is usually rendered in 3D, and extremely crudely.) Smurrayinchester 09:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

See also The empire on which the sun never sets. Alansplodge (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

November 6

Single-payer healthcare

I was reading Single-payer healthcare and noticed that Monopsony is linked at the bottom. Is this actually a case of monopsony though? According to the article both Canada and Australia have a coexisting private health system; if a private party can buy healthcare then it's not a monopsony. Is there any single-payer healthcare country where it's an actual monopsony? Pizza Margherita (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not any kind of expert on economics, but reading that article it seems to be monopsony from the workers' point of view. With one buyer of healthcare services that is very large (the NHS directly employs more people than any business in the world except Walmart), wages in healthcare are to a large extent set by the government in the UK. (Incidentally, this is not without problems, especially in the expensive London area where many skilled workers are not keen to work for the "official" government pay rate. The result is you have an interesting black-market type situation where "temporary" workers from an "agency" are brought in on higher-than-official wages to fill vacancies because it's hard to recruit for permanent positions.) Blythwood (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

NHS employs the vast majority of the health workers, sure, but there are still private hospitals in UK, right? I'm not personally familiar with the UK case, just taking a guess from reading Healthcare_in_England#Private-sector_medical_care. Pizza Margherita (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course, and many healthcare workers may dual-practice, especially consultants, across their careers. But to give some idea, only about 11% of British people have any kind of private health insurance, and they are disproportionately distributed in the wealthy south-east of England anyway. (Obviously, some of those will not use it because NHS provision is more convenient, and some without private insurance will pay for specific procedures. But it's a reasonable benchmark - this is a more complete explanation.) To put it another way, the NHS has never been intended as a safety net or a backup option for the poor. It's intended to function as the UK's entire health system, with the ethos that one shouldn't "need" to use private healthcare for any "reasonable" set of requirements. Blythwood (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Since Canada and Australia have coexisting private health systems, they're arguably not "true" examples of single-payer healthcare, in the sense that "the state, rather than private insurers, pays for all healthcare costs", now are they? Gabbe (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Single-payer healthcare, as defined in the article, implies monopsony by definition. Then I guess my question becomes "Is there any actual 'true' single-payer healthcare country out there in the world?" Pizza Margherita (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The only examples I can think of where the politicians also have a legal monopoly on healthcare (as opposed to merely being the dominant provider) are countries like Cuba and North Korea. Gabbe (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there are any other countries with a legal monopoly on healthcare, where working as a private doctor is illegal, but I would suspect there are heavily socialist democratic countries such as the Scandinavian ones, where seeking private medical care for anything essential, whilst legal, would very much be the exception, no? In other words, to use Gabbe's term, the government is very much the "dominant provider", significantly more so than countries like Australia, where I live (if you want a hip or knee replacement - any "elective surgery" - or dental care in the public system, you may be in for a long wait - the public system here "rations by quene" in many areas, so if you have the money or private health insurance, you go private. And if you want public psychiatric care, you need to be truly seriously mentally ill, practically floridly psychotic, to qualify. Though if you see a private specialist, the government still covers part of the bill). Obviously, even in these countries (the heavily socialist wealthy democratic ones, where Government care is good quality, delivered in a timely fashion (i.e. no "rationing by queue" as in the UK and Australia), pays for pretty much anything genuinely related to one's health needs, and very much the rule), I doubt the public health system would pay for purely cosmetic procedures such as breast implants, so I assume a (relatively small) private medical market to cater for such needs would still exist? Are there in fact any such countries? How does health care work in the most socialist of the democracies, such as those of Scandanavia? As an interesting aside, whilst the German public healthcare system does not pay for breast enlargements, the German tax department has ruled that prostitutes are entitled to claim the cost of breast enhancement surgery as a business-related tax deduction.Eliyohub (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Discouraging private healthcare has been a more-or-less explicit goal of some health workers' unions in the UK. The logic is that it benefits the majority of health workers, those in the NHS, if all but the very richest in the UK feel that they have a stake in the NHS being well-funded. There are some restrictions, you don't lose anything specific by going private - healthcare in the UK is a universal right, remember - but you can't get a procedure part-NHS, part-private. I'll quote the official guidance page on this topic: "If you're receiving private and NHS care for the same condition, your NHS and private treatment can be supervised by one healthcare team [but] you cannot choose to mix different parts of the same treatment between NHS and private care. For example, you cannot have a cataract operation on the NHS and pay privately for special lens implants that are normally only available as part of private care. Instead, you either have to have both the operation on the NHS and standard NHS lens implants, or pay for both the operation and implants privately." Blythwood (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Procedures for choosing a new nominee for presidential candidate post-convention

Let's assume, after the party has held its convention and chosen their candidate for president, the candidate withdraws or cannot continue in the race - whether due to scandal, ill health, family crisis, discovery of ineligibility, unexpected death (natural, accidental, violent, whatever), etc. What are the two major parties official procedures for choosing a replacement candidate, particularly at short notice?

In general, this may happen too close to election day for a proper full new emergency convention to be held, where the already-elected nominees (who were pledged to one of the previous candidates) can all be assembled and get to vote on whom they want to take the spot. So what would the party do? What does the rule book say? Does the rule book vary between the Democratic party and the Republican party?

As a separate question, has this ever happened - that a candidate has been nominated as presidential candidate by the convention of their party, but did not reach election day as a "live" (still officially in the race) candidate? (There were times candidates were assassinated, such as Ted Kennedy, but this was pre-convention, I believe, so didn't cause this issue). And if yes, how did the party choose a replacement? (I'm sure it's happened at State level at least once in a gubernatorial election. Are the rules the same? What happened? I'm exclusively referring to times where the candidate was in fact replaced by the party, not where the dead or withdrawn candidate remained on the ballot). Eliyohub (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

First, I think you meant Robert F. Kennedy not Teddy.

I think the answer is an unsatifying "we don't know what would happen if a presidential nominee were to die or drop out after the convention, but before the election. It has never happened at the Presidential level, so there is no precedent to draw upon. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It's an easy mistake to make, since Ted Kennedy committed political "suicide" at the time, though he mounted an attempt to win the Democratic Party nomination in 1980, as noted at Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1980, the incident was still enough of a drag on his career nationally to shift the balance to Carter. --Jayron32 12:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This has been brought up several times during this past summer. You could search the archives for roughly that time period and get some useful links. And there was a case where a nominee died (Horace Greeley in 1872), and the electors voted for various others, although the other guy (U.S. Grant) had already effectively secured the election anyway. (This, of course was after the popular election.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Baseball Bugs, excuse my cluelessness and uselessness at searching for such things, but I wouldn't know what words to search for. If you (or anyone else reading this) could provide me with the relevant links to the questions you're referring to, I would be most grateful.

2. Is there a precedent in State gubernatorial races of a candidate dying or dropping out post-nomination but pre-election, and being replaced by the party with another candidate on the ballot (NOT the dead or dropped out person remaining on the ballot)? What process did they follow?

3. Despite there being no actual precedent, what do each party's rule books say about this situation? Surely they must say something about how to deal with such a contingency?

No need to answer questions 2 and 3 if the answers are already contained in the links Baseball Bugs or anyone else can provide, either to previous questions on this desk, or other sources. Though if you additional info to offer which those sources don't please do offer it. Thanks, much appreciated. Eliyohub (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I find the "search" function to be clumsy and pretty much useless as it returns items in random order. Better to go into the weekly archives, one by one, and look in the TOC for anything promising. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the difficulty of finding this, could you tell me, what was the gist of the answers given? Also, I find the search function most useful when searching for phrases (put them in talking marks), so if you remember even a few words strung together from either the question or an answer to it, you can still provide me with a link. Did anyone have any quotes from the rule books to offer? Eliyohub (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Typing the phrase "how does a political party replace a candidate after the convention" into google turned up some interesting results, the first two were not that reliable, but this was result #3 and this was result #4 and both look to solidly answer your question; this was also a first page result, and looks good as well. --Jayron32 12:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The only case that comes close is the 1972 Democratic vice presidential candidate. Thomas Eagleton was the original nominee. About two weeks after his nomination, Eagleton was pressured to step down after concerns of mental illness and depression. According to our article United States presidential election, 1972, a new nominee (Sargent Shriver) was "nominated by a special session of the Democratic National Committee". (The article does not specify the mechanics of the new nomination.)    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 14:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thatcher's cause of death

Hello. Judging from the death certificate of the late prime minister, can it be concluded that she specifically died of an ischemic stroke? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 22:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be my conclusion that the person who filled out her death certificate believed that to be the case. Unfortunately, he was not as careful, explicit, or specific in his terminology as one might have wished. Nor is it recorded thereupon whether the cause of death was determined by medical history or autopsy. - Nunh-huh 02:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I would think it most unusual to perform an autopsy in a case where there is no reason to doubt that the deceased died a natural and timely death. Thatcher was not young or in good health. The doctor would probably do a relatively simple examination and give a "best guess" as to what exactly killed the elderly and sickly person. Autopsies are generally reserved for cases where there's a coronial investigation, meaning something is deemed "not right" about the death. So I'd be very surprised if an autopsy was performed on Thatcher. Eliyohub (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the cause of death on most death certificates are usually simply the best guesses of the physician in attendance upon the person at the time of death. Sometimes those guesses are right; sometimes those guesses are wrong. Autopsies are certainly more reliable, and their use varies. Sometimes a guess is enough. But autopsies are certainly not reserved for the edification of coroners.- Nunh-huh 09:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Re "he was not as careful, explicit, or specific in his terminology as one might have wished", are British death certificates usually that much more careful/explicit/specific than that? My very fleeting experience of the system that generates them is that if the cause of death is in-your-face-obvious, it's just a brief bureaucratic irritation for the next of kin and clinician. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

He could easily have written cerebrovascular accident, for example, instead of cardiovascular accident, which would have been more exact. And indicated, for example, that the "transient L/Ischaemic attacks" were strokes on the left side of the brain (resulting in right side of the body deficits and language apraxia) rather than stroke affecting the left side of the body. - Nunh-huh 09:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Stroke may not be in-your-face-obvious in a dead person without an autopsy or brain scan showing the brain bleed (I'm no doctor, so tell me if I'm wrong), but when an elderly person dies in non-suspicious circumstances which give the Coroner no reason to get involved, the exact cause of death is of limited relevance, I would think. So a "best guess" based on observations of the body and medical history would probably be deemed "good enough" for all intents and purposes, wouldn't it? There would be no practical reason for the clinician to rigorously investigate. But if you really want to know more (your curiosity is eating you), my advice is, contact the clinician named on the death certificate and ask him or her. They'd be under no obligation to talk to you, but they might just agree to do so. I don't think medical confidentiality extends to this circumstance. The death certificate publicly names the cause of death, and the clinician would probably be in their rights to elaborate, if they're the talkative and forthcoming kind. Eliyohub (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, I don't know the law in the UK. But I know for certain that here in Australia, the coroner is the only authority that can order an autopsy against the wishes of the deceased (in the instructions they've left behind) or their family. Which means it must be a "reportable death" - a suspicion that something is amiss - generally an unnatural or untimely death, or suspicion thereof. Is the law different in the UK? (If the family consented, it would be a different story). Eliyohub (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are you assuming an autopsy would be against the wishes of the next of kin of the deceased? - Nunh-huh 12:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparently not - see What to do after someone dies from the British Government website. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

So absent family consent or a coroner's order, an autopsy could not be performed in the UK either, correct? Eliyohub (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

When someone dies a detailed certificate is prepared, of which the certificate filed with the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths is a summary. The filed certificate summarises the main cause of death and contributory factors. Cause of death is not always cut and dried - for example someone might contract an infection and die from it, but they might not have fallen ill if their immune system had not been weakened for some reason. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, sorry, I didn't mean to apply that I'm assuming that an autopsy in Thatcher's case would have been against the wishes of her next of kin. I was simply pointing out, in response to your comment that autopsies "are not reserved for the edification of coroners", that if the next of kin do not explicitly consent, only the coroner would have the power to overrule them. And note that in many jurisdictions, in such a situation, the family can challenge the coroner's decision in court. The issue has arisen in cases where the coroner is investigating the death of an orthodox Jew, for example, whose beliefs generally preclude autopsies. The courts (here, at least) have usually deferred to the family, absent good reason why an autopsy is essential (e.g. suspected foul play). Curiosity about what exactly caused an elderly person to die a non-suspicious death certainly wouldn't cut it, judging by precedent. But I admit I'm going a bit off-topic here. Point is, barring consent from the next of kin, only the coroner can order an autopsy. That's the law. Eliyohub (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's your point. My point was that an autopsy gives actual evidence for a given cause of death, while a death certificate is only a reasonable guess—the accuracy depending a great deal on the diligence, or lack thereof, of the physician filling it out. - Nunh-huh 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

In the UK, if someone is under the care of a physician at the time of death there is no need for a post-mortem, and a doctor can sign the release form which releases the body into the custody of the family. This form is taken to the Registrar in the local authority concerned, and the death certificate is issued. What goes on the death certificate is what is written on the release form. So as far as I can see, there would have been no need to perform an autopsy or post-mortem examination on Thatcher's corpse, and no way for anyone to do so - outside of a prurient wish to know. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The "wish to know" has pretty much motivated all human progress. And we do many things that don't "need" to be done to satisfy that wish to know. - Nunh-huh 19:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see a reference for that, please; in particular your first point. At the very least it seems to preclude the possibility of malpractice investigation. Matt Deres (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"Medical certificate of cause of death (MCCD): The MCCD (more commonly known as the death certificate)... A death certificate may be issued by a doctor who has provided care during the last illness and who has seen the deceased within 14 days of death (28 days in Northern Ireland) or after death. They should be confident about the cause of death. In some circumstances, a doctor is unable to provide a death certificate and the death must be reported to the coroner (or procurator fiscal in Scotland) rather than issuing a death certificate". [7] Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Am I way out to lunch in thinking that leaves a rather large opening regarding surgical or medical misadventures? If the attending doctor messes up somehow (wrong dosage, cut the wrong thing, you name it), wouldn't allowing them - seemingly encouraging them - to sign off on the MCCD themselves open up a huge conflict of interest? Matt Deres (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Harold Shipman wouldn't think so :) - Nunh-huh 21:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

More than half-a-million people die in the UK every year. [8] That's an awful lot of autopsies. Alansplodge (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Quite an intriguing discussion above, I must say. I don't think there is any harm done to assume that, given the statistics shown at Stroke, she most likely died of an ischaemic one. "Ischaemic" is mentioned on the certificate of death, anyway.--Nevé–selbert 17:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

November 7

Taghut and democracy

The news today covered a statement by ISIS that for American Muslims to participate in an election - even to support Muslim causes - is a form of taghut, a sort of idolatrous offense against Allah by suggesting that someone else can make legislation. It seems to be a very strong rejection of positive law in all forms; in some ways it seemed reminiscent of a Christian anarchist position, actually. (Such is the atmosphere of this election that the essay by the world's foremost lunatics was actually one of the better-written and argued positions I've read about it lately, alas)

Anyway, I was curious... a) how widely is this believed? b) can you use this to deduce that an American Muslim who votes is definitely not a member of ISIS (note that American voting records - not the votes but whether you cast them - are essentially public), and per a, does that extend to Al Qaida and other groups? c) If this caught on (or is done already) would they consider going into the poll to cast a blank vote a "taghut" or would that be OK to deceive security forces? d) And if they did do that, how many people cast blank votes? Would that stand out as a strong indicator they were members, if some sinister three letter agency has access to that data (and who thinks they don't...)? Oh, yeah, and e) while I said "essentially public" I have no idea how to find out if Tashfeen Malik voted, for example, to see how this fits in with theory - any ideas?

I doubt I'm going to hear answers to all those, but at least there ought to be a section in taghut as to how that influences Muslim views of democracy and voting. I don't feel competent to write it myself. Wnt (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

If this was widely believed, then there wouldn't be Islamist parties standing in elections in countries like Tunisia, Turkey, Egypt or Pakistan. Or indeed Muslims standing for election in Western countries, e.g. Sadiq Khan. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not unknown but it's very fringe. I've gone past in London a stall promoting Islam and a sign saying that voting in elections is un-Islamic. Blythwood (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Can NASCAR drivers refuse a car with an ad against their political, moral or religious beliefs?

In my city cabbies can refuse to drive something with a strip club, alcohol or I think tobacco ad on it. Do NASCAR drivers have similar rights? If there's penalties and they're not willing to take them then are there penalties for believable, obvious, or farcical sandbagging? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Question: I know almost nothing about NASCAR, but do they in fact accept ads from these kind of businesses? I thought most jurisdictions banned tobacco advertising in any form (at least that's the case here in Australia, and think in many U.S. states too?), and I would be surprised if NASCAR wanted to associate itself with strip clubs. So I presume the issue is, in practice, limited to alcohol ads? DO NASCAR cars ever carry strip club or tobacco ads? Outside the U.S, I could imagine a potential controversy over gambling ads, but gambling is mostly illegal in the U.S anyways.Eliyohub (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Cigarette TV & radio ads were banned in the US on Jan 2 1971 but they were on NASCARs for much longer. (here's a picture of a Camel car in 1997: ) The federal government only banned tobacco ads in NASCAR in mid-2010. Some New York City taxicabs have strip club ads on them. NASCAR ads definitely have strip club patron eyeballs as well but it has many socially conservative fans so it might make sense for them to not allow any. I don't know if they're allowed/existed but car ads are so pricy that I'm not even sure if strip club owners are big enough to recoup the cost. There are actually full blown casinos in most states by now (though some of those keep them 30 to hundreds of minutes from population centers). i.e. Texas has more people than Australia, America's 4th biggest city, is bigger than France and has only 1 casino (on an aboriginal reservation near Mexico) and a boat that sails to the high seas from a second-rate metro area. I Googled casino NASCAR car and found out that's happened already. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

More from me, now that I have time. Sagittarian Milky Way, I think you’re missing a key difference between the cabbie and the NASCAR driver.

The cabbie is a low-paid, vulnerable worker, with little power vis-à-vis his boss. Ergo, the law must protect his rights.

NASCAR drivers, especially the super-elite ones, are highly trained, highly paid professionals, in great demand. They have bargaining power when it comes to such things, I would assume?

Do they have a legal right to refuse to drive a car with that sort of advertising? Probably not, unless doing so violates their religious beliefs ("political" and "moral" beliefs probably wouldn't cut it in most jurisdictions, I would think). But this would depend on general anti-discrimination laws in that particular jurisdiction, and how much they required employers to accommodate religious employees when doing so will cost them money, e.g. the alcohol sponsorship (and the money it brings in) is irreplaceable, or scrapping it will mean breaking the already-signed contract with the alcohol manufacturer sponsor, which will incur a financial penalty for the NASCAR team. I think different jurisdictions would have different thresholds as to how much pain the employer must absorb. Here in Australia, the courts have ruled that the requirement for "reasonable" accommodation falls somewhere between "convenience" and "necessity". An employer must accommodate, even if it's inconvenient for them. They do not need to accommodate if it makes their business impossible. As I said, other jurisdictions may see things differently.

In practice if you have an elite Muslim NASCAR driver, and he refuses to drive a car with alcohol ads on it, he can probably simply demand in contract negotiations that his contract contain an explicit clause to this effect – no alcohol sponsorship on his car. If he’s good enough, than if one team won’t or can’t accommodate him (e.g. they’ve already signed alcohol sponsorship deals), another almost certainly will, I presume. So he probably doesn’t need the sort of government protection that a cabbie does, does he? I may be totally wrong here about NASCAR drivers' situation - As I said, I know almost nothing about NASCAR. But in Formula one, if during the peak of his career, Michael Schumacher were to refuse on principle to drive cars bearing tobacco ads (when such ads were still legal - they've since been banned in many places), someone would accommodate him. No question! He's worth more to the team he drives for than the tobacco company's sponsorship is! Winning a race is worth far more than the money paid by a company to put their logo on your car. And if your car has a winner driver with throngs of fans, you'll almost certainly find other companies eager to step into the breach and sponsor his team instead. Eliyohub (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

There was a Trump car in yesterday's top league race but it's driver didn't have much bargaining power. He was 41st out of 51 in most recent drivers championship and usually finishes near the back. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Which is similar to where his sponsor will hopefully finish in Tuesday's presidential elections. Not that I'm a giant Hillary fan either, but you go for the lesser of the evils. Perhaps the poor not-very-talented driver could ask the rich but possibly equally untalented sponsor of his car to bail him out? In any case, my feeling about such a driver is that he either needs to train harder, or find himself another career. Not blame Trump or his supporters or opponents for jinxing him. If he was usually a good driver, I might feel differently. Why would Trump sponsor a perennial loser? Not a good image. Eliyohub (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

For all I know he could be a Trump supporter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to ramble on even further, but I just thought of an actual precedent along these lines which illuminates this sort of issue. World star hall of fame baseball pitcher Sandy Koufax absolutely refused to play on the Jewish high holidays, which, very inconveniently for his club, often coincided with the World Series. Would the club be allowed to tear up his contract for failing to turn up and play? In his case, probably not, as I assume he explicitly had a clause in his contract allowing him to do this. But let's assume there was no such clause - could the club dump him? Assume modern-day law - I don't know if anti-discrimination laws existed in his time. My guess is, probably yes, they could dump him from the team if omitting him from those games caused significant disruption. In practice, which club in their right mind would ever dream of ditching Sandy Koufax??? Every baseball fan would think the club coach had rocks in their head if he did such a thing! That's a practical example of bargaining power. He had no need to resort to anti-discrimination law! I wonder if the same would hold true for a genuinely talented NASCAR driver in the situation you describe. Eliyohub (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You use the terms 'probably' and 'I think' and 'I guess' a lot for someone supplying answers on the Reference Desk. Please back up your assertions with some reliably sourced references. Matt Deres (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Koufax was able to get away with sitting out Yom Kippur because he was Koufax. Your clout in any given situation will depend on how badly you're needed. On the other hand, it wasn't such a big deal at the time, at least not to the team.[9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

For once you get to be BASEBALL Bugs, and no doubt understand what I'm saying - that any coach who ditched Koufax must have rocks in his head, even if Koufax did miss a game from time to time for religious reasons (there were in fact several games he missed over various seasons, to my understanding, though some were more important and notable than others). I now understand that not all NASCAR drivers would be in this situation (though the very top ones would be, wouldn't they?). Eliyohub (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• It seems perfectly possible for a team or driver to refuse alcohol sponsorship - see Coors Light Pole Award. Richard Petty turned down prize money from the pole award, did not compete in the Busch Clash, and the Richard Petty Motorsports car #43 doesn't carry the otherwise-compulsory Coors Light Pole Award sticker. Smurrayinchester 15:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Alcohol advertising notes that the Petty team refuses alcohol sponsorship. This article from 2007 also notes that Joe Gibbs Racing refuses alcohol sponsorship. This article from 2004 has other examples of specific drivers refusing to accept such sponsorship. --Jayron32 17:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The team can certainly refuse the sponsorship for any reason or no reason at all. Drivers are a different story, as to whether the team will allow the driver to dictate who they will or won't sign as a sponsor. As I said, this issue mostly applies to the lower-ranked drivers, who aren't as badly needed and hard to replace, and can't dictate terms to their team from a purely commercial perspective ("I'm worth more to you than the sponsorship"). If he was an elite driver, he could simply opt to drive for one of the teams which refuses alcohol sponsorship, if his current team refused to accommodate him. The driver can refuse the to drive a car bearing alcohol sponsorship, but it doesn't answer the OP's question: Is the team obliged to keep him as a driver regardless, if passing up alcohol sponsorship will cost them money? Eliyohub (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If that is the case, you may have to write a letter to the editor of the Washington Post and demand a retraction from their 2004 story in which they reported on exactly that. --Jayron32 15:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Identification of authors

This link includes a gallery of Conservative scholars and statesmen. Could you help me identify those I am missing?

• 1st row: Joseph de Maistre, Julius Evola, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, Maurice Cowling, Pope Leo XIII, Robert Nisbet
• 2nd row: Robert Peel, Roger Scruton, Russell Kirk, Simon Heffer, Oswald Spengler, T. S. Eliot
• 3rd row: G. K. Chesterton, Johann Georg Hamann, Hilaire Belloc, Immanuel Hermann Fichte, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, John Henry Newman
• 4th row: Bonar Law, Unknown, Unknown, Neville Chamberlain, Benjamin Disraeli, Charles I of England
• 5th row: Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Alain de Benoist, Edmund Burke, Enoch Powell, Ernst Jünger, Evelyn Waugh

Thank you in advance!!!

94.65.14.193 (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Third row, third from left is Hilaire Belloc. I'm amazed you can identify anyone in the 4th & 5th rows because of the dark banner overlying them.- Nunh-huh 14:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The first one in the third row is indeed Chesterton—same photo used by Encyclopaedia Britannica in their article. Deor (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

And the last one in that row is indeed Newman. Deor (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Second row, fourth from the left is Simon Heffer. I'm also struggling to make out anybody in the fourth and fifth rows, but fifth row, fourth from the left is Enoch Powell. And you're right about Scruton. --Viennese Waltz 15:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Second row, third from the left is Russell Kirk. First row, fourth from left is Maurice Cowling. First row, far right is Robert Nisbet. --Viennese Waltz 15:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Third row, fourth from left is Immanuel Hermann Fichte. --Viennese Waltz 15:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible that 4th row, second from left is Alain de Benoist? 17:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:813C:F300:941F:93A5:3344:C96E (talk)

Yes, looks like it could be Alain de Benoist - image appears similar to others provided by Google images. This is a real rogues' gallery, isn't it! RomanSpa (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It depends on your POV... 2A02:587:2904:600:2012:2F06:D170:5102 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• The fifth row second from the right appears to be wearing a WWII German military uniform of some sort. Maybe List of members of the British Free Corps would help... --Jayron32 18:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Fifth row, second from the right, is Ernst Jünger. Should be easy enough to fill in the others, just by typing the names of other crypto-nazis into Google image search! RomanSpa (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde's plays

Which publishing house first published the plays of Oscar Wilde during his lifetime? Or did he self-publish them? 2A02:2149:813C:F300:941F:93A5:3344:C96E (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You'd have to look at each play individually, and I haven't done that... But The Picture of Dorian Gray (I know, not a play) was published by Ward Lock in 1891, and An Ideal Husband (1899), The Importance of Being Earnest (1899), Lady Windermere's Fan (1899), and several other works (inc. The Ballad of Reading Gaol) were published by Leonard Smithers & Co. The first English edition of Salome was published by John Lane (The Bodley Head) (1894). So not self-published. - Nunh-huh 19:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Are banknotes "really" cheques

In the UK, banknotes purport to be cheques (they bear the words "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of"), but to what extent is this true? In England and Wales, Bank of England notes are legal tender, so declaring them to be cheques seems nonsensical.--Leon (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

See Banknotes of the pound sterling. As it notes there "Bank notes are no longer redeemable in gold, and the Bank of England will only redeem sterling banknotes for more sterling banknotes or coins. The contemporary sterling is a fiat currency..." This bit of boilerplate is merely a bit of tautology that states that the banknote can be redeemed for equivalent currency. The text does not include the word cheque and neither does the text contain any equivalent of what a "cheque" is there. You can compare the Wikipedia articles titled cheque and banknote to understand the difference between the two financial instruments. --Jayron32 20:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

An important point is that you can, if you wish (though I certainly don't know of anyone ever doing this) require that payment of the notes be made in coins. RomanSpa (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

So if you win £5 million in a slot machine you can ask for 30 tonnes of £2 coins? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Boring answer is that you can't win £5m in a British slot machine. The limit is a jackpot of £4000, except at the so-called Regional casino or supercasino - but the only supercasino approved, in Manchester, was cancelled. Smurrayinchester 09:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't completely answer the question. What if you win the British National Lottery? Can you demand a truckload of coins? Or is the lottery allowed to have an explicit clause in its terms and conditions that big wins can only be paid by bank deposit or cheque, and if you want to convert it to coins, you'll need to sort that out with the bank? Eliyohub (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at Negotiable Instruments - the original idea was to avoid carrying large amounts of cash on long journeys: a piece of paper which allowed you to exchange it for the cash at your destination was a lot safer. These came in two types - ones which authorised payment of the cash to a particular named person (which evolved into cheques), and ones which authorised payment to whoever had the piece of paper (which evolved into banknotes). Wymspen (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that banknotes in England evolved from a different instrument from banknotes on the continent. RomanSpa (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the difference in history?--Leon (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

No, cheques have a date and banknotes don't have a date. If a banknote is accidently cut in half, the soiled half banknote can be redeemed for half value. Half a cheque is worthless.
Sleigh (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

How much has to be intact for it to have value? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't know about other jurisdictions, but what counts here in Australia is the bit with the serial number. Many denominations have the serial number in each of the two diagonal corners. If you have both the pieces (corners) with each of the same serial number intact, you can redeem the note for the full value, even if the rest of the note (the middle part) is missing. If you only have one serial number piece, you can redeem it for half its value (as they assume someone may turn up with the other half / number). And if the serial number is itself torn completely in two (meaning there's the risk the bits could belong to two separate notes), that half of the note probably can't be redeemed (admittedly, citation needed on this last sentence, but I'm sure of the accuracy of the rest of what I've said). Eliyohub (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually I made a mistake! - that was the previous policy. Mea culpa. For Australia's current policy on damaged or incomplete banknotes, see the Reserve Bank of Australia's damaged banknotes policy. Eliyohub (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

In England and Wales (but apparently not in Scotland) there is a concept of "legal tender". This sheet [10] seems to explain it quite well but I can't vouch for its reliability or whether it's up to date. Legal tender is what you are allowed to use for settling a debt. So if you owe council tax to the council and you take along a pile of used fivers to the exact amount they have to accept it, but if you take bags of 5p pieces they don't. But in the case of the national lottery they tell you in advance how your win would be paid [11] - cash up to a certain amount, cheque or bank transfer for a large sum - so if you don't like that idea, don't play the lottery. Or ask a bank to open a new account for you to pay in your lottery millions and then take all the money out in £1 coins. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

In Britain banknotes do have a date - it is part of a copyright notice they have carried ever since the Bank of England failed to convict for "passing off" an artist whose work consisted of paintings which closely resembled banknotes but were not exactly the same design. Our article "Cheque" is not completely accurate - writing the words "Account payee only" inside the crossing did not prevent them being negotiated to third parties. For this reason, and because of increasing fraud, the banks now print their cheques "Pay X only" instead of "Pay X or order" as previously. This renders them non - transferable and hence non - negotiable as well. The subject was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 June 5#Half of the money. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The artist you refer to is J. S. G. Boggs, and by the decision of the jury, he did nothing wrong, he never claimed his paintings were real money. It's doubtful that copyright laws would be any more effective - copyright specifically allows for parody, which his paintings were. For example, where the governor of the bank of England usually has his signature and title (Governor, bank of England), Boggs' notes had Boggs' signature, with HUMAN BEING underneath. Here's an example of his work. Would anyone think it was real? It's clearly parody. Eliyohub (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Star trooper man, the promise is (or rather, used to be) made by the Chief Cashier of the Bank of England whose signature is on the note: that the Bank of England will pay you the money on the note face in coins if you brought the note in. If I pay you £5, it's not a promise made by me but a promise made by the bank. But this is now obsolete and the statement is merely customary: since all money in the UK is now fiat currency pound coins and bank notes are equally valid (or invalid, if you're a gold standard person). I'll quote the official explanation:

The words "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of five [ten/twenty/fifty] pounds" date from long ago when our notes represented deposits of gold. At that time, a member of the public could exchange one of our banknotes for gold to the same value. For example, a £5 note could be exchanged for five gold coins, called sovereigns. But the value of the pound has not been linked to gold for many years, so the meaning of the promise to pay has changed. Exchange into gold is no longer possible and Bank of England notes can only be exchanged for other Bank of England notes of the same face value.

The Bank of England is really now a regulator and doesn't offer bank accounts or banking services (until this year it did for employees), but you can still walk in and exchange old banknotes and they will substitute them for you. Blythwood (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Blythwood's edit summary indicates that (s)he is a little confused. A cheque which a bank draws on itself is a banker's draft. All cheques are a particular form of Bill of Exchange, payable on demand. Banknotes, as the name indicates, are a promise by the bank to pay money (originally gold) on demand. Originally they were a receipt for gold deposited at the bank. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the last English banknotes not issued by the Bank of England. It can be redeemed (for coins, presumably) at the bank issuing it or Barclays.

Yes, this is true - I was trying to keep it simple in my edit summary. As a summary: a bank note is a promise by the bank to pay the note-bearer. This meant that until the nineteenth century, ordinary banks could issue notes against the value of money they stocked. This obviously wasn't very secure from fraud, and the right was gradually wound down from 1844-1921, when the little Somerset bank of Fox, Fowler and Company was taken over and forfeited the right to issue its own notes. But Scottish and Northern Irish banks do still have the right to issue their own notes.
In fact, no Scottish or Northern Irish banknotes are directly issued by the government: they're all issued, in theory, by private banks. Even weirder, in Northern Ireland, some are issued by the Bank of Ireland and Danske Bank, which aren't even based in the UK. Of course in practice all these banks do is decide what the note is going to look like, since it's really regulated by the government. An additional weirdness is that Scottish and Northern Irish banknotes aren't legal tender anywhere, not even in the country of issue. Blythwood (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Itsmejudith's link answers part of a question which was posed previously (what happened to the value of silver Maundy coins minted prior to 1953 on decimalisation) but not the other part:

On the subject of statutes which are believed to be in force but are not, the copper coinage was demonetised by the Coinage Act 1860 which is not listed at List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In its place a new bronze coinage was issued, in the form of "bun" pennies, halfpennies and farthings and also a one - third farthing which was used in Malta until the twentieth century. Now, the 1860 coin set also included a proof half - farthing of the appropriate weight and dimension ( a proof is a highly - polished coin which, although being specially made, is just as much legal tender as the ordinary circulating version). So was this half - farthing legal tender up to decimalisation in 1971? (The farthing was demonetised by Royal Proclamation in 1961).

The document explains

There are some other coins which for historic or legal reasons are legal tender though they are not in general circulation.

So it might have been legally possible to spend a half farthing until 1971. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Colonels in American culture

I noticed various US folks liked to style themselves as Colonels in common civilian usage, like Colonel Sanders, Colonel Tom Parker, and non-human Colonel Ebirt or Colonel Meow (with Colonel Abrams apparently having it as a given name). Was this phenomenon discussed somewhere or it's just the popularity of colonel grade? Brandmeister^talk 23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: To quote this website

"To be named a “Colonel” is to be recognized for “outstanding service to community, state, and nation.” The sitting governor of Kentucky, or the Secretary of State of Kentucky, are the only ones who can bestow such an honor onto an individual. These colonels are “Kentucky’s ambassadors of goodwill and fellowship around the world” and are “people from all walks of life.”" Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ive found some google books mentioning self titled colonels, here and here, perhaps it will help. I think it may have something to do with it sounding good, another interesting theory I've heard is that due to the positions authority it is "High enough to respect, but not high enough to hate for its position." Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

see Kentucky colonel for more. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a relevant detail there may be that the Kentucky colonels are honorary aide-de-camps to the governor, and apparently (according to that article) many of those in various countries hold a rank of colonel or better. Wnt (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The Kentucky Colonels are not "self-styled" any more than the modern British "knights" are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic: up till about the mid-twentieth century there was a lot of use in British and American writing of addressing people by honorary degrees as if they were real or using titles that we would now consider formal jobs or qualifications as, basically, generic terms of respect. Benjamin Franklin was addressed in his lifetime as "Dr Franklin" - he never attended university but held several honorary degrees and doctorates. In the Lady Hope letter she describes Darwin as a "professor", a position he never held. Conductor Fritz Reiner was addressed as "Dr. Reiner" despite only having an honorary doctorate. C. E. M. Joad was often addressed as professor, although he wasn't one (he did head the philosophy department of a university college, so it wasn't far off, although arguably that should have made him more careful to correct them). Even as late as 1973 the Guardian newspaper interviewed Philip Larkin as "Dr. Larkin" based on his honorary doctorate. And so on. This is now not done: you only get to be called "Dr. Whoever" if you have an actual earned doctorate or medical qualification. I imagine it's similar for this. Blythwood (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm now intrigued as to what medical qualifications Dr.Dre has earned... Lemon martini (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

November 8

Election lockdown

Ever since the Boston Marathon bombing I've been seeing more and more stories about U.S. cities officializing cowardice and demanding that citizens remain at home while police root about for a terrorist. What happens if this happens on the day of the election? Is there any provision to allow the vote to continue on a later day in this scenario? At first blush it seems realistic that a close presidential election could be entirely decided by a single terrorist-errant who gets a city "locked down" in this way in order to keep its voters from being counted, while leaving the rural part of the district to vote for Trump. Wnt (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If you don't want this to happen it can't hurt to not post this. Or at least wait until this election's over. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestion is a form of lockdown in itelf, SMW. I think I'm with Wnt on this question of infantilization. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The OP's question calls for speculation, and is not appropriate here. As to the Boston Bombers situation, the police had enough to do to try to find those two lunatics without having to deal with self-styled heroes and oblivious fools. That term "infantilization" is a huge insult. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Viewed from this side of the pond, the Boston thing looked like some sort of Keystone Kops farce. As to the OPs question, "Is there any provision to allow the vote to continue on a later day in this scenario?" does not call for speculation of any sort whatsoever. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

There are only 0.005 cops per resident in my city. If it's similar 300 km down the road in Boston then that's a lot of peoples' backyards and subways, docks, businesses, maybe wooded areas (at least in the suburbs) to hide in and thoroughly search. If they want to have a line they'd need to walk from one side of the city, too (this is how wolves were made extinct from Manhattan Island, they had a line of guys from river to river walk from one end to the other and shoot every wolf they found, when they walked all ~22 km they went home. I guess the wolves came when the sea level was lower) I'm sure that if terrorist manhunts become common they'd stop locking down cities. They didn't shut down an area during the New York bomber manhunt (though his explosion didn't kill anyone and they sent everyone a text telling us to call 911 if we have tips) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

As I recall, someone tipped off the police about somebody holing up in a boat he had parked in his yard. They also used heat-sensing cameras to look for him. It certainly didn't look like Keystone Kops from here. The way they did it made total sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: "officializing cowardice", it's a good idea to get the citizens off the street so the criminals can't hide in a crowd, take hostages, etc. It's common to do that, although usually on a smaller scale, whenever a dangerous criminal is known to be in a specific area. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, it worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, we digress, but no, it didn't work. The perp was hiding in a parked-up boat, iirc, and there's a strong argument that had more people been on the street looking rather than hunkered down in their bunkers, he's have been found sooner. Still. Enjoy your police militarisation. What could go wrong. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe he was visible from ground level, which is why he hid in the boat. He was visible from the windows on the 2nd stories of the surrounding houses, though, so people being inside their homes would make him more likely to be spotted, not less. Also, if there were crowds in the street, he might have chosen to try to blend in rather than hide in the boat. StuRat (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What could go wrong is that those guys demonstrated they would shoot anybody. But no additional civilians got killed, and the perps were caught. It worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. —Tamfang (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What's the Latin for "better safe than sorry"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it applies here, but in Florida a hurricane made it impossible for many to register in time, and the Republican governor figured the people who couldn't register were mostly Democrats, so he refused to extend the registration period, but the courts overruled him: [12]. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the recourse in such a situation would be to sue the state to either reopen the polls, or allow for late voting. I can't speak for every state, but California's Constitution for example, makes it pretty clear that voting is a right that cannot be infringed, except as described in Article 2 section 4. California statutes also grant election officials very broad powers to make sure people can still vote in the event of natural and man-made disasters, including allowing voting outside one's county of residence, and keeping polls open past election day [13]. I don't feel like looking it up, but I assume most of the other 49 states have similar constitutions and laws. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Too many red states, especially battleground states like Florida, treat voting as a privilege rather than a right. Hence the court fights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• For a precedent... September 11, 2001 ("9/11") was a primary election day in New York... the election was simply cancelled and rescheduled for a later date (a week later if I remember correctly). Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

So how do primary elections work? Was this primary related to the mid - term elections in November 2002? 80.44.161.39 (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It was the New York City mayoral election, 2001. Primaries for federal offices are usually held relatively early in an even-numbered year. City elections do not necessarily coincide with federal elections. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

And just a side note, in NYC, the Mayoral Primary is historically a Big Deal election, in many locales such primaries go unnoticed, but for most of New York City history, winning the Primary was tantamount to election due to the Democratic Party Machine (see Tammany Hall). Even after Tammany Hall was broken, there have been years where there have not been any serious Republican contenders, prior to the late 1980s. There have been some very memorable NYC mayoral primaries, the New York City mayoral election, 1977 was perhaps the most famous, where first and fifth place were separated by less than 5 percentage points. The first time there was a competitive general election for New York Mayor was 1989. The next 2 decades were hotly contested between the Democrats and the Republicans, largely on the rather left-leaning Republican candidates of Guiliani and Bloomberg, however the most recent election in 2013 turned back to the old pattern, with Bill DeBlasio basically could have been declared the winner after the Primary. He faced no serious opposition after that point from the Republican candidate; indeed if you look at the turnouts in the two primaries, its shocking how few Republican voters even cared to choose their candidate, compared to the more robust numbers for the Democratic candidate. --Jayron32 20:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Likewise with Chicago, which elects its mayor the year before the presidential election. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Mental Health in Jail

I am curious to know whether inmates have access to someone to talk to on a regular basis or if they are simply managed without psychotherapy? Also, if they have issues with medication, can they request something else or are they expected to comply without modification? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRef!! (talk • contribs) 02:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

In which country/jurisdiction? The English & Welsh prison service employs psychiatrists and other mental health workers and acknowledges that mental health is a major issue amongst its cohort. I suspect, by contrast, that someone like Joe Arpaio is somewhat less interested in MH issues. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I am interested in the United States/Pinellas County, Florida specifically ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRef!! (talk • contribs) 04:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The Florida department of corrections has a fact-sheet on inmate healthcare here, which also contains contact information if you have questions. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What were the purple states in '88 and '84?

The ones that weren't safe Republican or safe Democrat (just DC for 1984 right?) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It's going to depend on which contest you mean, US President, US Senate, US Congress, State Governor, State Senator, State Congressman, local office, etc. StuRat (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

My bad. The presidential context. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

SMW you need to be aware that the red/blue descriptions were not codified then the way they are now. See this article Red states and blue states where it points out that the red/blue designations did not come into effect until the 2000 presidential election. MarnetteD|Talk 03:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

We could get around this by defining our own terms. For example, we could look at the election results, and consider any state where the popular vote varied by less than 5 percent for the top 2 candidates to be a "purple state", for that election. See United_States_presidential_election,_1988#Close_states and United_States_presidential_election,_1984#Close_states. StuRat (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, they won that badly. Are those about the ones people thought would be close before Election Day? Cause unless the polls were very bad (demoralized Mondale supporters?) by Monday night people must've thought the safe GOP states exceed 269 Electoral votes and it's getting awfully late for an October surprise right? Was 1988 the last Prez election that was won "before it started"? (not counting early voting) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It's never too late for an "October surprise" or even a "November surprise", until one candidate has more votes cast for them than the other major candidate has, plus all the uncast votes. Consider if video turns up showing one candidate saying everything they promised was a lie and they really intend to have all their opponents killed and become a dictator, once elected. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Even that doesn't make it 100% sure. Reagan, Bush 1 and enough Repubs with varsity politics experience could die before the College votes that enough Reagan electors vote Mondale thinking every qualified Republican's gone or it's a sign from God. Aliens could pop out of Bush and Reagan leaving only skins behind right before noon on Inauguration Day, teleport away, destroy Moscow and DC and Mondale's voted in in the do-over. Every President since Washington could be aliens hatched on Gliese 581c so their Presidentness is undefined (de facto yes, not a natural born citizen). In an alternative universe where I was born earlier, a video like that existed on Reagan or Bush Sr. and I had it I wouldn't wait till late on the night before to release it though. That dirt is so bad I might release it as soon as I got it or could sell it in case I get hit by a car or something. Non-guaranteed loss lesser dirt on Reagan or H.W. might be better held back till late but probably not end of the night before late. But anything could happen so I put won before it started in quotation marks. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

In the United States presidential election, 1992 Clinton won by an electoral landslide, though the fact that vote was divided 3 ways may have helped him considerably. His popular vote margin over the second place George H.W. Bush was large (5.6% advantage) but not so large as to be "over before it started". The United States presidential election, 1996 was probably closer to what you are thinking of in terms of "over before it started". Perot, though he ran again, played a much smaller part. Clinton handily won re-election, and of the states whose margin of victory was <5%, Clinton could have lost all of them and still won the election. In United States presidential election, 2008, Obama pretty well crushed the McCain ticket, being the first candidate to win with a true "majority" since 1988. In that race, had Obama lost every state with a margin <5%, he still would have won the presidency with 291 electors. The United States presidential election, 2012 race was closer, but still, had Obama lost every state with <5% margin in THAT race, he still would have had 272 voters. So, if you want the last time that a candidate could have won the election WITHOUT taking any "close" states, it would be "The last one". --Jayron32 13:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I remember that in 1984, Massachusetts was considered a safe democratic state but still ended up voting for Reagan. DC was considered a safe democratic "state" as well, like Minnesota (Walter Mondale's home state), but polls made it pretty clear that Reagan was safely ahead just about everywhere. That included New York, in spite of the fact a) the democratic VP nominee (Geraldine Ferraro) hailed from there, and b) it's been generally considered a safe democratic state ever since. As mentioned above, some of the demographic factors that have made states coalesce into "blue states" and "red states" in the 21st century were not fully at play yet: there were a lot fewer Hispanic voters, and lot more traditional blue collar voters ("Reagan Democrats") than there are today. See 1984 United States Presidential Election. --Xuxl (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

One thing that cannot be stressed enough is the difference in party politics before the Republican Revolution of the 1990s. Prior to then, both parties were Big Tent Parties, with a wide array of coalitions based mostly on local party affiliations as a result of machine politics. In simple terms, there was not a strong ideological component to belonging to a party, and the nation was not sharply divided by the tribal affiliations of modern U.S. party politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that there came to be a sharp divide between demographics, ideology and party affiliation. --Jayron32 18:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Spirituality

Why isn't there an entry for Bentinho Massaro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:FC00:B500:D49B:3B67:4432:8EAC (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Because nobody has yet got around to writing it. You're welcome to do so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• is that not Bentigno Msaro? What is your source? μηδείς (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Does appear to mean http://www.bentinhomassaro.com/ - but I can't immediately see anything about him which is not actually written by him. Google shows nothing for Bentigno Msaro! Wymspen (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton and trump both getting less than 270

What happens if the number of electoral votes won by Clinton is more than trump but less than 270?Uncle dan is home (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

See [14] for a general overview of how things work in a "hung electoral college", and historical cases, even though the particular potential scenario the article discusses for this election is obsolete. Eliyohub (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If no one has an electoral majority, then the House of Representatives decides the presidential election. Here is a detailed explanation of how it works.[15] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

See United States presidential election, 1824 for the last time it happened. --Jayron32 13:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Fivethirtyeight speculated that exact situation on an article here[16]. The 12th amendment stipulates that the top three candidates (which could potentially include Evan McMullin, a conservative independent with extremely strong support in Utah) are submitted to the House of Representatives for voting up to election day. If it hasn't been decided by then who the President will be, the Senate will likely have already decided the vice-president who will become president. But all of this is unprecedented in the modern era so I would expect months of speculation and litigation. uhhlive (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Synonym for rent-seeking

When the phrase rent-seeking comes up in a discussion, it can be interpreted two ways:

Group 1 understands that it's a technical term in economics, and understands that it's a bad thing (as according to most economists).

Group 2 misunderstands the term and confuses it with landlords seeking rent from tenants. When Group 2 sees that Group 1 is so venomously against it, they assume that Group 1 are socialists who's against landlords and the bourgeois.

And thus a small miscommunication causes a flame war and completely derails the original discussion.

Is there a synonym for rent-seeking so that this whole mess can be avoided? Not that there's anything wrong with the phrase as it's coined, but avoiding unnecessary miscommunication is always a good thing.Pizza Margherita (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know any synonym, but perhaps if you're the one invoking the term, use a disclaimer - "this refers to the economist's use of the term, and has nothing to do with landlords and tenants"? Perhaps direct them to the Wikipedia article on the subject? Would that be enough to pre-empt the flame warring and discussion derailing? The question I can't answer is how to douse the flames once they've already erupted. I suspect in such raging conversations, Godwin's law will eventually rear its ugly head, but I can give no advice as to how to stop this in its tracks once the flames are burning. Anyone have any suggestions for the OP? Eliyohub (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics suggests "privilege seeking" as a better alternative. Smurrayinchester 10:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

(If the people you're talking to are familiar with the term "Robber baron", that might help too, although it's almost as unclear a term as "rent-seeking".) Smurrayinchester 10:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

For laymen's terms, I would call it "trying to increase your share of the pie, without making the pie bigger". StuRat (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

…or higher. —Tamfang (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you thinking of pie in the sky? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Nevada's "none of these candidates" option on the ballot - making it constitutional

Nevada used to have a None of These Candidates option on every ballot, including primaries. It was ruled unconstitutional, as the law was that if "none" won, the candidate with the next highest number of votes won the election. Hence, the result was not respected in a democratic sense. I can't get what the ultimate outcome was of the legal battle.

Have there been any attempts in the Nevada State legislature to reform the law, to give real effect to a "none of these candidates" result? The obvious solution would be that if the "none" option won, a new election would be scheduled, at which all the candidates on the previous ballot would be ineligible, as the electorate has explicitly rejected them. The electorate voted "none of these candidates" - let them get exactly that! (I vote for real democracy despite the disruption and cost this would involve. And if there was a real possibility of "none" winning, no doubt parties would make sure to select a "reserve candidate" beforehand at their primaries as a contingency, thus negating the need for a lengthy procedure or new convention to select a new batch of candidates). The judge implied that such a law would be constitutional, as it gives effect to the result of the election. Have any proposals to pass such a reform been brought before the Nevada State legislature? And if not, who's blocking them? I gather the Republicans don't like the law, as they were the ones that challenged it, and they currently control the Nevada Assembly. Is there any chance of the Democrats winning the State back? And have they announced any proposals if they do win power back in Nevada, to pass the sort of reform that I am proposing?

Also, if the Republicans didn't like the law, why did they need to challenge it in court, as opposed to simply getting their colleagues in the Nevada Legislature to abolish it? Was one on Nevada's two legislatures (the assembly or the Senate) controlled by the Democrats at the time?

Now with the Republicans in charge, there would be little chance of amending the law. But if the Dems were in power then, why didn't they change the law promptly, to make it constitutional? Eliyohub (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Why do you believe the law is unconstitutional? Our article that you linked to says the ban was overturned and many, many, many recent sources talk about it as if it still exists [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. It's true the option never actually wins but this appears to have always been the case and the Appeals Court seems to agree that this doesn't mean there's something wrong with the option, it's a protest vote. (Likewise, not voting or intentionally spoiling your ballot never actually wins, although in those cases it's not clear what you mean.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

False that it never wins. Have you read our article? "None" has been the top ranking choice in five Primary elections (three republican, two democratic), though never at a general election. And those "none" voters did not have their wishes respected. If the party in question would have been respectful of the voters' wishes, they would have held a new primary, with new candidates. Eliyohub (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. So somebody sneaky could legally change their name to "None of These Candidates", register as a candidate quietly and then rule Nevada with an iron fist? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Methinks you should have small-texted that last comment. I've done so, as I don't want distraction from serious answers. I don't want to distract my own question, but I doubt that would work. Even if "none" won (very rare), I think the law would consider the "none" option Sui generis, and a person of the same name would not count. Eliyohub (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think someone could "quietly" change their name that way. And there have been news stories in the past about guys who tried changing their name to "None of the above" or whatever. Google "man changes name to none of the above" and you can see various stories about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, iirc John Varley – or was it one of the brothers Haldeman? – titled a story "No Award" in a joking attempt to win a Hugo Award. —Tamfang (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course I read our article. I'm the one who pointed out your claim it is unconstitutional isn't supported by the article you linked to. It seems you misunderstood what I'm saying. Perhaps try reading it again. In Nevada, "None of These Candidates" may receive the most votes, but it never actually wins, just like (in most voting systems) not voting or spoiling your ballot never wins. The person who receive the most votes wins, even if the person only received 1 vote, and 500 million other eligible voters intentionally spoil their ballots, vote "None of These Candidates" or simply don't vote. (I said most because there are some systems which aren't quite this.) Whether or not this should be the case is besides the point of the RD.

If you want to ask how likely it is that the Nevada legislature will change the apparently constitutional ballot option "None of These Candidates" which has existed for a long time and through all that time could receive the most votes, but never win, so that it can win, you should rephrase the question. Since as it stands, as I point out in my first post, your question doesn't seem to be supported by anything including our article you linked to.

P.S. You should also explain what you mean by a "reserve candidate". If you allow it, it's obviously always possible that all candidates, including reserve candidate/s will be rejected. If voters are required to accept a reserve candidate, you seem to have defeated your own plan of always allowing the people to choose. If you run out of reserve candidates, you're going to have to find more candidates somehow. Ultimately it's theoretically possible, you will run out of candidates point blank. Of course since finding each batch of candidates adds time and money, it could be this won't happen until after it's the next time to vote, or your state is bankrupt from running all those elections. Running you elections FPTP style probably doesn't help matters. Having only a single "reserve" (or whatever you want to call it) candidate with the only other option being "None of These Candidates" may increase your chances of the candidate actually winning compared to "None of These Candidates". Whether this actually makes sense compared to simply not using FPTP is again something that the RD isn't designed to deal with. You do have other options which again the fairness isn't something the RD is designed to deal with. Like sticking with FPTP but not enforcing it for "none of these candidates", instead requiring 50% +1 for "none" to win.

P.P.S. I admit I should have include a "can" or something similar in my original comment. But I still feel it was clear enough given my mention of spoilt votes and not voting; and also mentioning the courts view that it never winning doesn't mean it's unconstitutional since it can still function as a protest vote (with the unstated implication this ties back to the earlier point namely that the law doesn't allow it to win).

P.P.P.S. One final point which often you may not even need 1 vote for a candidate. Many voting systems have tie breakers for obvious reasons. And if they expect one candidate to win, no matter how many people voted "none of these candidates" or whatever, it's likely the tie breakers will come into play and one of the candidates will win via the tie breaker even if no candidates received any vote and 500 million people voted "none of these candidates"

Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Cost of fast food vs. retail prices of supermarket food

People always blame on fast food for producing too many calories, but then if you go to a supermarket and buy raw ingredients, then it is possible to buy even more calories for the same amount of money. According to howmuchisit.org, a 5-pound bag of russet potatoes could retail for $3 to $5. If you bake 5 pounds or 2268 grams of potatoes in the oven, then the baked potatoes will generate 3000 calories. At a fast food restaurant, a $3-5 hamburger is nowhere near 3000 calories. At most, it will probably generate 800-1000 calories. The 16 fluid ounces of soda may generate 182 calories and cost just $1. Making your own sugar water at home with honey and water, that may cost $0 for the water (collected from a public water fountain) and, according to the same website for the price of honey, it may cost $5-6 per pound (1379 calories per pound). For each dollar worth of honey, that generates 276 to 230 calories. How did fast food companies earn a reputation of being "cheap" and "unhealthy" when supermarket products are no more healthy than fast food? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

On a calorie-to-calorie basis, sure. But to make a balanced diet to get a proper balance of both macronutrients (proteins, carbs, fats) and micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) is different than simply total calories. If you ate nothing but sugar and water, you'd get very ill within weeks from any number of dietary ailments. Also, many people live in areas known as food deserts, where there is more likely to be a fast food restaurant than a grocery store. If you either have to walk or take public transportation to get to a super market, that's an additional outlay of money and time which your 80-hour-per-week-minimum-wage-making ass may not be able to bear. --Jayron32 17:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Just about everything is more expensive in fast food restaurants, relative to a grocery store. So both healthy and unhealthy foods are cheaper in the grocery store. However, healthy foods may be less expensive relative to unhealthy foods, at the grocery store, while they are more expensive, and less available, relative to unhealthy foods, at fast food restaurants.

For example, let's just look at potatoes, since you brought them up. Potatoes themselves are a fairly healthy item, but, depending on how you prepare them and what you top them with, they may become very unhealthy. If you buy an inexpensive bag of potatoes, you can prepare them in a healthy way, say baking, and then just top with butter, and still have it be reasonably healthy. You can also buy potatoes in a processed form, like french fries, hash browns, potatoes au gratin, scalloped potatoes, potato salad, etc., but those are less healthy and more expensive.

Now for the fast food restaurant. They almost always push french fries, which are unhealthy due to the amount of oil used to fry them and the salt they are topped with. A few places, like Wendy's, will sell you a baked potato, but then they tend to put unhealthy things on it, like bacon and cheese. You can get a plain baked potato there, but you won't see them advertising them or putting them on sale much. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

We also have an article on the criticism of fast food you can peruse at your leisure. uhhlive (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

There are a great many politicians who earn a good living by convincing the ordinary people of the world that all their daily activities are sinful, and the only way to atone for that sin is by paying a tax on whatever it is they do that they ought to feel guilty about. So of course they should repent for a beer with a generous donation to the defense-industrial complex, and repent for a soda pop with a pass of the hat for property tax reductions. When they gamble, they should go to a Mafia-approved casino with a proper license for 5000 slot machines to benefit the State, as to play such games on their own would, like all activities of the poor, be criminal. Eventually, when all the resources of the world are in the hands of one man, he will leave all its sins behind with the damned poor, and fly away to Heaven to negotiate with God as an equal. Wnt (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Who casts the electoral college votes of dead/ill/trapped in an elevator electors?

Surely one has died before that day in December some time in 200 years. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Every state decides its own process for appointing Presidential electors, there is no universal policy, so you're going to get 51 different answers here for the 50 states (+DC). There are no federal rules regarding who can serve as an elector excepting that they cannot be an elected official otherwise, the the Constitution sets no requirements on the state over how they choose electors (that each state DOES hold an election for them is an accident of history and not established by the rules. Legally, the governor could just choose a bunch of his croneys and tell them who to vote for). Just to provide one state's procedure for you, here is the laws in Texas regarding presidential electors: [23]. The relevant passage is "Sec. 192.007. REPLACEMENT AFTER ELECTION" The procedure looks reasonable, and likely is similar to that which exists in many states, but there is no requirement for it to be so. --Jayron32 18:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What happens if the POTUS or VPOTUS tiebreaker ties?

i.e. A wins 20 House delegations, B wins 20, and 10 are tied. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The Constitution doesn't say. Presumably they keep going until the tie is broken. Meanwhile, the Senate elects the VP, so unless that one ties too, the VP would become the president, at least temporarily. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

the european colonization

why did they have to colonize in america? -- Cassiey (talk · contribs) 22:58, 8 November 2016‎ (UTC)

They didn't "have to", but there was an opportunity there, since they could conquer the natives, and either enslave them and steal their wealth or set up agricultural production there. See European colonization. StuRat (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The ancestors of Native Americans didn't "have to" cross the ice bridge either. They chose to.

Land bridge.
Sleigh (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Either way, they chose to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The OP may wish to clarify "have to". Is the underlying question, why did Europeans create colonies? Or, why were they set up in the United States and elsewhere in the Americas? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to be many sexual orientations at once?

Is it possible to mainly be heterosexual, but also a bit asexual, pansexual, and bisexual at the same time? I'm mainly a heterosexual woman, but I have a little bit of queerness in me. I find transgendered woman attractive which makes me a bit pansexual, I find sometimes other cisgender woman attractive so I'm a bit bi, and I'm also afraid of having sex with any guy go I guess I'm a bit asexual and anti romantic. Is what I'm feeling considered "normal"? Swancat (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)