Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:08, 24 November 2016

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

November 19

Woops, can't pick up that Nobel. Pre-existing commentments.

"Yesterday evening the Swedish Academy received a personal letter from Bob Dylan, in which he explained that due to pre-existing commitments, he is unable to travel to Stockholm in December and therefore will not attend the Nobel Prize Ceremony. He underscored, once again, that he feels very honored indeed, wishing that he could receive the prize in person."[1]

I wonder what kind of pre-existing commitments could be powerful enough to prevent someone from collecting a Nobel Prize. I have a semi-annual dental checkup around that time of year, but I'm sure I could reschedule it if I got a Nobel.

Any idea what might be going on? Does Dylan have a concert scheduled around December 10? Studio time booked? Somebody's birthday? How hard is it to get out of something like that, really? Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Bob Dylan's Never Ending Tour breaks at the end of November this year, as it normally does. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not attending in person to receive the award won't disqualify him, but not attending in person to deliver his Nobel lecture WILL disqualify him, so he's gotta go there at some stage. But maybe he's not interested. I doubt he needs the money. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Why would he be disqualified for not delivering a speech? Says who? There have been several awardees who were unable to attend due to fear of personal or political retribution (one was even in prison when he received the award), I don't think there was any discussion of canceling their awards. It doesn't make much sense to me that an award of this caliber would be in any way contingent on attending in person. Dragons flight (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Nobel Prize: Nobel lecture - According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, each laureate is required to give a public lecture on a subject related to the topic of their prize... The laureate is only obliged to give the lecture within six months of receiving the prize. Now, special circumstances are always accommodated; but if Dylan were to say he has no intention of giving any form of lecture, without giving a reason, they could withdraw his award. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[failed verification]} I checked and neither source cited in Nobel Prize actually says the lecture is required. Even if such a rule exists on paper, they never have withdrawn an award for failing to present a lecture and as discussed below numerous people have delayed, skipped, or given a proxy lecture. It's a toothless rule if it is never enforced. Dragons flight (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with Dragons flight on this. One of the previous times this came up, I provided some (well at least one) sources saying the money may not be given if an awardee does not give the lecture. However the person is still the winner of the Nobel Prize as far as the Nobel committee is concerned, no matter how much they don't want it. I believe the source was either quoting or relaying what a member of the committee told them. Note that Dylan's reaction has actually been less extreme than some other laureates as he eventually acknowledges it, said thanks etc. By comparison others have completely rejected it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Prize itself remains on the record no matter what the recipient's attitude is. But the awarding of the money is a different matter. Jean-Paul Sartre rejected the Prize and refused to give any sort of lecture. No money was paid. Later, he needed the money and asked for it. The request was declined. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that source is the same or some variation of what I read before, confirming what I said above. The Nobel Prize/award will never be withdrawn as originally suggested. However it's possible the money may be disputed. My original guess was the money was simply not provided until the requirements were fulfilled. But with 76's comments below I'm not so sure. It's possible that if arrangements are made to receive the money at the ceremony, it will be provided even if the requirements haven't been met yet. In that case, I guess it's possible if the cheque hasn't been cashed and there has been no agreement, after 6 months the cheque will be cancelled. I.E. the award money may be withdrawn, but not the award itself. If the cheque has been cashed, I guess it's even possible they will ask for it back. I find it unlikely they'll pursue this much more though if nothing happens. It may be more likely that if the money is provided but the requirements haven't been fulfilled, they largely just expect the laureate to fulfill the promise on their own initiative. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the straight dope on declining the prize and on giving the lecture: Nobel Foundation statutes, section 9. The second and third paragraphs are short enough to quote in full:

Should a prizewinner decline the prize, or before October 1 in the calendar year immediately following fail to cash the prize-awarding body's check in the manner stipulated by the Board, the amount of the prize shall be added to the Foundation's restricted funds.

It shall be incumbent on a prizewinner, whenever this is possible, to give a lecture on a subject relevant to the work for which the prize has been awarded. Such a lecture should be given before, or no later than six months after, the Festival Day in Stockholm or, in the case of the Peace Prize, in Oslo.

So they don't precisely say "no lecture, no money". I don't believe there's ever been a case of anyone accepting the prize and choosing not to give the lecture, though. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add a bit. Awardees in failing health or otherwise unable to travel often deliver a video recorded address (or in the old days provided a written letter someone would read). In the case that an awardee dies after the announcement but before the medal ceremony, a family member or colleague is allowed to give the lecture and the award to still conferred. When Liu Xiaobo won the award of prison, a Norwegian actress simply read a statement he wrote prior to his imprisonment and that was his "lecture". Theodore Roosevelt delayed his lecture for 4 years to wait for the end of his presidency. Wilhelm Röntgen won the 1901 physics award, received the award in person, and promised to come back to give a lecture but actually never did. Similarly, according to NobelPrize.org, Henri Moissan, William Bragg, Niels Ryberg Finsen, Adolf von Baeyer, Marie Curie (1903), Adolf Butenandt, Jules Bordet, Isidor Isaac Rabi, Elias Canetti, Richard Kuhn, Egas Moniz, Edward A. Doisy, and Lev Landau never gave any Nobel Lecture. Dragons flight (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward William Purvis

I am looking for sources in the British army records from the 1860s and 1870s which speaks of a Edward William Purvis. The sources I have in the current article speaks about his experiences in Hawaii but prior to 1879, he was in the British Army. The only reliable sources I could find about him from before 1879 are the two books (all Google Books has are these non-informational regimental list) which list him in the 70th (Surrey) Regiment and 31st (Huntingdonshire) Regiment (no details) and another book that he attended Cheltenham College. So I need help finding reliable sources about his British military services, maybe a reference that he attended the Royal Military College, Sandhurst or some sources about what those two regiments were doing with him in them. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commissions could be purchased until 1871.
Sleigh (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but that is just speculation and not related to the subject I am asking about. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E. W. Purvis wouldn't've gone to Sandhurst if he purchased his commission.
Sleigh (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there available sources with list from the Royal Military College, Sandhurst from this period? Unreliable sources, which I can't use, stated he enter in 12th February 1876, so I need sources about the college from that period. Don't usually institutions like this usually have alumni list or register of students in contemporary or later publications? Something like this but for Sandhurst instead. His name could be listed as "E. W. Purvis", "Edward W. Purvis", "Edward William Purvis", "Edward Purvis", "Purvis, E. W.", "Purvis, Edward W.", "Purvis, Edward William", or "Purvis, Edward". --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you've seen Edward William (Toby or Ukelele) Purvis which says: "Entered (12th February 1876) the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, Berkshire, England, joined (February 1877) the 70th (Surrey) Regiment in Bengal, India, as Sub-Lieutenant (learning to speak Hindi), and transferred (July/September 1879) to the 31st (Huntingdonshire) Regiment at Chatham, Kent, England, as Sub-Lieutenant. He then resigned his British Army Commission and travelled across the U.S.A. to settle (probably c.1879/80) in Honolulu". That web entry seems to use this book as a reference. If the above is correct, then his military service consisted of two years in Bengal and a few months in Kent, probably occupying his time playing polo or pigsticking. However, the rank is an error - Sub Lieutenant is a naval rank, the army equivalent is Second lieutenant. Alansplodge (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need to correct that last - according to Ranks and Insignia for Infantry Officers through out the Victorian Era: "Until 1871 the lowest commissioned rank was the Ensign in the Infantry and Cornet in the Cavalry... Between 1871-1877 the lowest was the Sub Lieutenant, after which today's Second Lieutenant rank was established." I can't find a better source, but the fact is mentioned (unreferenced and without dates) in our Sub lieutenant article. Alansplodge (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the bye, Purvis seems to have introduced the Macadamia nut to Hawaii in 1885. [2] Alansplodge (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That source is wrong. It was a second cousin William Herbert Purvis who did that. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This link suggests that the the records of the Royal Military Academy are not available online, but there is an email contact. Alansplodge (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little more progress... I found that the National Library of Scotland has Hart's Army Lists viewable online. See New Army List 1877 - Unattached Sub Lieutenants (Students at the Royal Military College) which shows Edward William Purvis listed under 12 February 1876, which matches the entry date in the biography that I linked above.

Also there is New Army List 1878 - 70th (Surrey) which has the regiment at Mooltan Bengal. "Mooltan" in Wikipedia redirects to Multan in Punjab on the other side of the sub-continent, so I'm not sure where this Mooltan is, unless it's a transcription error. Purvis is listed amongst eight sub lieutenants in the battalion, with 2 years service. The title page says "Corrected to 31 December 1877".

Next, New Army List 1879 - 70th (Surrey) which has the Surreys in "Quetta, Bengal". Again, Quetta is nowhere near Bengal, (it's in Balochistan) so I'm growing a bit suspicious of Hart's geography. Purvis is still a sub lieutenant, now with 3 years service.

And finally, New Army List 1880 - Resignations, &c. which has under "Sub-lieutenants": "E. W. Purvis, 31 F." (ie: 31st Regiment of Foot). Hope this helps. Alansplodge (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do the dates mean in the first source? Are we sure they are the entry dates for the students?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't prove it, but it seems the most likely interpretation. If I've done my arithmetic right, Purvis would have been 18 years-old at that date.

I did find a tantalising Google Books "snippet view" which describes an officer called General Sir Archibald Hunter, G.C.B., G.C.V.O., D.S.O., who was an "Unattached Sub Lieutenant" at Sandhurst in 1874. The bit I can read on page 6 says: "These men would be known as unattached Sub-Lieutenants. Hunter chose to go to Sandhurst under this scheme. Due to administrative and other problems being experienced while Hunter was there, the Sandhurst records provide little information about his time at the Royal Military College. Strangely, he is recorded as having both arrived and departed on 13 June 1874! He certainly arrived on this date, but left about a year later at the conclusion of his course". Finding Hunter's entry in the New Army List, he is indeed listed on 13 June 1874, in exactly the same way as Purvis, so I think we can conclude that 12 February 1876 is Purvis's arrival date. Alansplodge (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval dinner

I've been challenged to organise a birthday party with a medieval theme, I've managed ok with the decorations, but I might need some advice with what else we can put on for food, any suggestions of the sorts of things that would be suitable, both in terms of main courses and snacks and other smaller items.

Many thanks,

86.24.139.55 (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, we do have a featured article on medieval cuisine. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This site has a bunch of recipes. Deor (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guests must either eat with their fingers and maybe knives if they bring one, or drink from the soup bowl or dab one's bread in the broth. No fancy French tableware. No potatoes, peppers, tomatoes, rice or anything from the East or the new world. Watch the movies Excalibur and Monty Python's Holy Grail. Do not wash your hands while preparing the food. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bring out all courses including dessert at the same time. Do wash your hands while preparing food (germ theory of disease).
Sleigh (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, Sleigh, I had forgotten Pasteur was a member of Charlemagne's court. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See An Evening with the Tudors: How to prepare a Medieval Feast. The Tudor dynasty is widely regarded as belonging to the Renaissance period rather than the Medieval one, but unless you're entertaining the pedantic, I wouldn't let that worry you too much. Alansplodge (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Charles Laughton as Henry VIII. 2A00:23C4:8300:6C01:75C8:2661:C8F1:FDEA (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Inn at the Cross Roads, a Game of Thrones/Song of Ice and Fire cooking fan blog, is good source for dishes that are reasonably authentic - but also palatable to the modern taste (medieval recipes were often sickeningly sweet, heavy on pungent herbs and spices, and used combinations of ingredients that we'd now find weird) and that use ingredients that can be found in modern shops. They write the official "A Feast of Ice and Fire" cookbook, which has two versions of each recipe - one based on genuine medieval recipes, altered only to replace hard-to-find ingredients and allow for the use of modern cooking equipment, and a more heavily modernized version, adapted to the standards of Nouvelle cuisine. Smurrayinchester 10:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie

Who pays Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie? Do both of these Royal Family members live off the British taxpayer, or do they have an actual job? --Camero-Belter (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's Princess Eugenie. Eugene is a male name. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. So how do they fund their lifestyles? --Camero-Belter (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this, that states that the Duke of York supports them. Nanonic (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A good overview Wikipedia article is Finances of the British Royal Family. --Jayron 32 16:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her article states that Eugenie "work[s] for the Hauser & Wirth art gallery as an associate director". Rojomoke (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking in general, if you're rich enough it's possible to live off investment income, so one doesn't need "an actual job". --47.138.163.230 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although if you believe the Daily Mail, Eugenie has given up her job with a New York investment firm, Sandbridge Capital, and started her own consultancy. [3] So it seems that they both work for a living. Alansplodge (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About one particular baby name

From Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#African American justices, after describing Thurgood Marshall's appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States:

"Johnson confidently predicted to one biographer, Doris Kearns Goodwin, that a lot of black baby boys would be named "Thurgood" in honor of this choice (in fact, Kearns's research of birth records in New York and Boston indicates that Johnson's prophecy did not come true)."

That got me wondering something. Did the name "Marshall" (admittedly more commonplace both then and now) become popular with that demographic instead, or were baby name trends totally unaffected by his appointment? And where would relevant resources be located? Airbag190 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, birth records for the relevant period (the 1970s) are not yet publically available, presumably for privacy reasons. The researchers must have had some kind of academic dispensation, or done their own survey/analysis - for example, she might have researched student records at her university. The New York Public Library gives a contact telephone number for people wanting to research city birth records after 1910. (The baby name wizard which is for all of the US, not just New York or Boston, shows the name Marshall peaked around 1900. It does not offer a breakdown by ethnic background.) 184.147.122.87 (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top 1000 Names of 1965 — Male has Marshall at 265th with 780 babies whereas Top 1000 Names of 1964 — Male has Marshall at 267th with 825 babies. So there seems to have been a slight decline in the actual number of babies named Marshall after Thurgood's appointment, but again, no ethnic breakdown. This site has the name Thurgood at 11,979th place in 2014, but no prior data. Not sure how reliable this sort of website is - probably not very. Alansplodge (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this site is to be believed, Marshall actually flattened and then experienced a bit of a decline around that time (and then became popular again much more recently. However, that source only segregates between males and females, not by race (however you want it defined). Given the flatness of popularity, it would be interesting to see if there was an increase in usage among blacks with a commensurate decline among non-blacks. At least at this remove, I don't think of "mashall" as being particularly connotative of the Justice, though; it's much more clearly tied to marshal. Matt Deres (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chitterlings, yuk

What do other English-speaking countries call chitterlings? Even Canadians do not call it that. I need to know for Talk:Chitterlings#Possible page move and am having trouble getting search engine answers. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chittlins? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know, don't guess. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a guess - it's what they're called in America [maybe more often spelled "chitlins"]. What does the questioner mean by "other" English-speaking countries? "Other than" which country? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me. The question mark misled me. If you misle me again, I'll, I'll ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other than US and the country where the term originates, England. I wonder what intestines as food is called in Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Scotland, Caribbean countries, African countries, etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that the term is (as far as I know) entirely historical in England; I've never seen them for sale or heard of anybody eating them in my lifetime. Alansplodge (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it hardly seems necessary to point out that what you (or any other individual) have experienced isn't necessarily representative of the entire country, since a couple of minutes on google reveals numerous sources of chitterlings for sale in the UK: [4], [5], [6]. CodeTalker (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... but Alan is correct that they are a specialist product not generally available in supermarkets. Dbfirs 09:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction User:CodeTalker, your first link describes it as a "great West Country delicacy and a taste of the olden days". Both my parents came from the Devon and Cornwall borders, I have relatives living in Plymouth and Saltash and I'm a regular visitor there; I've never heard of anybody eating them, never seen them in a butcher's shop or on a pub or restaurant menu. I just wanted to point out to the OP that it wasn't an everyday item in the British diet. Liver and kidneys yes, and I remember as a child seeing tripe in a butcher's window, but not chitterlings. Alansplodge (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to know that the OED puts the word in "band 3": "words [that] are not commonly found in general text types like novels and newspapers, but at the same they are not overly opaque or obscure". Such word might be typically found only once in fifty million words of text. Compare this with "tripe" which the OED claims is ten times as common. Google ngrams confirms this ratio for modern English, with the word chitterlings being less common in modern British English than in American by a factor of two. Whilst we are exchanging personal experiences, I've only ever come across the word once (in an American text I think), and I've never seen the product on sale in the UK. Dbfirs 22:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure intestine is still eaten in many of these: List of territorial entities where English is an official language, especially the poorer ones. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wonder if it is an actual ingredient in ballpark hotdogs, and not just used as a casing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a use of the word "Chitterlings" in an Australian source. And Another Australian source. Here is a Canadian source using the "Chitlins" spelling. Here is a forum discussing good chitterlings sources in Toronto, and uses that spelling. Here is a review of the best places to get chitterlings in Halifax, NS and uses that spelling. I'm quite sorry you're unfamiliar with the term, but you should realize that "I've never heard it" is not a synonym for "It's not common". --Jayron 32 04:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayron32. Thanks for digging those up. I really did try, and found nothing. I looked for African and Caribbean recipes in particular.

And I must say that "I've never heard it" is not a synonym for "It's not common", but they are similar. If someone who spent many years in Canada never heard the term (like me), then one may rightly think that it is not common.

Anyhow, many thanks to the responders. I guess a page move is not needed. I am still surprised. I would have thought that African and Caribbean recipes use it and call it simply intestines. Cheers to all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

States that require ultrasound before abortion

Is there a list of states that require women to view an ultrasound before having an abortion?Uncle dan is home (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion in the United States by state features a color-coded map. It's mainly just Texas and Louisiana that absolutely require the woman to see the ultrasound, though about a dozen other states have laws pushing it. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was looking all over the place, but you've just nailed it now. Now, I'm not meaning to ask a potentially inflammatory question, but have there been any studies done to investigate whether women in Louisiana and Texas decide to continue their pregnancy after seeing an ultrasound? I saw a research study saying that the majority who saw it still decided to terminate their pregnancy, but the study was conducted in Los Angeles.Uncle dan is home (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to ask the question you've asked, and I have no answer for it. I'm not sure that there would be anything particularly special about women from those two states that would make them differ from those surveyed in other studies. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What might be special about them would be the amount of coercion those two states might engage in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or there may be a difference between people who have chosen to see the ultrasound, and people who are forced to see it - I would expect the latter to have a higher rate of abortion, as the first group will select against those that are so sure that they feel no need to see the ultrasound. MChesterMC (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, coercion by the state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Serious question, no trolling) Prostitutes as a economic index

People talk about using gold standard or use big mac as a index to check for the real value of the money and etc....
My question is, would be prostitution prices a good index?
Prostitute don't depend on items (other than condoms) and so their job dont depent on the price of other stuff or their availability. They also pay no taxes.
PS:This is a genuine question, I am not trolling.201.78.176.7 (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see two immediate problems. First, prostitution is not a commodity market. Services are not standardised, but quite diverse and specialised. Thus, it is very hard to compute a price index. A Big Mac is a Big Mac is a Big Mac. Secondly, prostitution is illegal (if often tolerated) or semi-legal in many jurisdictions. It is socially shunned in most if not all markets. As such, it is usually part of an underground economy with little if any visible accounting. So its economic impact is hard to measure. In summary, I don't think it is particularly suitable to measure economic activity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be methods of at least estimating the value of illegal businesses like prostitution and the drugs trade, as they are included in the UK GDP: (Link). Fgf10 (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a back of the envelope kind of calculation. Llaanngg (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim prostitutes pay no taxes seems dubious. In places where prostitution is largely legal I'm not sure if prostitutes tax compliance is that much worse than some others in the services industry, especially if we exclude those who mostly work in the street. Nil Einne (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In places were prostitution was decriminalized (most of Europe), it's not seen as a profession, so no one is paying taxes as a prostituted person. If they pay, they register as some other profession for social insurance and taxes. The only place that I know were prostituted people are employees is in Germany, but there are apparently just a tiny fraction, something like 0.001%, registered officially prostitutes. Llaanngg (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Tax man goes after sex workers and escort agencies to stop evasion. Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, these "businesses" are registered as something else for tax purposes if they are paying taxes - massage parlor, sauna, escort agency, or simply a pub. That makes difficult to know how the prices are. Or are not paying taxes at all and being persecuted by the British tax man. Llaanngg (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you can't use the info to determine prices, but that's a separate issue from whether or not they're paying taxes. Note also in many countries business registration isn't simply about taxes, even if it tends to be a big part of it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how employees came in to it. You don't need to be an employee to pay taxes, otherwise everyone will be self-employed. Here is NZ's guidance for self-employed sex workers [7]. Note that there may be no need to declare a profession when reporting income, you may simply need to report how much you've earned. See e.g. NZ's individual tax return form [8]. Even if some indication of where the self-employment income came from is needed, it's possible you don't really need a great level of detail, e.g. perhaps something like "personal services" will be sufficient. Now if you get audited, I assume you will need to tell them where your income came from but otherwise I'm pretty sure the tax department doesn't care provided you're paying all the tax you're supposed to.

In NZ, if you have a turnover $60,000 or more, you'd need to register for GST. In that case, I think you'll need to declare a but more about what you do. Likewise if you want to start a business for some reason, I think you'll need to declare a bit more. But neither of these are going to apply in all cases of sex work.

By the same token, not all countries require someone to "register" a profession whether for tax purposes o some other purpose. I.E. it may be there's no need to be a "registered official prostitute" anymore than there's need to be a "registered official home cleaner" or "register official lawnmower". Provided you're complying with all relevant laws (including tax laws), what you job is (and whether you want to call it a profession or not) is ultimately your business (except when it comes to the census, but that doesn't make it your register official job).

In countries with less liberal laws on prostitution you can't be complying with all relevant laws. And the tax situation can be more complicated, e.g. the UK example mentioned above. But it's likely at least some, especially high end sex workers are paying at least some tax (whether it's all they're supposed to). Tax authorities generally have great power and great interest in pursuing those not paying tax regardless of the legality of their source of income, especially those earning a lot of money. (Although it's true these high end ones probably don't come in to the price assuming you're using a median.)

Likewise the claim "no one is paying taxes as a prostituted person. If they pay, they register as some other profession for social insurance and taxes" is questionable. Even if it the later part is true, if they are paying income tax on their earnings from sex work, as far as most people are likely to be concerned they are paying tax as prostitutes/sex workers. Whatever tax authorities or government claims. Otherwise you can come up with weird stuff like saying "people mowing lawns, or home cleaners, or whatever else isn't a 'recognised' profession' don't pay taxes".

Ultimately the point remains, the implication of the first post that prostitutes never pay tax is quite dubious. Some do pay tax. Their tax compliance is likely to be quite variable. In some cases it may be a lot worse than others with similar jobs (e.g. person to person cash jobs). In other cases it may very well be similar.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing is problematic, but I could see the percentage of the population engaged in prostitution being a potential indication of the economy: if an economy is down (but not apocalyptically so), prostitution may increase due to clients being unable to afford long-term relationships and potential prostitutes having trouble finding other work. However, this is complicated by developed economies shifting to service industry jobs (which prostitution falls under), as well as social factors. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitutes definitely pay taxes - they just pay them to the real government, not the one that claims to prohibit them. See also pimp... Wnt (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As others have noted, prostitution is not illegal everywhere, so the idea that prostitutes universally don't pay income tax is false. Even in places where it is illegal it's likely many prostitutes who work as "escorts", "housekeepers", "hostesses", etc. pay income tax. Especially if they use the banking system, they're more likely to get the tax authorities after them for not paying income tax then they are to get caught breaking prostitution laws. That's what they got Al Capone on, after all. (Also, there are many taxes other than income tax; using "tax" to mean "income tax" is, I think, a sloppy use of language. It's often pretty hard to avoid paying sales taxes, VAT, property taxes, etc. in jurisdictions that have them.) --47.138.163.230 (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This site appears to be a mine of information. [9]. There is also a search function which brings up information on specific topics, for example [10]. 86.134.217.94 (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date

Does anyone know where I can find a birth date for this guy (Steven Frederick Spears)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A date has now appeared in his article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a date has now appeared. But, that's not my question. I have been searching high and low for that guy's birth date, but I could find nothing at all. Then, that date appeared out of the blue. So, does anyone know where I can find a birth date for this guy? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Unfortunately the editor who added the date did not provide a WP:RS and the refs used in the article did not mention a date. If anyone can find one then please feel free to add a correct date. MarnetteD|Talk 20:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term prospect of YouTube stardom

Traditional films are preserved, no matter how old they are. We can watch a 50 year old movie, a 100 year old movie. These movies have great historical significance, they tell us about the culture and society of that times. But many people now a days are relying on YouTube to promote their films and videos. Stars are using YouTube as a platform. if someday in the future, YouTube or its parent company goes bankrupt, and the site no longer available, what will happen to those millions of videos, films and stars who relied on YouTube for their popularity? will these stars go into oblivion? today's generation remember Fay Wray, Marilyn Monroe, Charlie Chaplin, Marlon Brando, Audrey Hepburn, but will tomorrow's generation remember today's YouTube stars? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditional films are preserved, no matter how old they are." No. A great many have been lost and losses continue. Ditto TV & radio - huge amounts lost huge amounts not archived. Meanwhile digital preservation is also a huge problem. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One simple question: if youtube goes offline, what will happen to the videos? Will they die with youtube? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest films were recorded on nitrocellulose film, this was replaced with cellulose acetate film. Both of these rot with time. A lot of TV programs in the 60s and 70s were recorded on (then) expensive magnetic tape; at the time there was no perceived value in keeping old recordings, and they were often wiped. It is only with the advent of cheaper tape, and the realisation of the home video and re-run markets, that programs are kept. According to Lost film, 90% of pre-1929, and 50% of 1930-1950 films have been lost. LongHairedFop (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of what happens if Youtube offline, the simple answer is we can't predict since it will depend on the precise circumstances and we don't have a WP:Crystal ball. It also depends on what content. Youtube does have a lot of music videos, trailers, copyvios of TV episodes, movies, newsclips and sports broadcasts, etc which may be archived elsewhere. Admittedly for some of the last 2, since many people have smartphones but it's harder to figure out how to record content (heck for many people even if it's playing on their computer), some of these Youtubes videos may be somewhat unique in that you can see the phone moving etc. (In some cases only the shittiest recordings can survive due to Youtube's copyvio detection although I haven't actually seen those for a while so maybe it no longer applies.) But in most cases people aren't interested in that and if anything would prefer a quality direct recording. For user created content, some creators do upload it to more than Youtube for various reasons. For content uploaded exclusively to Youtube which is perhaps what you're referring to, if it's famous enough there's probably already an upload (likely copyvio) elsewhere. It also seems to me it's only a matter of time (if it isn't already happening) that the US Library of Congress and other national archives will preserve content significant to their countries originally released on Youtube and other such places. Other stuff may be preserved elsewhere for various reasons. E.g. archive.org appears to have some Youtube content [11]. Still there's a fair amount of content that isn't likely to be anywhere else, perhaps not even archived by the creator. (Live broadcasts are only going to add to that.) If Youtube suddenly dies tomorrow then perhaps it'll be lost. More likely there'll be an announcement and efforts will be made to preserve as much content as possible. E.g. as happened with Geocities. Note of course, for the foreseeable future many of the other places the content may preserved are more likely to die before Youtube, so this gets back to the earlier question, under what circumstance. Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People living in the world in 4000 CE will find it easier to visualize and understand daily life, economy, society, culture, politics, and warfare of the 21st century compared to how we try to visualize the society of 1st century CE. We do not have any live video of the Fall of Constantinople, but people in 4000 CE can easily see footage of 21st century warfare. These videos have the same historical value of Histories (Herodotus) or Annals (Tacitus). But unlike Histories and Annals, there is no organized public effort to preserve the current videos. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a terrible omission on our part. Fortunately we have left them beautiful historical footage of the fall of Troy... Wnt (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reconstruction of that time based on the interpretation of available archeological evidence and historical texts. If the interpretations process suffers from error, the reconstruction would be erroneous too. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries do have now "Web archives" which may contain videos that are noticed for their importance. Also there is the internet archive --Lgriot (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are fragmented private efforts. Is there any unified international multi-stakeholder effort to preserve those things (videos, films, print and online media articles, contemporary accounts of society, travelogues, objects) that will become historical evidence 2000 years from now? Is there any such effort on part of the United Nations or the UNESCO? Is there any global repository of the entire human history? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a UN-sponsored effort, but the International Internet Preservation Consortium is a network of national libraries, and some other organisations, doing exactly this. Warofdreams talk 15:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navy recipes, 1946

During our recent honeymoon in Hawaii, my wife and I decided to cook the Thanksgiving menu posted in the mess of the USS Missouri (BB-63). Based on the CO, it appears to be the menu from 28 November 1946. The menu references whipped creamed potatoes, likely just a type of mashed. There's also "old fashioned cranberry sauce" which I'm guessing is the non-jellied variety. Is there any archive (hopefully on the internet) of what was actually involved in these items or hopefully the recipes themselves? 73.140.114.77 (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old-Fashioned Cranberry Sauce:

http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/old-fashioned-cranberry-sauce

The cook book of the Navy from 1944:

https://archive.org/stream/TheCookBookOfTheUnitedStatesNavy1944#page/n81/mode/2up/search/cranberry

212.96.33.44 (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mare magnum siue

In this T and O map, what's the "Mare magnum ſiue" that separates Asia from the other continents? I'm curious both about the term itself (what the mapmaker presumably meant by putting that inscription there, versus another inscription or no inscription at all) and the purpose of putting a great sea [siue] in that location. I can understand it being the Red Sea between Asia and Africa, but I'm unclear what (if anything) in real life, aside from a desire for symmetry, would have inspired its placement between Europe and Asia. Google finds essentially nothing, and I checked the Latin Wikipedia, but la:mare magnum siue doesn't exist and a search for the words in the phrase (not for the phrase as a phrase) found literally one article, la:Lubeca, i.e. Lübeck. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Siue" just means "or", and the rest of the description is written vertically - "Mare magnum sive mediterraneum", i.e. "the Great Sea, or the Mediterranean Sea". I guess in this case the Mediterranean represents the Nile/Red Sea, as well as the Black Sea/Don River that the cross-bar of the T usually signifies. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I didn't know that the vertical text was part of the same inscription, and I had no clue that the left side conventionally represented the Black and the Don; the Black makes sense, so I guess they had to pick something to fill out the T? Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

A part in the Bible

I'm looking for something in the Bible I've read. I'm pretty sure it's in the New Testament. It's a teaching about people who satisfied themselves early, with things unworthy and when their real sustenance comes they are already full with the fake stuff.

212.96.33.44 (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is the New Testament - and I have a degree in Theology. Wymspen (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Ephesians 5:18 "Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit". In the Old Testament, there is Micah 3:5-8 which contains the following, in part "they proclaim ‘peace’ if they have something to eat, but prepare to wage war against anyone who refuses to feed them...But as for me, I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the Lord, and with justice and might," --Jayron 32 12:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is Matthew 6:19-21, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.", which is not really about food, but does capture the OP's sentiment. --Jayron 32 12:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or are you thinking about the passages about the milk and meat of the Word? 1 Cor 3:2, Heb 5:12 are the relevant verses. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jayron32 and TammyMoet, but these aren't the one I'm looking for. It's okay, I'll stumble into it again some day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.33.44 (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James 5? Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John 2:10, perhaps? The moral of the story is a little different, but it does talk about how "Thou hast kept the good wine until now....."Herbivore (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've checked James 5 and John 2:10 but these aren't the one. It started with a scorning for filling yourself with what you should have passed on as unworthy and when the :time comes to claim your true sustenance you have no motivation to reach for it, being falsely satisfied

212.96.33.44 (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you, at some point, been looking at the apocryphal gospels - Thomas and the like? Reflecting on your quote, the message does not really match with traditional Christian teaching, but does bear the hallmarks of gnostic teaching about there being something better that only the initiated would have access to. Wymspen (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no, it wasn't apocryphal.

212.96.33.44 (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not 1 Corinthians 8, by any chance? "For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols?" Tevildo (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you remember specific keywords, use [12]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Ireland

Also asked on the Entertainment desk. Please ask questions only on one desk.

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

Hi, about this article, to depict the correct flag of Ireland in 1897, which is the correct one:

Leonprimer (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read List of flags of Ireland? The tricolour was first seen in 1848 but wasn't adopted as the flag of the national movement until 1916. As part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the national flag would have been the Union Flag. The Cross of St Patrick was never, as far as I can see, an official symbol of Ireland, but might be suitable for your purposes. Rojomoke (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IRISH FLAGS for Wikipedia policy on this matter. For general information, see Cross-border flag for Ireland. jnestorius^(talk) 13:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow at the End of the Line

Hi! In the introduction to Venedikt Erofeev's Moscow at the End of the Line, he talks about having deleted most of the chapter 'Hammer & Sickle—Karacharovo' due to its obscenities, and readers' reports of being offended. I'm interested as to what the original chapter said, but can't find it from a google search. The version I'm reading only has one sentence in the chapter: 'And I drank it straight down.' Would be thankful for any help. AloofHawk (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Number of women in Germany raped

Does anyone know the number of women in Germany that were raped during the Soviet invasion?24.31.242.189 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE. See Rape during the occupation of Germany. --Jayron 32 17:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think of this book. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

November 23

World map without country labels

Can I get a copy of this map without the country labels? I've found numerous world maps on the internet without country labels, but I want this exact map. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 06:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is File:1-12 Color Map World.png the "exact map" or, if not would it do? It's the same projection anyway. Thincat (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. --Viennese Waltz 07:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tax rates in Western Europe

I am trying to corroborate, or negate, a statement made by someone that we pay much more in tax as percentage than before, and would therefore like to look at the evolution of tax rates in Western Europe (eg. Italy, France, (West) Germany, UK, Spain, Portugal, Holland) since the 1960/70s up to present day, such as VAT, property tax, inheritance tax, wealth tax and company tax, and also contributions to government health care and new taxes introduced by respective governments. Are there any webpages on which I can find this information? - if possible, in graph form, to see the evolution. Also, can anyone here comment whether this is the case in general terms in Europe and also USA/Canada as a comparison? Thank you. ZygonLieutenant (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking for what is known as the "tax burden" - which can be measured against GDP List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP or against income - http://taxfoundation.org/article/comparison-tax-burden-labor-oecd-0 There is a table in this document http://www.nber.org/chapters/c5981.pdf (page 350) showing how tax as a percentage of GNP has increased - but it isn't up to date and only gives US figures. Wymspen (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some UK specific information at Institute for Fiscal Studies - Long-term trends in British Taxation and Spending and Office for National Statistics - Fifty years of the effects of taxes and benefits on household income. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And some recent taxation history at European Commission TAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNION - Taxation trends in the European Union. Alansplodge (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And some useful information at Tax Freedom Day. 86.134.217.94 (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Payment platform vs. payment gateway

In what way do the concepts Payment gateway and Payment platform correlate to each other? We have no article on the latter, but examples like Leaf (payment platform) and Alipay (payment platform). --KnightMove (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "official" definition, so the terms will be used carelessly and inconsistently, whichever way an author feels like on the day.

If there is any difference at root, it's that a "platform" processes payments by providing module(s) of code which are then tightly coupled to the application software through an API, executing within the same server group. It runs on the application's hardware.

A "gateway", in contrast, is more loosely coupled. It runs on the gateway provider's servers and is connected to by a wire protocol, transmission over the 'net, rather than program API calls. It will be physically distant, in a different data centre.

A platform often requires careful attention to data security for the application, as it's handling and maybe storing sensitive customer financial data. This is difficult for a small website to implement competently, in a provable manner. For a gateway though, all the sensitive data can be kept at the gateway, under the control of financial specialists.

A gateway may also (most easily) be visible to the user (the web customer sees a popup or framed page recognisable as the gateway), whilst use of a platform remains largely hidden. This is often an advantage, in terms of customer perception: customer's trust a small "Bob's Widgets" store more if they see that the payment gateway is coming from a trusted household name such as Paypal or SagePay.

Of course there's huge overlap and counter-examples. A platform may also use a gateway at the back end. A gateway may be built upon a platform. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Fusionism" in France, 1871?

I was reading a book called The Paris Commune of 1871 by Frank Jellinek, and I came across this passage:

'Everyone knew Babick-or Babicki, for he was of Polish extraction- the "perfumer of the rue de Nemours," an eccentric but harmless " character," devotee of a strange religion called " Fusionism," a mixture of the elements of many odd cults'

When I try to look up Fusionism, I get an article for the American political term, and I don't see an article about Babick. Does anyone know what they might be referring to?

Reccanti (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French Legitimists and the Politics of Moral Order in the Early Third Republic by Robert R. Locke (from page 32) describes a party of about 50 "monarchists without party attachments" who, unlike the extreme Right and the Right-Centre, favoured "a fusion among all monarchists in the Assembly" and "became the real driving force at Versailles behind the effort to restore the monarchy". They don't get a mention at French Third Republic#Politics, but seem to have facilitated the (ultimately unsuccessful) compromise between the Legitimists and the Orléanists. Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something on the religious doctrine ("doctrine fusionienne" or "religion fusionienne" in French) [13]. Its founder is Louis Jean-Baptiste de Tourreil (1799-1863) [14], but there doesn't seem to be much information available about him either. --Xuxl (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

Why is nazi Germany considered right-wing

If Nazi stands for national socialist, then why is it considered to be the far right wing opposite of communism, which is considered left wing?Uncle dan is home (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: they hijacked the term socialism. Long answer, from Nazism: "The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of a new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good" and to accept the priority of political interests in economic organisation." The characteristics of the regime are those associated with the right-wing of politics - see Right-wing politics. hth --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The Nazis were strongly anti-communist and opposed any truly socialist movements. Their term "national socialism" was an attempt at hijacking the term when they really just meant "fascism." This is covered in the Nazism article, if you read it. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It's like if a political party that opposed private property advocated "collective capitalism," just on the opposite political side. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the question you asked a while ago about Neonazis and conservatism. And similar to that situation, I should start by saying that Nazism (our articles goes into great detail) does not neatly fall on a modern, Amerocentric right-left spectrum. They were pro-religious freedom (unless they hated your religion), but against homosexuality. They supported the creation of a welfare state, but hated the entire concept of intranational class struggle. The neatest way that Nazism falls into the realm of far-right politics is the insistence that everything they're doing is based on some imagined historical tradition. That is, they are trying to go backwards, not forwards. You may be interested in the horseshoe theory of politics, which posits that the far-right has more similarities to the far-left than it does to the ordinary right. Rational Wiki has a more extensive article on this concept. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? *This* is the ordinary right now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These things happen. People's Republics were not for the people, Democratic People's Republics were not democratic or people's, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was the Lesser East Asia Exploitation Sphere, Work Sets You Free was fatal slave labor, the Italian Social Republic was a non-socialist annexation, the Grand Old Party is newer than its rival, National Socialism had only the slightest similarities with socialism, Juche is not Juche, traditional anarchism is close to but not actually anarchy (especially what they think would happen), the Republic of China doesn't possess any China, Japan's Liberal Democratic Party is conservative, Australia's Liberal Party is conservative, Newfoundland was last found in the 1400s, Virginia goes further west than West Virginia, East Elmhurst is north of Elmhurst, the West India Company was 10,000 miles from India, Inner Mongolia is not in Mongolia, West New York is in New Jersey, Pennsylvania Station is New York's Amtrak stop, Boston Road is in the Bronx, the Polo Grounds was a baseball stadium, the New York football teams are in New Jersey, Grand Central Station is peripheral and Terminal, Red Square is spindly, Herald Square is triangular, Times Square is a hexagon, and the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor Empire. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the Affordable Care Act isn't... - Nunh-huh 08:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that in general, the naming of US bills is one of the two original forms of comedy the US created (the other, of course, is The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson). "Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if the name of the bill actually corresponds to its contents, it's an oversight. If it's an acronym, it's an outright lie. - Nunh-huh 11:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If I tell you the world is ruled by a handful of capitalists, then I belong to the extreme left. But if I tell you all these capitalists are Jewish, then I belong to the extreme right". Quoted and attributed from memory to an anonymous Russian anarchist. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For how it acquired the term "socialism", look into Strasserism (and both forms of it). The Nazis arose at a time when first they had to compete with a left wing, in offering a bread and jobs solution to attract a hungry Germany, and then later in competing against it to wipe it out as an alternative competition. So early period Nazis were happy to present themselves as "socialist", meaning that they would be attractive to "the working man". Later, mid-period Nazis wished to distinguish themselves from this already-labelled left-wing and so they portrayed themselves as a right wing instead, something that was new for populist political parties. Previously the "right wing" had been a British model of "us and them", as Labour vs. Tory simple class distinctions within a democracy. The working classes would always be left wing because to be right wing was to support the upper classes, against your own obvious class interests. Working class politcal struggles had so far been either "against the owners" in a simple Marxist role, or as internecine splits within the working class left. I think Germany was the first place to offer a right wing, democratic (at the time), working class party which portrayed itself as a diametrically opposite political alternative to working class left wings. Such parties are still popular today, cf. Trump.

At the same time, the dictatorial and militaristic strand within the Nazi party, that exemplified by Hitler himself, as opposed to its populist politics, had always been simply outright fascist. When Hitler became the sole fuhrer of the Nazi party (he took it over, he hadn't created it himself) and other leaders (like the Strassers) were reduced to either toadying acolytes or ousted, then it became the simple right wing fascist party that we'd now recognise, and the "socialist" label became the part looking out of place. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US federal cabinet nominees by president-elect

Images such as File:20081211 TD ROLLOUT-1136.jpg and news stories about "Trump nominates X for cabinet position" remind me of something I've wondered for a long time. When the incumbent US president's successor is elected (whether because he defeated the incumbent or because the incumbent wasn't running), the president-elect soon begins announcing his nominations for various high positions, long before he actually takes office on 20 January. How "official" are these announcements? Obviously the position of president-elect has no constitutional powers (especially at this point, since the electors haven't yet voted), so I've thought of several alternate explanations for how the process works, with the current folks' names for simplicity:

Trump announces that he's going to nominate X, so in order to make things work smoothly, Obama nominates that person to start that position on 20 January, and the nomination is considered as soon as the relevant Senate committee has time
Trump announces that he's going to nominate X, so that person is officially nominated on or soon after 20 January, and the relevant Senate committee then adds that person's nomination to the calendar for hearings
Trump announces that he's going to nominate X, so the relevant Senate committee adds that person to the calendar for immediate hearings. That way, once the official nomination is made on 20 January, they can just vote without taking the time for post-nomination hearings.

Which of these (if any) is roughly accurate? Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 is normally what happens. Why would Obama ever take action on his successor's nominee? Most of his cabinet nominees were sworn in on the afternoon of 20th or during the following week. Hillary Clinton was the exception for the Obama cabinet as the confirmation hearings were the week prior - her nomination required a reduction in the SOS salary to get around the ineligibility clause. Xenon54 (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Option 3 is the better answer. Senate committees have independent investigatory authority, and hence can open hearings any time after the new Congress opens in early January. The official nomination doesn't occur until the new President is sworn in, and in general the full Senate vote can not occur until at least one day after the nomination, but the relevant committee can choose to hold hearings early at their discretion. In 2009, after Obama was elected for his first term, Senate confirmation hearings were held for 11 of 15 Senate confirmable cabinet positions before Obama took office on Jan 20.: Secretary of Agriculture (Jan 14), Attorney General (Jan 15), Sec. of Education (Jan 13), Sec. of Energy (Jan 13), Sec. of Health & Human Services (Jan 8), Sec. of Homeland Security (Jan 15), Sec. of HUD (Jan 13), Sec. of Interior (Jan 15), Sec. of Labor (Jan 9), Sec. of State (Jan 13), and Sec. of Veteran Affairs (Jan 14). Of these 8 of the 11 were confirmed during the first week after Obama took office. Dragons flight (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 159: / Line 159: @@
 ::The claim prostitutes pay no taxes seems dubious. In places where prostitution is largely legal I'm not sure if prostitutes tax compliance is that much worse than some others in the services industry, especially if we exclude those who mostly work in the street. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 17:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 :::In places were prostitution was decriminalized (most of Europe), it's not seen as a profession, so no one is paying taxes as a prostituted person. If they pay, they register as some other profession for social insurance and taxes. The only place that I know were prostituted people are employees is in Germany, but there are apparently just a tiny fraction, something like 0.001%, registered officially prostitutes.  [[User:Llaanngg|Llaanngg]] ([[User talk:Llaanngg|talk]]) 20:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 ::::See [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/12035317/Tax-man-goes-after-sex-workers-and-escort-agencies-to-stop-evasion.html ''Tax man goes after sex workers and escort agencies to stop evasion''].  [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 20:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@@ Line 170: / Line 169: @@
 :Prostitutes definitely pay taxes - they just pay them to the ''real'' government, not the one that claims to prohibit them.  See also [[pimp]]... [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 12:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 ::As others have noted, [[Prostitution law|prostitution is not illegal everywhere]], so the idea that prostitutes universally don't pay income tax is false. Even in places where it is illegal it's likely many prostitutes who work as "escorts", "housekeepers", "hostesses", etc. pay income tax. Especially if they use the banking system, they're more likely to get the tax authorities after them for not paying income tax then they are to get caught breaking prostitution laws. That's what they got [[Al Capone]] on, after all. (Also, there are many taxes other than income tax; using "tax" to mean "income tax" is, I think, a sloppy use of language. It's often pretty hard to avoid paying [[sales tax]]es, [[VAT]], [[property tax]]es, etc. in jurisdictions that have them.) --[[Special:Contributions/47.138.163.230|47.138.163.230]] ([[User talk:47.138.163.230|talk]]) 23:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
+:::This site appears to be a mine of information. [http://www.taxrelief4escorts.co.uk/background-stuff/the-whiplash-cases].  There is also a search function which brings up information on specific topics, for example [http://www.taxrelief4escorts.co.uk/2013/03/27/can-i-claim-a-new-computer-as-a-business-expense]. [[Special:Contributions/86.134.217.94|86.134.217.94]] ([[User talk:86.134.217.94|talk]]) 15:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 == Birth date ==