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

February 13

Vexillology Question

Here is an odd question for someone, just out of curiosity. Can someone provide a proper blazon for the six-stripe rainbow flag (that is, the version that is traditionally used as an LGBT flag)? I am aware that any of the versions of the rainbow flag violate the rule of tinctures because they place colour adjacent to colour, but it serves its purpose.

I have also seen this flag with a "union" that is that of the United States flag, but the blazon for that would seem to be straightforward enough, because that would be 'canton azur, fifty mullets argent'. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure some description could be cobbled together, but the standard basic terminology doesn't go any further than three color blocks placed side by side -- i.e. "tierced per fess". More usually, blazoning proceeds by having things be on other things, not side by side (so the mullets argent are on the canton azure which is on the field). AnonMoos (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, a field with several horizontal stripes ("bars") is described as "barry". According to that article, "The arms of Eyfelsberg zum Wehr provide a perhaps unique example of barry of four different tinctures that do not repeat". Don't know what the heraldic term for "hot pink" is though! Alansplodge (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

For the 6-stripe flag, no hot pink is needed. It's the 7-stripe flag that requires that special knowledge. - Nunh-huh 05:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

In standard basic terminology, "barry" refers to stripes which alternate between two colors. I don't think it could be used to describe stripes of six different colors without going significantly beyond standard basic terminology. AnonMoos (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

If it can describe four, surely it can describe six or seven? Note that the ancient College of Arms in London solemnly instructs government offices (presumably including themselves) to fly the Rainbow Flag during Pride Week unless when "there is only one flagpole the Armed Forces Flag will in most cases take precedence" because it's also Armed Forces Week in the UK. [1] Alansplodge (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Boring answer, judging from the coat of arms of 246TH Field Artillery Regiment is that's it's probably something like "barry of six in the colours of the rainbow proper" (which also means it can violate the rule of tincture, since proper colours are the exception to the rule). Smurrayinchester 07:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Barry is usually of two tinctures, but there are exceptions. The flag of Hawaii, for example, is barry of eight argent, gules and azure [...]; sorry I can't think of an Olde Worlde example at the moment, but I'm pretty sure I've seen a few. —Tamfang (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Why Rohingya people not turn violent like other discrimated Muslim groups?

With many problems in Arab world, many discrimated Muslim groups like the Uighur people in China and the Malays in Thailand/Philippines turn violent, some join ISIS. Rohingya people in Myanmar are even most discrimated but why they not turn violent and join ISIS? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The spread of violent Islamic fundamentalism can be modeled like the spread of a disease. Thus, certain random events, like if a person so infected moves into the heart of the community, can account for such differences. As far as having been discriminated against, that doesn't seem to be a requirement, as those trying to spread it are happy to lie and claim there's a global effort to exterminate all Muslims, if it gets them more recruits. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Meta discussion on reference desk conduct. Probably not useful, but we can hope.

Do you ever have any intention of providing references for any of your statements, or do you intend to just keep typing the first thing to come into your head? --Jayron32 15:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Do you ever intend to stop lying ? A review of my contributions will point out thousands of sources, as you well know. Here's a couple I provided about an hour before your post: [2], [3]. I don't always include sources, but then neither do you. But I do at least attempt to keep bickering off this page, unlike you, who often instigate it. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC) When you hear the same complaint, from many different people, over a period of several years, you may consider that they might have a point about a problem with your conduct, and it just maybe, it might not be the case that everyone is out to get you for totally unfair reasons. Just some food for thought. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC) It's human nature to pick a scapegoat for any evil you want to name, especially if you engage in that evil yourself, and for everyone to pile on whatever available scapegoat they can find (see Wikt:jump on the bandwagon). If I see an analysis of my edits versus everyone else's that proves I provide useful refs less often, then I might believe it. Otherwise, when Jayron or others claim that I never give refs, that's an obvious lie, so such claims do nothing but lower their credibility. Indeed, lies and exaggeration are essential to setting up a scapegoat. StuRat (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The question as written is unanswerable. That is because the OP has made statements which are unproven, and has assumed they are true. This is called the Complex question fallacy, and is best exemplified by the question "When did you stop beating your wife?" Since that presumes some concept which has not yet been shown to be true (that you ever beat your wife), the actual question (when did it stop?) cannot be answered. Likewise, the OPs question contains many presumptions which they have not demonstrated are true, such as the general violence of Muslim groups. --Jayron32 15:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The many Muslims I've known have not been violent. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that Muslims in general are violent. There are violent persons in all religions. The OP's premise is fundamentally flawed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see them state that Muslims in general are violent. StuRat (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see them provide their definition of "many", either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I also have Muslim friends that not violent. Agree there are violent persons in all religions. Discrimated groups likely to turn violent, example Tamil Tigers. Muslim groups that not discrimated (like in Singapore) do not turn violent. Question is why the very discrimated Rohingya people do not turn violent? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

For convenience: the Rohingya people. I don't know much about this, but the article discusses several episodes of unrest and possible violence stemming from discrimination. "The 2012 Rakhine State riots were a series of conflicts between Rohingya Muslims who are majority in the northern Rakhine and ethnic Rakhines who are majority in the south. "

So at least somewhat recently, some Rohingya have been involved in riots. Our article seems pretty good, I'd recommend reading it and some of the references cited there if you want to learn more about those people. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

See Rohingya insurgency in Western Myanmar and Harakah al-Yaqin. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

February 14

Why have end dates on lists of office holders?

I'm not sure this is the best place to ask this, since it's kind of specifically about how to write articles, but ... why do we need end dates for office holders where the start/end date is always going to be the same, and there's no gaps? For example, let me pull from the List of Governors of Alabama:

Governor	Term in office
William Wyatt Bibb	December 14, 1819 – July 10, 1820
Thomas Bibb	July 10, 1820 – November 9, 1821
Israel Pickens	November 9, 1821 – November 25, 1825

Couldn't this just be easily condensed to...

Governor	Took office
William Wyatt Bibb	December 14, 1819
Thomas Bibb	July 10, 1820
Israel Pickens	November 9, 1821

... and not even mention when they left office? Because they obviously left office the moment their successor took office?

I mean, when there's a true gap in the governorships, it should rightly show an interregnum (as seen for Alabama from May 1, 1865, to June 21, 1865 - astute readers can probably guess why), so it's not needed for that. I could only see it needed in cases where

• Officeholders usually take office on a different day. Or, in other words: Outgoing leaves at 11:59pm, incoming starts at 12:00am. This is how New York does it, and I think it would be perfectly fine explaining in the text that the term starts at midnight.
• There are common gaps, but even in this case I'd rather there be an explicit note of an interregnum rather than forcing the reader to notice which end dates and start dates have gaps between them.

Thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about as a general rule, but it can be useful in some cases. If you copy a line out for your own purposes, you don't need to go back and find the end date. And if the table is sortable (not in this case, but it could be), the term end information can be lost if sorted in any manner other than date. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I dislike sorting lists, don't really see the point, but this is an excellent argument - as long as we do make lists sortable, I suppose each row's info should be self-contained. --Golbez (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It just seems clearer to state the dates explicitly rather than have to make assumptions. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Francis Funk

I am trying to find more information about a person named Francis Funk (other than the stuff I've already created for this article), who was a major and adjutant general in the Hawaiian Army, a sheriff, a lawyer and a member of the Hawaiian House of Representatives from 1851 to 1853. He could have been German or a German-American. All traces about him disappears after 1853 for some reason.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you'll get better results by using the search term "Franz Funk", his original name, though admittedly I can't find much. At any rate he seems to have been a Prussian. [4] [5] --Antiquary (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Who polices the police?

We hear activists echo this maxim all the time - "who polices the police"? Well, technically, who does? Let's use U.S.A. or U.K.-based police forces as an example. We know about internal affairs. However, what actual oversight is there when the people feel the police are being covered for?--WaltCip (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This concern is long - standing - the Latin phrase is Quis custodet custodes. See Police Complaints Commission. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The phrase is actually "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", and we have an article on it. --Viennese Waltz 14:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, kind of silly that we've attributed to government oversight a phrase that was originally the ultimate in slut shaming. --Golbez (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

See Category:Police oversight organizations.—Wavelength (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• The general terminology for such an office or person to whom complaints about officials, such as police, are addressed is ombudsman. Many municipalities and police departments will have one. Their job is investigate such complaints. --Jayron32 14:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Here in California, if a local police department is corrupt, the California Highway Patrol (our name for our state police) can investigate and, if needed, arrest them. A quick search shown no obvious oversight of the CHP (see [6] and [ petitions.moveon.org/sign/independent-civilian ]) but I suppose the FBI has the authority to investigate the CHP. But of course this just kicks the question upstairs; who polices the FBI? The CIA? The NSA? What recourse is there when a government agency is able to keep what it is doing secret? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• That, of course, is the key issue raised by Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?: At some point, there is no greater authority to check the authority for which you need to check. In a democracy, that greater authority is supposed to be "the people" who have a role in electing people like sheriffs, attorneys general, justice ministers, etc; and if they are corrupt or don't do their job, are supposed to be able to be voted out. --Jayron32 17:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• If the police commit an actual crime (as opposed to mere incompetence, prejudice, etc.), then that can can go up to the next level of government, in some jurisdictions.

• The press can report on police misconduct, but that relies on them either being present when it occurs or finding witnesses who are willing to talk.

• Social media, combined with cell phone cameras, can now reveal police misconduct which occurs in public. In many cases the police will say a shooting was justified and there will be no investigation, until a cell phone video shows what happened, then all of a sudden they change their mind and launch an investigation.

• Police body cameras and dashboard cameras have the potential to reveal police misconduct, but only if the laws require the release of those videos under FOIA laws. Even then, there seems to be a pattern with police videos often being lost or unviewable when they seem likely to incriminate police officers. If the videos were sent, real-time, to a neutral party for storage, that would end this problem.

• Once the public knows about police misconduct, the democratic process can take over to correct it. Depending on the jurisdiction, the police commissioner/chief of police/sheriff may be elected directly, or appointed by the mayor, who is himself elected. So, voting one or both out of office has the potential to solve the problem.

• Note that this is ultimately a subset of the broader conflict of interest problem. StuRat (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Here in NL the "marechaussee" (military police) polices the police. Of course this differs per jurisdiction. Jahoe (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

(NL apparently means the Netherlands.) StuRat (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Sorry for that, I thought it would be clear. Jahoe (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jahoe: That's OK. It was. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 06:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• To give a couple of concrete examples from the UK: the South Yorkshire Police have been investigated various times in various ways, relating to crimes committed by its officers. One is the Battle of Orgreave, when SYP officers attacked a picket line during the Miner's Strike. This was investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is the usual watcher-of-watchmen. One is the Hillsborough disaster, which was a crush caused by poor crowd control and subsequently covered up. This was finally investigated by a specially created body, the Hillsborough Independent Panel, since previous investigations were tainted by the close links between SYP chiefs and politicians. And one is misuse of a police helicopter to spy on people having sex. This was investigated by South Yorkshire Police themselves, because it was a relatively minor crime involving only a few officers. Finally, although not a crime, the force was investigated by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for failing to protect victims of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal properly. So those are some of the ways that the police in the UK are watched. Smurrayinchester 09:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with saying that the police are policed by the voters, the press, social media, etc. is that none of those entities can investigate a crime using the tools that even a one-person police department has. In particular, they cannot detain a person, ask a judge for a search warrant, etc. The voters, the press, social media, etc. can do certain things once it is known that a crime was committed and who did it, but only the police or something very much like the police can do a proper investigation when those are unknown. Which leaves us with our quandary once again; who polices the top-level police?

Possible answers:

• Gordon Sumner polices The Police
• Chief Inspector of Police Jean de Dieu Mayira polices the Police
• Sławomir Mrożek policed The Police
• The De Rigo brothers police Police
• Charlie Chaplin policed Police
• Maurice Pialat policed Police
• V. K. Prakash policed Police
• Roger Graef policed Police
• And of course Police, Police, Police, Police, Police, Police, Police, and Police are each policed by Police Police Departments (PPD).^{[Citation Needed]} --Guy Macon (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Kerman Airport

In what year did the Kerman Airport in Iran begin operating? M2545 (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

1970, according to the website of the airport: kerman.airport.ir. Omidinist (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Credit here: [7]

Which US states are like this?

State roads: all 3 digits

County roads: all at least 4 digits

Do any such states have no intermetropolitan area Interstates or US routes over 99? No 3 digit federal routes at all? The last seems unlikely - loops, spurs and bypasses are everywhere. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no state which meets your first condition, and I don't think there's any which meet your second either. There is a state with no signed federal routes — Alaska. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There are "interstate" highways in Alaska, same as in Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Correct, but none of them are signed as such. They're either signed with state highway numbers or not at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's the closest for you:

• No 3-digit U.S. Routes: Rhode Island (highest is U.S. 44), Hawaii (has no U.S. Routes), Alaska (has no U.S. Routes, except briefly when U.S. 97 was designated, but never signed).
• No 3-digit Interstate Routes: Alaska (no interstates are signed, though several are designated "on paper". None has 3 digits, however), New Mexico (highest is I-40), North Dakota (though a part of the Bismarck Expressway is designated, but unsigned, as I-194).
• State roads are all 3 digits: None, though Nevada comes closest as there are only two Nevada state routes which aren't 3-digits. One may also count the District of Columbia which has one numbered route, District of Columbia Route 295.
• County roads of 4+ digits: Probably none, though the county routing systems are haphazard across the U.S. at best. Signed 4-digit routes are rare. Some states have secondary route systems which are signed with 4 digits regularly. For example, the North Carolina Highway System has 4 digit secondary routes, which are sometimes marked with plain white rectangles. These secondary state routes recycle numbers between counties, but are not county routes but rather state routes. Texas also uses 4 digits on its Farm-to-market road system, but that is a secondary state routing system, not a county system.

Those are my best attempts at an answer. Since Wikipedia has a comprehensive coverage of every state highway system in the U.S., you can also peruse the articles yourself. --Jayron32 18:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a great answer. As an extremely urban non-driver I mistakenly thought the minor 4 digit roads were county roads. It's still a bit hierarchical in states with 4 digit secondary state roads but none have decided to segregate it so 1-2=federal 3=intermediate 4=minor apparently. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

No, each state manages its own road systems. The numbering of Interstates and U.S. routes is managed by the AASHTO, which is an organization of the states (not a Federal one, but of the states acting outside of the federal government) while state road numbering is handled by each state, on its own, with no coordination. Many states have no county road numbering systems, and of those that do, some allow counties to develop their own numbering and signage system with no interference from the state. The MUTCD is a publication encouraging uniform road signage, but with regards to numbering of state highways, the states basically ignore its guidelines. Generally, if a state has a system (and many do not, assigning route numbers haphazardly), lower numbered routes are historically more important longer-distance routes, while higher numbered routes tend to be shorter or more "back woods" sorts of routes. For some examples, in Massachusetts the longest state routes are routes like Massachusetts Route 2 and Massachusetts Route 9 and Massachusetts Route 28, low 1- and 2- digit numbers, while higher numbers like Massachusetts Route 213 and Route 286 (Massachusetts – New Hampshire) are short connector routes. You find similar patterns in Virginia (see List of primary state highways in Virginia) and List of state routes in New York, where most of the longest routes have low numbers. Some states, however, eschew even this logic. List of state routes in New Hampshire shows little rhyme or reason as to length, List of Maryland state highways shows that most state numbered highways are fantastically short, and route numbers are assigned mostly by geographic location rather than length. You are, however, correct that for the most part, 4-digit routes (where they are used) tend to be minor roads. Unless they aren't: until fairly recently the Fairfax County Parkway (formerly VA 7100) and the Prince William Parkway (Formerly VA 3000) were major regional arterial roads with 4-digit numbers. Virginia recently realized the folly of this and upgraded the roads to Primary Road status, granting them shiny new low 3-digit numbers. --Jayron32 03:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Touching on Virginia, see Byrd Road Act; all public roads in 93 of our 95 counties, outside of some towns, are state-maintained, so they're all technical state highways, but 1-599 are primary highways with unique-statewide numbers, while 600 and larger are secondary roads with numbers that can be re-used in every county, and since more-populous counties have lots of roads, numbers can often get into the four digits in those counties. Roads in the latter category aren't maintained at anything close to equal levels; last week, when I took Sharon Springs Road, VA 623 in Tazewell County connecting Burke's Garden to Ceres (location 37°4′12″N 81°18′38″W), I found it to be a slightly-gravelled muddy route with rock outcrops (often small boulders a few feet long and a few inches high) and tons of shallow mud-or-water holes (in one of which I nearly got stuck), while a few miles north, the section of VA 623 that's the main route into Burke's Garden is a good two-lane asphalt road with lane markings everywhere and guardrails when appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think there are 5-digit roads in Fairfax County, this blog indicates the highest numbers to be over 10000. --Jayron32 19:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

PS, Sagittarian Milky Way, Kentucky is a little closer than is Virginia to what you were imagining. Most of their roads are county- or city-maintained (all KY municipalities are cities), but they have a very large number of state highways, and while many of the four-digit highways are minor (extreme example image), you'll see from List of primary state highways in Kentucky that some low-numbered roads, such as Kentucky Route 5, have no sections with primary status, while highways with some primary-status sections have numbers as high as 3155. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

HMRC mileage rate

How is the HMRC mileage rate of 45p per mile calculated? It's vastly more than petrol costs, so what else is it designed to take into account? Amisom (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Among other likely sources: Car insurance, depreciation of car value, and maintenance costs. [8] --Golbez (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It is based on calculations of the average cost of running a car - this link will give you more numbers than you could possibly need about that. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/117861/response/291930/attach/html/4/120106%20Analysis%20of%20motoring%20costs2.xls.html Wymspen (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Did the fascists officially prohibit International Women's Day?

According to the German Wikipedia page, International Women's Day was prohibited under Fascist Germany, but there’s no visible source for this.

Can anybody cite this? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 20:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't find a specific citation user:Romanophile, but it seems to me rather self evident. International Women's Day was first promulgated by Clara Zetkin, "a German Marxist", a member of the far-left Spartacus League and a member of the Presidium of the Communist International. Although holding a seat in the Reichstag, she spent much of the 1920s in the Soviet Union where Women's Day was officially adopted.[9] Not really the sort of thing that the Nazis were going to encourage. For the Nazi view of women in society, see Women in Nazi Germany. Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I’m surprised to see a Wikipedian take this stance. Seems like the (unwritten) rule is that no matter how probable something is, it needs a citation. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 18:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. I did have a very good search for online sources, but drew a blank. Perhaps we can take the statement out altogether; after all, nobody felt the need to say that the Nazis didn't celebrate International Workers' Day which has very similar origins. Alansplodge (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

English translation for دبیرستان ایرانشهر کرمان?

What is the English language name of the Iranian school دبیرستان ایرانشهر کرمان? -- M2545 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Using Google Chrome's auto-translation service for the article at fa.wikipedia.org for the above school, (See [10] ) suggests "Kerman High School Iranshahr" as a likely translation. However, you may want to ping a Farsi speaker for confirmation. Category:User fa lists English Wikipedia users who self-identify as Farsi speakers as well. --Jayron32 20:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. How does one "ping a Farsi speaker"? -- M2545 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

He's suggesting you contact people on that list, but before you do so, you might want to keep in mind that the real meaning of "User:fa" is that someone is willing and able to answer questions in Farsi, which is not always the same as being willing or able to answer questions about Farsi.

However, User:Omidinist seems to knows a lot about Farsi, and formerly frequented this ref desk page, so you might ask him... AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The English translation of the name of that high school in the city of Kerman would be: Iranshahr High School of Kerman. Omidinist (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Credit here: [11] -- M2545 (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Does Florida's terroir prevent getting close to fine Cuban cigar tobacco quality?

Is it too alkaline or cold or..? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I never heard that Florida was a big commercial tobacco-growing state. Instead, it's states like North Carolina and Kentucky... AnonMoos (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

North Carolina and Kentucky primarily grow cigarette tobacco. American tobacco intended for use in premium cigars is grown chiefly in New England. See Connecticut shade tobacco. --Jayron32 03:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

So if they do it in New England then maybe Florida's soil ph, mineral content etc. isn't good for that despite being closer to Cuba in climate? Why don't the states between Maryland and Connecticut grow much tobacco? Soil? Competition from slave states preventing a tradition of tobacco growing from continuing to the present day? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article titled Cultivation of tobacco, but it does not discuss soil conditions. I did find This old pamphlet which discusses soil conditions suitable for each type of tobacco, and where specifically in Connecticut it is found. That pamphlet has a LOT of good information, which could likely be useful to expanding Wikipedia's coverage. It should be noted that it isn't strictly true that Tobacco is only grown in New England and south of the Mason-Dixon. It is most associated with those areas, but I have found information on tobacco farming in Upstate New York and Pennsylvania Amish Country. New Jersey doesn't seem to have any native tobacco industry, excepting a few blogs written by hobbyists trying to grow it on a very small scale. Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia are all well known for growing the crop; part of that may be historical: Tobacco plantations in the 1700s and 1800s were supported by slave labor, so there grew a tradition of tobacco farming that wasn't as prevalent up north. It may be (though I am now just speculating) that tobacco could be grown in New Jersey, but it hasn't ever been, so it still isn't. --Jayron32 13:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

February 15

Historical or semi- or quasi-historical novels or romans a clef in which Donald Trump has appeared as a major or minor character

Wikipedia reports:

"A parody of Trump is the main villain in the 1992 The Destroyer novel Ghost in the Machine.[21][22] Andrew Shaffer's satirical book, The Day of the Donald (2016), imagines Trump winning the election and discusses his second year as America's 45th president.[23] Jacob M. Appel's novel, The Mask of Sanity (2017), describes a high functioning sociopath modeled on Trump."

This seems like a surprisingly short list. Anybody know of other novels in which Trump is fictionalized? He's been around for a long time, and novels often are set in the not-too-distant past. (For example, one can imagine a Trump-like character appearing in Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities or A Man In Full.) 2602:304:CDA0:9220:91C7:E10A:2FC1:38C1 (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Biff Tannen—particularly his future depiction in Back to the Future Part II—is modeled on Trump. clpo13_(talk) 00:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

How can we forget the classic Trump Temptation: The Billionaire and the Bellboy. More of a short story than a novel, though.

Written in four hours by comedian Elijah Daniel, after he mooted the idea on Twitter (“I’m going to get drunk tonight and write an entire donald trump sex novel like 50 shades of grey & put it on amazon tomorrow i swear to god”), Trump Temptation: The Billionaire and the Bellboy was published last week after Daniel was deluged with comments urging him to go ahead. It is currently No 1 in Amazon.com’s gay erotica chart, No 1 in its humorous erotica chart, and fourth in its Kindle erotica chart.

Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Suicide Rates Amongst Existential Nihlists.

[Moved here from the math ref desk]

Does anyone know the suicide rate amongst existential nihilists? Americanfreedom (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

First, how would you determine who all are existential nihilists? Unless you're only talking about famous ones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

What's behind the question? I would guess people who profess to such beliefs have a higher suicide rate - but they probably were already of a gloomy mindset and looked for such things. Depression can cause people to think their life is not worth living. But people who don't think there is any intrinsic meaning in life or the universe or anything can be just as happy as anyone else, and they probably wouldn't bother reading such stuff much more than anyone else. A lot of A do B does not mean a lot of B do A, your first choice of the Maths Reference Desk would be the place to ask about how conditional probabilities lead people astray in assessing things. Dmcq (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Madoc

Was Madoc a legendary figure with a real father, or was he a real person who got transformed into a legend, like the real British petty king whose story was transformed into King Arthur? Or do we not know? 208.95.51.115 (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably unknown or unknowable. As noted in the article Madoc, the first written account of such a figure is either Willem die Madoc maecte (c. 1250) or Maredudd ap Rhys (c. 1400). Either way, such accounts would have occurred more than a century after Madoc was reported to have lived. Just remember that Medieval chronicles, such as Historia Regum Britanniae and the Ynglinga saga, while they were once considered "historical", often well into modern times, are now considered entirely fanciful. Unless such accounts can be independently verified (such as by contemporary documents or engravings) then the degree to which the figures named in them are actual historical figures should be considered an open question. There are figures from the Madoc legend which HAVE been independently verified, like Owain Gwynedd, for which we have sources contemporary to his life. There was a contemporary figure Madog ap Maredudd, for which we do have reliable accounts, but it appears that he is not considered to be the same person. --Jayron32 15:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Tehran-Mashhad railway

In what year did the Tehran-Mashhad railway in Iran begin operating? -- M2545 (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

1966. Omidinist (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thought experiment about culpability for accidental killing of a suicidal person

I am trying to find a thought experiment scenario (I think I've seen this quoted as a final exam question for law students) which goes something like this: Person A is suicidal and jumps off a tall apartment building. In the building, Person B fires a gun at Person C, but misses and the bullet goes through the window, hitting A. B was trying to threaten C but didn't know the gun was loaded, and there are further complicating factors. The question is to determine who, if anyone, is culpable for the killing of A. I can't think of anything specific enough to Google for this, so help finding it would be appreciated. 2602:306:321B:5970:9C57:D2B8:6A37:26C8 (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

See Ronald Opus. --Jayron32 15:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That is the famous source, but our article doesn't really address the real issue of cause/culpability. Since it's just a story, the speaker can end in any way they choose. In this case, they simply say the case was closed as suicide, but that's just like, their opinion, man :) Perhaps I'll add some of the links below to the "see also" section of that article... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I asked a similar question here about a year ago! I got some good answers and references, please see that thread. Causation_(law)#Independent_sufficient_causes covers some of the legal aspects, but IMO there is still plenty left to ponder on the philosophical side. Also perhaps relevant is Joint_and_several_liability. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

thank your both, that's the story I was thinking of! I'll check out the old discussion thread later when I have more time. 2602:306:321B:5970:4CEB:7FAC:B2F3:C7B6 (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

He wouldn't die before impact unless it damaged the brain stem or was a damn long fall. Even whole body removal takes 13 seconds to kill. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You know, unless he were shot with a rocket propelled grenade with sufficient explosive force to reduce him to centimeter-scale chunks of meat. I'm pretty sure that would mean he died before he hit the pavement. --Jayron32 18:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Dead is brain dead. It would take a very long fall to die of mere bleeding before the time the ground would've killed him anyway if he wasn't shot. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If your brain is in tiny pieces raining down upon the land below intermingled with other parts of your body, it's hard to argue it was alive before the bits of it hit the ground. --Jayron32 03:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is the overkill method. Congratulations, you have found the gray area of dead (how damaged a brain stem before you're dead?) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

But in the "Ronald Opus" version at least (I don't know about other tellings of the same basic concept) there's a safety net, so the victim wouldn't have hit the ground. This makes it clear that the shot is what killed him, which is relevant to the question of whether the shooter is culpable. 132.239.165.115 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

We do not offer legal information or advice.--WaltCip (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to add the smiley face emoticon to the end of that. See Poe's law. --Jayron32 19:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that in the Ronald Opus story, there is a specific answer to the question of culpability, which follows from a close consideration of the specified facts. In contrast, law school criminal law classes typically feature the use of hypothetical situations ("hypos") that are intended to elicit thought and discussion and that do not have a clear answer. The most familiar of these, at least to me, is "Who killed Abdul?" In the story, Abdul is an Arab who is planning a trip into the desert. Abdul, however, is unpopular, and his enemies know of the planned trip. The night before Abdul is to leave, A surreptitiously replaces the water in Abdul's canteen with wine, which will not be sufficient to keep Abdul alive in the desert. Subsequently, B drains the wine, not noticing that it is not water, and fills the canteen with sand. After this, C empties the canteen, in his haste not noticing that it contained sand and not water. The next morning Abdul goes into the desert with an empty canteen, and he dies there for lack of water. Who killed Abdul? John M Baker (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That one's easy: A did, because he's the one who drained the water. A more interesting version is where X poisoned the water and Y drained it. Abdul died of thirst, but he lived longer than if had drunk the poison. So X's poison did not kill him and Y's action did not shorten his life. Who then is guilty of murder? I say death was accidental and both X and Y are guilty of attempted murder. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Shahid Heydarian Stadium in Qom

In what year did the Shahid Heydarian Stadium in Qom, Iran, open? -- M2545 (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hardly being a major stadium (it only hosts 2nd and 3rd division games), I can't locate that info. But the current ownership and management falls under the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (Iran), whose website is at [12]. If you can read Persian, or use google translate, I suppose you can email them, if you really want to know. The other source who might have that info is one of the Qom-based football teams which uses the stadium as their home ground. Sorry I can't be more help, it somewhat surprises me we have an article on the stadium at all, given that it's clearly second-tier, and only holds 3,000. In fact, does it even meet wikipedia notability guidelines? Eliyohub (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Takhti Stadium in Qom

In what year did the Takhti Stadium (Qom) in Iran open? -- M2545 (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The Qom Province League would be the ones to address this question to. Not sure how to get their contact info, as I don't read persian. Another largely non-notable stadium, used by the lowest rung of Iranian football. Perhaps the Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran can give you their contact details, or you can use a persian-language search engine. Eliyohub (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Qom railway station

In what year did the Qom railway station in Iran begin operating? -- M2545 (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The line began operating in 1939, apparently? See [13]. Not the best source, perhaps, but I have no reason to doubt it. Diesel locomotive operations to Qom began September 1943 - see out article Trans-Iranian_Railway#US_and_Soviet_operation_1942.E2.80.9345 Eliyohub (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

February 16

Biblical truths

Are there ANY?--31.92.250.145 (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Define "truth". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only one thinking this sounds like some variant of a horribly Loaded question? Eliyohub (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No, you're not. However, I doubt anyone disputes the idea that the later Israelite kings were tributaries of the Assyrians, for example (see the account on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III) or the presence of Assyrian annals discussing the conquest of Samaria by Shalmaneser V and Sargon II, and the sentence beginning with "Indeed" (in Shalmaneser's article) makes it sound as if the cited book is depending on extrabiblical sources for its commentary about the Egyptians. Also see Claudius' expulsion of Jews from Rome and the Lachish Letters (in comparison with Jeremiah 34:7), together with assorted statements about geography and the natural world, e.g. comments about the topography of Palestine in the historical books and the famous Proverbs reference about the ant's diligence in gathering food. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The Babylonian captivity is also generally accepted to have happened. See also Historicity of the Bible. Now, that said, "truth" can have different meanings depending on context. Even non-Christians (for example, Gandhi) have sometimes lauded moral teachings in the Bible, e.g. the Golden Rule and turn the other cheek. For that matter, most Christians don't hold to Biblical inerrancy; not all Christians believe that everything described in the Bible is an actual historical event. If the original questioner could elaborate, we could give more specific answers. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Historians think it fairly likely that guy named Jesus walked around the middle east, preaching stuff, at roughly the time the bible says he did: Historicity of Jesus. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published "Does Science Agree With the Bible?" at https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible/.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• What is truth? Jesting Pilate AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Funeral procession and religion of the decease

• thumb|Funeral of Lunalilo
• thumb|Funeral of Kalakaua

In state funerals of monarchs does the ordering of the clergymen have any symbolism to the decease's religion? In the case of Hawaii, I've noticed in Lunalilo's funeral procession Rev. Parker, a Congregationalist, stands closer to the casket while in Kalakaua's funeral the Anglican bishop stands closer to the casket.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

My guess would be, maybe, but only maybe. It certainly would be possible, like with Richard Nixon, that a minister of a faith not his own, like Billy Graham, might be among his closest friends and get priority of placement in his funeral. There will also be questions as to who is and is not there at any given funeral, possibly for health reasons, having to be elsewhere, etc. Also, I suppose, there may be issues regarding who is considered the "highest ranking" clergy in the procession, so maybe a Catholic archbishop might be before an Anglican bishop even if the decedent were an Anglican. In general, I think you would probably be better off considering who speaks at the funeral as being an indicator of the beliefs of a decedent. John Carter (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

And perhaps whose church the service is being held in? Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

And the answer is likely to vary depending on whether the relevant state has an established church or not. According to our article the Anglican Church of Hawaii was an established church from 1862 to 1893, but Kawaiahaʻo Church suggests a continued tussle for influence between the Anglican and Congregational churches during that period. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed: this recent Refdesk thread has some detail about the power struggle between Anglicans and other Protestants at that time. The problem seems to have been that the Church of England sent out clergy with such extreme views that even the local Anglicans wanted rid of them. Alansplodge (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Authoritarian regimes that are centrist

Is a centrist authoritarian regime possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 06:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

How do you define "centrist"? And what would be your concept of how a centrist dictator would operate? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If you mean an authoritarian regime that does not overtly pursue either a socialist or a conservative agenda, Putin's Russia and Singapore come to mind. However, from the perspective of a Western liberal democracy, any one party state that uses authoritarian means to maintain that system is in one sense by its nature conservative, and therefore right wing, in that it has an active agenda of maintianing a particular political order. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hence the 1980s commentators who referred to the old "left-wing" characters running the USSR as "conservative" - in the sense of keeping the status quo. That's a more proper use of "conservative", as opposed to the lists of what "liberals" and "conservatives" respectively believe in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, there are at least three different ways of classifying "left" and "right", and people often use the same labels to mean any of them. There's "more free" vs "less free", "more eqaul" vs "less equal", and "more change" vs "less change". Someone who defends an established, unequal and authoritarian system, even if that system calls itself "Socialist", is very similar to someone who defends an established, unequal and authoriatrian but feudal system. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Of those three classifications, the most controversial might be just what "free" means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

In authoritarian or totalitarian socialist settings (i.e. leftist political philosophy, but oppressive regimes), to avoid the confusions noted above, the term hardline is often used; "Hardline Communist" was used frequently during the 1980s to describe Soviet politicians opposed to liberalizing reforms. --Jayron32 14:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Salazar? Asmrulz (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Neither Franco nor Salazar were centrist. They both targeted the left. They were certainly regarded as rightist at the time, and Franco had backing from Hitler and Mussolini. 86.148.119.30 (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Non-ideological dictators do exist, they are usually fueled by cult of personality rather than adherence to a political ideology (either left or right). For example, Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party held positions on both the right (Arab Nationalism) and the left (Arab socialism). --Jayron32 17:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• From the Mustafa Kemal Atatürk article: "One of his radical left-wing supporters, Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu from the Kadro (The Cadre) movement, claimed that Mustafa Kemal found a third way between capitalism and socialism." 208.95.51.115 (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia actually has an article on the Third Way, and while many of the leaders listed as examples there are from democratic systems, some like Muammar Gaddafi, are clearly from authoritarian ones. --Jayron32 19:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the position of the centre may vary a lot from country to country. From a Western democracy, Russia's government looks clearly right wing - it's built on nationalism and cutting business regulation, and its social policies seem very illiberal. However, United Russia presents itself as Russia's political middle ground, and one of Putin's strategies is to cultivate extremist political opponents in order to make himself look pragmatic by comparison (see, eg, the liberal candidate at the last presidential election, who happened to be close to the Kremlin). United Russia's main opponents are the Communist Party and the basically-fascist Liberal Democratic Party (neither liberal, nor very democratic), and compared to them Putin seems like a voice of centrist reason. Smurrayinchester 09:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, really the whole "Left-center-right" philosophy only makes sense in the context of a Eurocentric world view, where "right" means "fascist" and left means "communist" and center means "social democracy". In the U.S., the terms mean something different, where "right" means "business-friendly christian theocracy" and "left" means "civil rights and civil liberties" and center means "Bill Clinton". As can be inferred from the article Left–right politics at Wikipedia, the terms ONLY make contextual sense in Western Europe and the U.S. That's why political figures such as Hussein and Gaddafi and Putin and Ataturk and so many other non-Western leaders defy categorization on such a scheme. They do not come from political systems built on such dialectics, so we're trying to apply definitions to political systems where they do not apply. --Jayron32 18:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Deputy representatives in Norwegian parliament

Does anyone know how deputy representatives are selected for Norewgian parliament? The main article at Storting explains how regular representatives come to sit at the Storting (by way of elections), but makes no mention of how deputy reps are selected - whether also by election, like some kind of running mate, or by appointment from the elected rep, or by the party's general choice. I've probably just missed the information someplace obvious but a hand would be great. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The article you linked says "If a member of parliament cannot serve (for instance because he or she is a member of the cabinet), a deputy representative serves instead. The deputy is the candidate from the same party who was listed on the ballot immediately behind the candidates who were elected in the last election." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, definitely scrolled right past that. Thanks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If an accused asks for a lawyer

If an accused asks for a lawyer. Can it be used as evidence of his guilt?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.145.73 (talk • contribs)

A question like this requires the information "Where?" since the laws differ from one location to another. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

In which jurisdiction? --Jayron32 16:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

UK and US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.145.73 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

More enlightened jurisdictions (such as Britain) offer a lawyer when somebody is arrested. 86.148.119.30 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the United States, it cannot (at least in the Second, Sixth, First and 10th circuits. It hasn't been tested in the Supreme Court.) Smurrayinchester 16:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

We have an article Right to counsel. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because "Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law". However such purported evidence may be readily dismissed (in the US) by citing "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence". Blooteuth (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, except no. As mentioned right above you. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

In Canada the answer to the original question would be no. Some years ago there was a case where a number of babies were believed to have been murdered. The police had a limited number of suspects and simply arrested the one who asked for a lawyer. Her case was eventually dismissed for lack of evidence and she won a suit for malicious prosecution. (Nobody was ever convicted for the deaths and it was later suggested, but also not proved, that they were accidental.) See Toronto hospital baby deaths. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Later Wittgenstein on causality

I've been (recently) told that Wittgenstein, in Philosophical Investigations, criticises the idea of causation in some sense. However, I am confused by the literature that I have read on the matter. In as much as I have understood any of it, he seems to be distinguishing reasons from causes, whilst what I was told seemed to have scientific implications. Could someone direct me to what he (is believed by some to have) meant?--Leon (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, is there any philosophical literature critiquing causality as a concept in science, other than with reference to the induction problem?--Leon (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I always head straight to the SEP for this kind of thing. Their page on Wittgenstein's Aesthetics [14] discusses cause a bit, and his views. As for the second, you might like their article on the Metaphysics of Causation [15], Counterfactual theories of Causation [16], or really any of their pages about causation, here: [17]. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've just read the one on Wittgenstein's Aesthetics, and am a bit bemused. He appears to be criticising reductionism, but I fail to understand his reasoning.

Perhaps I should clarify my (mis)understanding with a question: might Wittgenstein have said that there is no system of physics in which the aesthetic responses, for all time of all individuals, could be determined with certainty? Or is he criticising a more "naive" reductionism?--Leon (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I know how to provide philosophy refs, but I'm no good at synthesizing or explaining it. Sorry, hope someone else can take it from here. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Who is in charge of a factory?

Who owns the factory? What is the actual job title? Is the factory owner also the designer of the automated machines? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No, factories are owned by corporations by and large, though under communist systems they would be owned by the state. We covered design of machines in the last question you asked on this subject, so please re-read it. Under corporate ownership, a factory is an asset, and as the corporation is owned by its shareholders, they would be the ultimate owners. As far as management of the factory, of course the shareholders in a corporation do not themselves directly manage the corporation, instead the shareholders hire people to do so; corporate governance is an article which covers how that works. As far as management of an individual factory goes, it is hierarchical. Every company will do it their own way, but most will have some sort of hierarchy whereby workers are managed by supervisors who themselves are governed by managers who are then governed by executives. A factory would probably not have an on-site executive, but would probably have a head manager who would be ultimately responsible for the entire site; usually this would be called the general manager. --Jayron32 19:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Some factories are ancient (pre-historic) and certainly there were organised factories in Roman times that were all manual, but that we would recognise today as being factories: a number of workers did the same tasks each day, making a single product on one site and making profits for a single owner. Mostly though, we regard "factories" as really becoming major ways of manufacturing from the start of the 18th century, simultaneous with the development of capitalism (in the sense of shared investment in capital facilities). So their history is recorded by the writers of capitalism, such as Adam Smith (and his 'pin factory') and Samuel Smiles. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not so common now, but factories can be owned by individuals. The owners may or may not be involved in the running of them. They can have whatever job title they want. --ColinFine (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Even master of his/her domain. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• The current usage of the word "factory" is a shortened from of "manufactory". An older usage of "factory" meant a trading station: see Factory (trading post). That type of factory was run by a factor. -Arch dude (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• In the early days of the industrial revolution in England, a wealthy individual often built a factory and then ran it. This was more or less a continuation of the way grist mills, smithys, and tanneries were established. -Arch dude (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If a factory is owned by an individual (either directly or through a corporation or other entity), then the individual may be referred to as an industrialist, although the term is somewhat dated and it is more common now just to say "business owner" or a similar term. Single-owner factories are actually pretty common, especially for smaller factories, although the owner almost always owns a corporation, limited liability company, or other vehicle that is the formal owner of the factory. It would be quite unusual for the factory owner also to be the designer of the automated machines. John M Baker (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

But such an English factory would be owned by one person, yet they would be heavily in debt at the time to their bankers, who had loaned the money to first build the factory. Few grew gradually and could afford to fund their own capital investment entirely themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Modern factories are far too large and complex to be owned by a single person. The capital necessary to design, build, and maintain such a facility is such that it doesn't make any sense for one person to do it. this article indicates that an automobile factory costs about $1.6 billion to make. While there are people who are that rich, the financial liability of such an endeavor makes more sense for a limited liability corporation to do so. --Jayron32 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Remember that factories come in all sizes. There are plenty of factories with no more than a few dozen workers, and it's quite common for such factories to be owned by an individual (although the individual may interpose a corporation or limited liability company for tax and other reasons). John M Baker (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Some of the world's largest factories are owned by one person (or a family trust on their behalf). This is rare, and more common in countries such as Russia and SE Asia, but this is how some of the world's super-rich came to be so. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do humans believe that they have free will?

If Homo sapiens descended from Homo erectus, then does that mean that Homo erectus also had free will? Do chimpanzees and other apes have free will? How do you test free will? Or is free will exclusive to humans? Do anencephalous babies have free will? Is there a difference between having free will and having a biochemical preference/avoidance for something? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

These are not easy questions for a simple one paragraph answer. The problem of free will has been one of the core aspects of study for the branch of knowledge known as philosophy and discussions of it, and thoughts about it can be found as far back as ancient Greek philosophy. You are NOT going to get a "correct" answer here that will tie everything up for you in a simple paragraph, philosophy does not have incontrovertible answers as a subject like math would. Instead, the best we can do is to direct you to some reading on what some of the better respected thinkers and writers in the field have to say on the matter. Actually, even that would stretch on for pages. What you really want to do if you wish to know more about this subject, is start with a few Wikipedia articles, follow their links, and also find their sources, and read from the wealth of knowledge on this topic. It is huge and there is a LOT of ideas out there. I would use as my starting points articles like free will and perhaps concepts like sentience and sapience and the hard problem of consciousness all of which are closely aligned to studies of free will. --Jayron32 20:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

SEP has a nice article on free will, here [18]. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

"Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action." Given that, it's hard to know to what extent our hominid ancestors had it. Whether any living creature qualifies, would have to be inferred from behavior, since they don't talk to us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

So a thermostat has free will? And a self-driving car has free will? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Do they choose what they do? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. They do. A self driving car chooses when to accelerate, when to brake, and where to steer. By you definition, it has free will. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Not my definition, the definition in the free will article. How do you know the machine "chooses" to do something, as opposed to merely doing what it's programmed to do? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The term "free will" (liberum arbitrium) when introduced by Christian philosophy (4th century CE) originally meant lack of necessity in human will, i.e. "the will does not have to be such as it is." Thomas Hobbes claimed that a person is acting on the person's own will only when it is the desire of that person to do the act, and also possible for the person to be able to do otherwise, if the person had decided to. Baruch Spinoza thought that there is no free will, like Arthur Schopenhauer who stated, "You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing." Rudolf Steiner argued that inner freedom is achieved only when we bridge the gap between our sensory impressions, which reflect the outer appearance of the world, and our thoughts, which give us access to the inner nature of the world. William James believed in free will as an ethical, metaphysical issue, but that there is no evidence for it on scientific grounds. Thomas Aquinas viewed humans as pre-programmed (by virtue of being human) to seek certain goals, but able to choose between routes to achieve these goals; for him free-will is an "appetitive power", that is, not a cognitive power of intellect. To the extent that free will is identified with Culpability (for intentional harmful acts) it is impractical to ascribe it to extinct hominids, non-human animals, or to anencephalous babies who notwithstanding temporary brain stem reflexes are arguably brain dead. Blooteuth (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there an example of a "given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Burning alive? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

By his own will? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Willing to jump into water (if some's available) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hard to do if they've tied you to a stake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

For Schopenhauer whose opinion is questioned here, will is not a product of the intellect and is instead pror to intellect; he felt this is like puruṣārtha or goals of life in Vedānta Hinduism. It is unnecessary to limit a test of this view to an extreme situation because Schopenhauer is specific that it applies to "any moment". The burning person simply wills to be out of the fire, the prime directive is single-valued and unmalleable. An operation of conscious intellect that produces one or more volitions or mental reflections may follow but they occupy not the instant but a subsequent moment. Incidentally, Schopenhauer criticized Spinoza's attitude towards animals as "mere things for our use"[19] and held that since every living thing possesses will, humans and animals are fundamentally the same and can recognize themselves in each other. Blooteuth (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes your ability to choose is taken away from you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like Schopenhauer meant that every moment of your life is like that (and Blooteuth just confirmed he did). I always choose the action that seems best at the time, and I don't get to choose which action seems best. Choosing a sub-optimal action sometimes, just to demonstrate that I have free will, doesn't work because it becomes a better choice in light of my goal of demonstrating my free will. -- BenRG (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but sometimes I just don't care but have to choose one. Do I buy the Soft and Fluffy® pillow or the Fluffy and Soft® pillow? They look and cost exactly the same but my only pillow was just vaporized by antimatter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Not caring is also a choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

But if I am given one full pre-spun revolver loaded with identical rounds and would be freed if I play 3 fair turns of Russian Roulette within 5 mins and execute if I don't then I do care but the choices of which bullet to leave in are equally optimal. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The argument the OP makes: if humans have free will, then "humans minus something" also have free will, and so on until you're left with just one cell (a zygote) -- how can a zygote have a free will??? -- is a classical example of Sorites paradox. This stems from classical vagueness problem [20]. To cite, In the vast majority of cases, the unknowability of a borderline statement is only relative to a given means of settling the issue. That is, a ton of sand is a sandpile, and one grain of sand is not a sandpile; but a physical criterion ("a means to settle an issue") can be devised to say when there is enough grains of sand to form a sandpile. Same here: come up with a psychophysical experiment that demonstrates conscious choice (as in Stanford marshmallow experiment for example) and you'll see what animal (or what age human child) is or is not capable of conscious choice. Beware that an ability to make a conscious choice doesn't equal "free will", though. However, it is better defined than a free will. For an in-depth discussion of a free will please see [21]. Dr Dima (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

February 17

Death of a sitting judge

Under US federal court rules, what happens to a case when the presiding judge dies midway through the case? Can they just assign another judge to the case, and it goes on? Is there a mistrial and everyone starts over from the beginning? I'm imagining a death that doesn't involve the case directly, e.g. the judge is driving to work and has a heart attack or gets into a car accident. Google supplied me with List of United States federal judges killed in office, but that doesn't address what happened to the listed judges' active cases. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Here it is for civil cases. I'll post again regarding criminal cases.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 63. Judge's Inability to Proceed

If a judge conducting a hearing or trial is unable to proceed, any other judge may proceed upon certifying familiarity with the record and determining that the case may be completed without prejudice to the parties. In a hearing or a nonjury trial, the successor judge must, at a party's request, recall any witness whose testimony is material and disputed and who is available to testify again without undue burden. The successor judge may also recall any other witness. 2602:304:CDA0:9220:C5D5:C63F:DCE2:55BE (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And here's for criminal cases:

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 25. Judge's Disability

(a) During Trial. Any judge regularly sitting in or assigned to the court may complete a jury trial if: (1) the judge before whom the trial began cannot proceed because of death, sickness, or other disability; and (2) the judge completing the trial certifies familiarity with the trial record. (b) After a Verdict or Finding of Guilty. (1) In General. After a verdict or finding of guilty, any judge regularly sitting in or assigned to a court may complete the court's duties if the judge who presided at trial cannot perform those duties because of absence, death, sickness, or other disability. (2) Granting a New Trial. The successor judge may grant a new trial if satisfied that: (A) a judge other than the one who presided at the trial cannot perform the post-trial duties; or (B) a new trial is necessary for some other reason. 2602:304:CDA0:9220:C5D5:C63F:DCE2:55BE (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Independent executive presidents & French political system

According to current polls, Emmanuel Macron is the mostly likely next president of France. Macron is running as independent (well, he has En Marche!, but that's just the party he set up to back him, and it has no reps) which from what I can tell seems to be a fairly unique situation. Are there other modern cases of an independent executive president (and not one closely to allied to a party but nominally independent, like Lech Wałęsa or Bernie Sanders), and if so, how does it work?

Side question: With its semi-presidential system, how does France deal with situations where the president's party doesn't come close to a parliamentary majority? The most generous opinion polls for the French legislative election, 2017 see the National Front winning around 10% of seats, meaning that the opposition to a Le Pen cabinet would be 90% of the Assembly. Is there any precedent for how this worst-case scenario would play out? Smurrayinchester 11:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Divided government is what it is called when the executive and legislature are not of the same party. In France, this goes by the specific name "cohabitation". Our article on the subject covers the times it has happened in the past, and how it works. --Jayron32 11:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Those all seem to be cases of a left-right split, where both of the parties were very established. I'm more interested in cases where the president was either a genuine independent, and had no-one in the legislature, or was of a party excluded by cordon sanitaire. Smurrayinchester 12:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well, looking deeper in Macron, I'm not sure he's as independent as you seem to think; you specifically cited Bernie Sanders as someone different than Macron, but it looks like he's a very Bernie Sanders-like politician, what you call "closely to allied to a party but nominally independent" Officially, he is not a member of a French political party (like Sanders), however his policies and positions and political leanings are closely allied to the Socialist Party (France), a party he was formerly a member of, and one which is the governing party of the national assembly. --Jayron32 14:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Macron is rather the opposite of Sanders. Sanders is and - apart from during his presidential campaign, always was - an independent but caucuses with the Dems and does not run against them (when Clinton beat him in the primaries, he didn't run as a spoiler) and had he won the nomination, he would have had the Democratic machinery behind him. Macron was formerly a member of the Socialists (although never an elected politician for them), but has served both left and right wing governments, and he will be running against them at this election. Smurrayinchester 15:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was trying to glean information from his article; it appears you already know more about the subject than others here. --Jayron32 15:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to add a couple of points: (1) Charles de Gaulle, the first President under the 5th Republic, did not belong to a political party; instead his supporters decided to form a political movement to provide him with support in Parliament. The current constitution is very much shaped by de Gaulle's views, and presidential elections are not based on candidates running under a party label (which helps to explain why there are always so many candidates splitting the first round votes every which way). (2) Parliamentary elections are scheduled to take place shortly after the upcoming presidential elections. If Macron were to win the presidency, there would likely be something similar to what happened under de Gaulle: candidates running for election defining themselves as either supporters or opponents of the newly-elected president. Traditionally, supporters of a newly-elected president have done well in parliamentary elections. Instances of cohabitation have only occurred towards the end of a presidential mandate, in the days when presidents were elected to a seven-year term while the Assemblée Nationale was up for reelection after five years. --Xuxl (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

As to the part of the question about independent executive Presidents, in the modern era of the United States, pretty much the only time this has been seen as a possibility of occurring on the Presidential level was Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992. He did not belong to any established party, yet for a candidate totally outside the two-party system, he manage to score 18.97% of the popular vote, the most since Theodore Roosevelt in the United States presidential election, 1912. Roosevelt was also outside the two-party system at the time, yet scored 27.4% of the popular vote. Neither of these candidates actually won, yet I thought this might be of interest to the OP nevertheless? Eliyohub (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it just TV BS that Nevada casinos could let people at least too drunk to drive bet on credit, give them free drinks, then get them incarcerated for a year or two if their life savings couldn't cover the loaned bets they lost?

That seems unfair. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for your presumption you've made when you asked your question? If you can direct us to where we can read about where you got the above information, we can then direct you to more reading to help you understand it. --Jayron32 14:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of something called 'casino credit'. It isn't really credit in that it is money you could have got out of the bank but they won't take it out until you leave. Check Google on it as I can't see a Wikipedia article. I agree it can get people to spend too much but they shouldn't get incarcerated. Why on earth would you think Nevada would want to pay for bankrupt bettors in prison? Dmcq (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.61.250.250 (talk)

I once saw a lawyer show (as in 100% fiction like CSI) where a casino kept offering free drinks and casino markers and he drunk and bet 'em till he couldn't pay them back if he lost. And an employee held his arm to help his alcohol-impaired arm sign a marker but the judge didn't think he was drunk or taken advantage of enough and gave him about a year or two of prison. That seemed like something I'd want a reliable source to believe too. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, you'd have to ask the writers where they got that from. Fiction means "people making stuff up". The best I can offer is to allow you to read, on your own time, concepts like debtor's prison and come to your own understanding of how debt and incarceration works historically and in the modern world. --Jayron32 15:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies to User:Jayron32, for accidentally deleting this comment. ApLundell (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly true that casinos will comp drinks to patrons.

It's also true that a casino marker is not a loan. It's more like writing check that you're expected to be able to pay off. Signing one that you can't actually pay is theoretically criminal.

The TV show you describe sounds like a bit of an exaggeration for effect, but I think it's safe to say that a lot of markers are signed when people are at least pretty well buzzed.

It's my understanding that a lot of modern Vegas casinos will want electronic access to your bank statement before you can get a marker, and use the statement to figure out what you can afford to pay back. Presumably because arresting patrons for defaulting is bad for business. ApLundell (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Casino markers may or may not be enforceable, depending on the circumstances/jurisdictions: "Unpaid markers upheld as bad checks" in Nevada (2000), "gambling debt isn’t recognized as valid by Chinese courts" (2016) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

February 18

Distribution of animal products to supermarkets based on type

In many non-Asian American supermarkets, pig feet and beef tripe may be sold, but chicken feet and pig ear and animal blood curd seem to be exclusive to Asian-American supermarkets. Do Asian-American supermarkets receive all the animal meat byproducts? Or are most bones and organ meats fed to the dogs or made into plant fertilizer? 166.216.159.13 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Dried blood is a thing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Retail establishments like stores are re-sellers; they do not normally process any goods at all. In a case like this, a slaughterhouse has despatched the animals and sold some quantity to a butcher shop who has further processed it. They would then sell it either directly to a store (which is common with specialty items and 'ethnic foods') or to a foodservice DC, who in turn sells to restaurants and stores. At each of those points, purchasers have an opportunity to buy what they want and leave other things behind, just as you do in the grocery store. They may also to save a bit of money by buying a whole thing (like a whole chicken) and removing the bits they don't want themselves, but this generally gets less common the further away you get from the source. Matt Deres (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)