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

May 23

Misplaced valor and the US Merchant Navy

In the United States, have any public figures advocated altering the status of the Merchant Navy as a "branch of the military", to prevent people from technically becoming "war heroes" just by working on a merchant ship that wasn't actually involved in the war effort? NeonMerlin 22:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the US merchant navy is actually called the United States Merchant Marine, and unless I'm mistaken it is not, generally, "a branch of the military". But why would it be less heroic to serve on a merchant ship that wasn't actually involved in the war effort than on a military vessel that wasn't actually involved in the war effort? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

And of course as AnonMoos pointed out above, in certan cases they can be involved in the war. Our article notes:

P.L. 95–202, approved November 23, 1977, granted veteran status to Women Airforce Service Pilots and "any person in any other similarly situated group" with jurisdiction for determination given to the Secretary of Defense who delegated that determination to the Secretary of the Air Force.[16] Although the Merchant Marine suffered a per capita casualty rate greater than those of the US Armed Forces, merchant mariners who served in World War II were denied such veterans recognition until 1988 when a federal court ordered it. The Court held that "the Secretary of the Air Force abused its discretion in denying active military service recognition to American merchant seamen who participated in World War II."

This also illustrates the point that the Merchant Marine aren't normally considered veterans etc.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I'm getting this. I have a friend who was in the merchant navy, he was dropped off in Cuba when he needed some medical help and that caused a deal of trouble for him in America - I think that is the closest he ever came to being a war hero as far as I'm aware ;-) Dmcq (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's a relevant British WW2 poster -- File:INF3-127 War Effort Under the Red Duster they sustain our Island Fortress.jpg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

May 24

Election systems other than the US Electoral College where the candidate with the most votes can theoretically lose

Apart from the US Electoral College, what other electoral systems could theoretically have a candidate with the most votes in an electoral round (in the case of two-round elections) or an election (in the case of one-round elections) could still lose? I think this scenario could happen in some kinds of instant-runoff systems, but are there other examples? And as a side-question, what are prominent non-US examples of a candidate with the most votes losing an election? The only non-US case that comes to mind right now was the first round of the New Zealand flag referendum, where the winning design was only 2nd in terms of first-choice votes but had the most overall ranked votes. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you're conflating different things. The candidate with the most or more first choice not winning is a key part any instant runoff or STV system. (STV has multiple winners, but one of the "winners" could have gotten less votes in one of the iterations than one of the "losers".) Such systems are effectively multi round but with all the voting taking place in a single instance. Unless I've misunderstood you, there is basically no way you can have an IRV or STV system without this intentional possible feature, there is no "some kind". (Even if you define Contingent vote as IRV, it still has the same feature.) Arguably all other forms of Ranked voting are the same, but these also further highlight why your definitions seem problematic. With the Borda count for example, someone could obviously be the first preference of more people but in such a case it's even more obvious that this doesn't define the winner, only how many points they receive does.

As for examples, I suggest you take a look at basically anything in Instant-runoff voting or Single transferable vote. It's quite likely anywhere these systems are used with a number of different elections (both over time and different places of positions), for example both the House of Representatives and Senate in Australia, most elections in Ireland, certain elections in New Zealand; that this would have happened at least once since that's one of the key reasons the system is used.

The US EC system is a fairly different thing. It's actually not that different from other systems where majoritarianism is used with multiple different voting districtions. Except in most other cases, you are explicitly voting for someone to represent your district in some way. Therefore it's less of a surprise for example, that BN in Malaysia may have fewer people voting for it, but still have a majority of representatives (and therefore be the ones forming the government). Of course, in a parliamentary system, these representatives are supposed to do a fair few different things and aren't only involved in deciding who gets to govern. Gerrymandering and unequal representation obviously don't help, but they're not actually required for such an outcome. (Also you don't actually require majoritarianism, any system which isn't completely proportional could have this outcome.) In the US, you are nominally voting for a candidate but you're actually basically selecting someone to represent you in a very limited way (basically electing the president and VP) and trying to tell them what you want them to do, so you have a similar outcome.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The way I like to say it is that in America, the people don't elect the president, the states do. Something I'm a little unclear on, let's say the British parliament. The members are chosen by the people, and the members choose the Prime Minister, right? So are the British parliamentary districts laid out in roughly equal proportions, or are they gerrymandered as with some US congressional districts? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies has a full list of all the UK constituencies and their sizes. You'll see that, to a first glance, they're about the same. The aim of the Boundary commission is to keep the constituencies approximately the same size. More information here.--Phil Holmes (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The party leaders are chosen by the party members, a small proportion of whom are Members of Parliament. I believe the trade unions have a say in the election of the Labour Party leader. If a party has a majority in the House of Commons the Queen will likely appoint its leader as her Prime Minister and invite her to form a government. There are periodic reviews of constituency boundaries by the Boundary Commission - you can see an overview of how the system works here: [1]. 79.73.128.130 (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Remember however that Gerrymandering does not simply refer to unequal constituency sizes, in fact it often doesn't. As our article explains gerrymandering can often be easily carried out simply by drawing the boundaries in such a way as to disadvantage one or more parties, and advantage one or more other parties while keeping the constituency sizes fair. And modern data science can make it even easier. Having a independent and respected body to draw boundaries can help, but even if gerrymandering is eliminated, as I indicated above there's ultimately no way to guarantee proportionality under a majoritarianism system simply because people of where people live and shifting political views. John Oliver IMO did a decent video on this [2]. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW, if you're having trouble understanding how well gerrymandering can work, imagine a simplified system where there's no need for contiguous boundaries, everyone will vote precisely as you predict and only two parties. Assuming 1 million voters, exactly 100k voters per district and you know which 699994 people support party A and which 300006 people support party B; you can easily make 4 districts with 100k party A voters, and 6 districts with 50001 party B voters and 49999 party A voters leading to a 6 to 4 majority for party B despite them having less than half of party A's support among voters. Real world limits don't generally allow that extreme, but it shows why you don't need unequal voter count constituencies. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a good point, at some level, that the EC's role in electing the US president is not that different from Parliament's role in picking the PM.

A couple important differences, though:

1. A US elector has one job. Well, two, if picking the president and picking the vice-president are different jobs, which constitutionally is true, though in practice they usually go together. A member of Parliament does lots of things besides picking the PM, and you might well vote for someone to represent you in Parliament for reasons other than who you want to be PM.
2. If the PM loses the confidence of Parliament, s/he's gone. Electors can't do anything about the president after January 6 or whenever it is.

So voters in the Westminster system probably don't feel the discrepancy as keenly as US voters for a popular-winner-electoral-loser do; they understood from the beginning that they weren't voting for the PM per se, but for an MP. --Trovatore (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Some examples of the candidate with the most votes losing the election are Pierre Trudeau in the Canadian federal election, 1979 and Louis St. Laurent in the 1957 election (although of course as a parliamentary system we're not voting directly for the Prime Minister etc etc...) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing, Trudeau won his election in 1979, he won Mount Royal with 85% of the votes. That's the only election he stood for. His party did not win the most seats in Parliament, and thus the opposition was invited to form a government. --Jayron32 11:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Right! We can also have the weird situation where the Prime Minister is not even a member of Parliament, like John Turner. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Because the PM in the Westminster system is appointed, not elected. There are conventions and traditions over who gets the job, but the only rule is that they are invited by the Monarch (or GG) to form a government. --Jayron32 15:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Although, the way that the system has evolved, it would be unthinkable for a PM not to be a member of an elected chamber. At Westminster itself, it was common in the 18th and 19th centuries for a PM to be a member of the House of Lords, the last being Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury. Nowadays, the PM has to account for him or herself in the chamber at Prime Minister's Questions. Alansplodge (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Note also that the PM in some Westminster system governments does explicitly have to be a member of an elected chamber. Prime Minister of Malaysia is one. (See also Constitution of Malaysia.)

And it's perhaps worth remembering that the Head of State can be a President (outside of the Commonwealth realm), Politics of India is one such case. There arguably the PM has to be a member of one of the legislative bodies within six months of becoming PM, but not necessarily elected. These requirements arise from the fact that they're part of the Union Council of Ministers. That said, I'm not sure if the wording [3] (or anything else) legally stops someone being re-appointed as PM every six month, so I guess you could say even there it's more a case of conventions, traditions and what people will accept.

The Australian case seems clearer Chapter II of the Constitution of Australia#Section 64: Ministers of State although I wouldn't be surprised if the argument is made that a PM who gets reappointed hasn't actually held office for 3 months but only since their new appointment. Especially if there was a 1 minute appointed PM in between.

P.S. I should mention that the PM of Malaysia can be a former member of the Dewan Rakyat if parliament has been dissolved. Also I guess some may try and argue the discretion given to the Agong allows him (the Agong can't currently be female) to go against the explicit requirement the PM is a currrent or former member off the Dewan Rakyat, but I'm not convinced this legal argument would be widely accepted unless perhaps it's impossible to fulfill the constitutional requirement i.e. everyone who does is dead or otherwise unable to become PM. Anyway I guess this is fairly OT, the point that it isn't simply convention stands.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This is similar to the point I made above comparing the two. As I mentioned above, the perhaps unusual thing about the US system is while the person's name is what you nominally vote for, what you're actually doing is voting for a person to represent you and telling them this is who I want to be president and vice president; whereas with most other systems it's clear that you're voting for something else (even if people don't always think of it that way).

One thing I didn't mention that if we don't only think of people but of parties as candidates, under a mixed-member proportional system, and other proportional systems with a party vote, it's possible for a party to explicitly get the most votes but for one or more other parties to be the one to form the government, in opposition to the party with the most votes. This would generally be when the party with the most votes only won a plurality and not a majority although depending on the system it may theoretically be possible for a party with the majority of votes to lack a majority of representatives and therefore possibly unable to form the government.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• In the Australian federal election, 1998, more votes were cast for the Labor Party, led by the Opposition Leader Kim Beazley, than for the incumbent Liberal-National parties, led by Prime Minister John Howard. But the Lib/Nats gained more seats, and hence retained government. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• In the United_Kingdom_general_election,_February_1974, Labour won more seats than the Conservatives, but the Conservatives won more votes. However, neither party actually "won" the election in the sense of winning a majority of seats because several minor parties won seats too. In the United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951, the Conservatives actually won an outright majority despite Labour winning more votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.23.25.64 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you mean "but the Conservatives won more votes". Alansplodge (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that!211.23.25.64 (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

How could Alansplodge forget Sir Alec Douglas-Home? Per our article,

He is notable for being the last Prime Minister to hold office while being a member of the House of Lords ...

I stand corrected. Home renounced his title four days after appointment and then "For twenty days Douglas-Home was Prime Minister while a member of neither house of Parliament", while he contested a safe by-election, although Parliament didn't actually sit during that period. It still makes Salisbury the last British PM to run his administration from the Lords. Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

We had an analogous case in Australia in 1968 with John Gorton. He was appointed PM while a Senator, then continued as PM in the period between resignation from the Senate and being elected to the House of Reps (in a by-election for his predecessor Harold Holt's seat occasioned by the presumed death of that predecessor). The section of the Constitution linked by Nil Einne above allows a person who is not in the parliament to be appointed (or remain) a minister, but with a sunset clause of 3 months, by which time they must either become a member of the parliament or forfeit their appointment. This was necessary because, while the first federal ministry operated from 1 January 1901, the first federal parliamentary election was not held until late March 1901. Whenever a minister loses their seat, this provision allows them to continue in their portfolio for a short time until their successor is appointed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Olive tree history

I have this question in the Olive talk page, but it looks like no one is active there.

The map in the info box of the Olive article does not show the olive tree in Egypt except for a single marker "Introduced and naturalized (synanthropic)."

This seems to contradict the statements of the text of the article : "Leafy branches of the olive tree were found in Tutankhamun's tomb." and "It is assumed[by whom?] that Olea europaea may have arisen from O. chrysophylla in northern tropical Africa and that it was introduced into the countries of the Mediterranean Basin via Egypt, ..."

I am unclear about several things:

1- What does that map represent? Current cultivation, current natural occurrence, occurrence at a certain point in the past?

2- If the map represents current cultivation, why "introduced in Egypt"? Did it die out there, and was later reintroduced? Anyone knows the tree's history in Egypt?

--Lgriot (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• This has some information. --Jayron32 20:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That link says: "Other trees were grown for oil before the introduction of the olive", which must have been at an early date. Alansplodge (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

US warships port calls in China

I was surprised to find out that US warships actually made port calls in China: "An early example of the open-door policy occurred on 5 November 1984, when three United States Naval vessels visited Qingdao. This was the first US port call in more than 37 years to China." Qingdao

I'm pretty sure with all the tension going on that no longer happens. When did this practice end? I'm guessing in 1989 due to the Tiananmen Square Massacre? Scala Cats (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I should add that US port calls in Hongkong is still a on-going thing[4]. My question is only about US port calls in mainland China. Scala Cats (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

A US aircraft carrier docked in Shanghai in May 2016 and another ship docked there in November 2015. So it has happened fairly recently. --Jayron32 22:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Quite surprising, considering all the supposed Sino-US tension that the mass media likes to trump up.

Did US ever suspend port visits over the Tiananmen Square Massacre though? I'm guessing they did (there was a general arms embargo), but am not sure.Scala Cats (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Understanding the different Chinese reactions, like allowing US warships in port while crashing into US surveillance planes, makes me think there are different factions at work. In this case, perhaps the Chinese air force has more conservative/anti-American elements than those who control port access. StuRat (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

In general, it is relatively rare for countries who are formally on friendly terms to refuse permission for each other's naval ships to call at its ports, which is why the 2016 refusal by China over the South China Sea issue was such big news. @Scala Cats:, as you noted military cooperation between China and the US stopped after Tiananmen Square in 1989. I found this article which says a port call in 1995 was the first since 1989. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

United States ships don't visit New Zealand nuclear-free zone's ports and they aren't welcomed.
Sleigh (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Neither of these are true anymore [5] [6] [7]. Although I believe as it turned out the USS Sampson (DDG-102) didn't actually end up visiting a port when it first arrived, it only did so later [8] [9] [10]. Note that some have questioned whether there was any real intention to deny a US ship in the first place or if it was a victim of circumstance resulting in an unintentional hardening of positions [11]. In any case, arguably non nuclear powered, non nuclear armed US ships (without official confirmation) have been welcomed by the NZ government for a while, it's just that the US wasn't willing to send them. [12] Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged, PalaceGuard008. Scala Cats (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

May 25

style of inference

If a music critic writes that Beethoven's piano concertos #1, #2, #3, and #5 were important compositions, one can infer that he or she considers concerto #4 to be unimportant. In purely logical terms the inference is unsound: the formal fallacy is called denying the consequent (I just spent a while finding that). But informally it's a legitimate device that has a name which I don't remember, but I think there's a Wikipedia article about it that I haven't been able to find. Does anyone know what it is called? Thanks. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Inference from omission? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a similar principle of interpretation in law, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which is that omission of something from a list of other specific things implies the exclussion of the omitted thing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

In logic, this is a type of Abductive reasoning; which holds that a conclusion is consistent with a premise or group of premises (which is different from deductive reasoning, which demands that a conclusion is entailed by some premises). I think Sherlock Holmes said, of this type of reasoning, something along the lines of "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be truth" or some such. But the term "abduction" or "abductive reasoning" is the closest I can think to explain your situation. --Jayron32 12:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• The best interpretation is context-specific. For example, if you say "concertos #1, 2, 3, and 5 were unimportant" and then I say "concertos #1, 2, 3, and 5 were important", the best interpretation is that I have implied nothing about #4. And subtleties of wording matter: if I say "concertos #1, 2, 3, and 5 were his important ones", the implication is that they are his only important ones. Loraof (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Beethoven also composed Piano Concertos #0, #6 and maybe not a #7. Before dismissing #4, a work is widely performed and recorded, and considered to be one of the central works of the piano concerto literature, on the non-word of a nameless critic, trust your own ears to a fine performance. Blooteuth (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks all, I think expressio unius est exclusio alterius might have been what I was thinking of, or anyway it's the closest. The Beethoven concerto sentence was just a made-up example of the construction, not something that any music critic (afaik) actually wrote. For what it's worth, the question was inspired by this sentence from the Missoulian newspaper yesterday, dis-endorsing a Congressional candidate who supposedly physically attacked a reporter:[13]

But there is no doubt that Gianforte committed an act of terrible judgment that, if it doesn’t land him in jail, also shouldn’t land him in the U.S. House of Representatives.

This leads to a (surely unintended but amusing) reading that the newspaper thought Gianforte should be elected to Congress only if he does also land in jail. (The election is now over and Gianforte won). 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm plucking confused

Hi WP:RDH all,
I recently started a micro-stub about this fresco. I am teh fail about this period in English history.
Should the purported event be described as "plucking" or "choosing"?
Could you possibly help with this? TIA, Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say plucking - because that's what the main source that owns it says and it seems to have historical support. Also a quick check by Google seems to shows the two names have about equal support so one can't say choosing is the common name compared to plucking. Dmcq (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It might be relevant to add a link somehow to the Wars of the Roses to add context (it wasn't just a gardening competition). That article says: "a number of noblemen and a lawyer pick red or white roses to show their loyalty to the Lancastrian or Yorkist faction". "Pluck" sounds a little stilted in modern English, to my ears anyway. Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Given that they have actually picked the blossoms from the bushes, it may be more accurate to use plucking rather than choosing, as it would be possible to choose without actually removing them. Today we are more likely to talk about picking flowers, rather than plucking them - but the reference is to Shakespeare (who may actually have invented the story), and he does use pluck (King Henry VI, Part I, ACT II, SCENE IV). Wymspen (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry misunderstood the question. For a description anything that describes what is supposed to be happening is fine. Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What title did its painter give to it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Shakespeare, in the source text for this scene, uses "pluck", not "choose". And if the Houses of Parliament - who presumably own the painting - use "pluck", that should be reason enough to stick with the title, I would think? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Famous Business Missed Deadlines

I'm compiling a list of well-known business failures and their agreed-upon causes: for example, New Coke is a well-known example (at least in popular culture) of a product that failed due to poor market research. However, I'm having trouble finding products that were primarily failures because they missed their posted/shipping deadlines: that is, they would likely have been successful, but delays in production or shipping caused them to lose market share, or failure to be successful at all. I'm trying to stick with products that are well-known to average people (i.e. if you you say "New Coke" to someone my age, they are going to to immediately think "business failure"), so I'm wanting to stay away from video games, movies, or other products that basically get in development hell. I've done some Google Searches on this, but haven't found any results other than "missed deadline metrics", or "what do we do when we know we are going to miss a deadline?". Any help is appreciated. OldTimeNESter (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It sounds to me you don't have any source giving notability for the article otherwise that would have listed a few. Dmcq (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Apple had some well-publicized failures in the early 1980s, though I don't know if they were specifically because of missed deadlines; the Apple III and Apple Lisa both tanked hard, though the latter was later rolled into the Macintosh, which became Apples most successful product line. Several badly-designed video games, often rushed to market to meet deadlines (resulting in crappy products) are blamed in part for the North American video game crash of 1983, notably the games E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) and Pac-Man (Atari 2600) are sometimes cited for their poor quality, though the latter was quite good selling, the Video Game market in general during the early 1980s suffered from under-supported design processes that often resulted in games that were pushed to market in incomplete states, the E.T. game is indicative of that, while Pac Man sold well, the game was blasted by critics for being a very poor port of the arcade version with bad graphics and clunky gameplay. Other product failures may include the Tucker 48 (which I don't think had delayed production issues) and the Hughes H-4 Hercules, which DID miss deadlines (a warplane intended for WWII which didn't fly until 1947) --Jayron32 14:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Boo.com Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It's lethal if you have the exclusive licence to print a calendar and you miss your deadline.That's where Antonio Lilio came unstuck Gregorian calendar#Adoption.213.104.60.230 (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed my response which you moved here. I have no idea why you moved it as it was in the right section and makes no sense in this section as it's not an example of a missed deadline but an example of a deadline meet by producing the content sufficiently ahead of time. Nil Einne (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• The story of Gary Kildall and the first IBM PC OS was something like a missed deadline. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

How is Russia a developing country?

The Wikipedia page has a big picture, which colors in Russia as a developing country. Ironically, the Soviet Union was a superpower during the Cold War, which then collapsed. But the wealth can't just disappear, can it? How is Russia a developing country, less developed than China? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

According to Economy of the Soviet Union in 1989, the GDP per capita was only 32nd in the world. According to List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, Russia ranks somewhere in the 60s, so yes, in terms of relative economic development, compared to the rest of the world, Russia has fallen behind compared to when it was the Soviet Union. However, if you're trying to understand the first map in the article titled Developing country, the sentence "There are no universally agreed-upon criteria for what makes a country developing versus developed and which countries fit these two categories" Being ranked, say, 65th out of 180is countries (roughly the middle third) is certainly on the line between developed and developing, and as there are many different organizations that use their own metrics, the one single organization who made the first map in that article used criteria whereby Russia is ranked as "developing". You'll notice in that same article, in a map lower down, Russia is ranked "High" on a different metric, which makes them in the second of five rankings by development. As has been mentioned before in other contexts, understanding what development is and how it is measured, and how Russia's economy works compared to other economies is more important than slapping a label on it. --Jayron32 16:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The Soviet Union had a lot of natural resources, heavy industry, and military hardware, but I'm not sure it could be considered a "rich" country. The Soviets never fully solved the problems of agriculture that had been created or exacerbated by Stalin's collectivization, and part of why the Soviet Union collapsed was that it was probably spending more on its military than its economy could really afford. Much of what was monetizable in the Russian economy after the fall of the Soviet Union was siphoned off by the oligarchs in the second half of the 1990s... AnonMoos (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

See kleptocracy. Also, sanctions placed on them after they annexed Crimea and sent troops into the rest of Ukraine have had a major negative effect on their economy, as has low oil prices. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Developing country doesn't say Russia is a developing country. It says IMF classifies Russia as a developing economy. Developing country#Definition says:

The IMF uses a flexible classification system that considers "(1) per capita income level, (2) export diversification—so oil exporters that have high per capita GDP would not make the advanced classification because around 70% of its exports are oil, and (3) degree of integration into the global financial system."

References

PrimeHunter (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's a rather uninteresting qualification: all definitions are created by someone for some purpose. If Russia is a developing country, that's only because some recognized authority has defined it as such (or defined its categories a certain way for which Russia happens to qualify as a developing country). If there were no recognized authority to establish such definitions, the concepts wouldn't exist in the first place. To draw such a distinction is meaningless because if the IMF (or another body with similar function as the IMF) wasn't creating definitions, we wouldn't have any such definitions in the first place! --Jayron32 13:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree. While I can't speak for PrimeHunter, I think their point is important. There are multiple different ways of classifying countries development and multiple authorities who attempt to do so. If our article presented Russia as a developing country point blank as the OP's comment seem to imply, this would be a problem. However the good news is it doesn't. In fact it makes it clear it's only referring to the IMF's definition, and also gives this definition. Similarly the map makes clear it's referring to the IMF definition.

It also gives other definitions. For example: "Countries of Central Europe and of the Commonwealth of Independent States (code 172) in Europe are not included under either developed or developing regions". And "In the 2016 edition of its World Development Indicators, the World Bank made a decision to no longer distinguish between “developed” and “developing” countries in the presentation of its data. Nobody has ever agreed on a definition for these terms in the first place". And the map at the top using HDI in which Russia is coloured very high HDI which it also calls developed.

It's your choice if you only want pay attention to the IMF's definition, however others may be interested in recognising that it is only one definition and there are other definitions. (Looking more carefully, I note you made similar points in one of your posts above. So I'm not even sure why you now feel that being clear which definition is being referred to, what this definition is, and it was only this specific definition; is unimportant.) P.S. I didn't look carefully at the article so it may be Russia is said to be a developing country according to another definition it uses. If so, this would be a useful addition to the discussion, but it doesn't negate the important points that were made.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do humans homogenize over time?

All over the world, humans wear shirts and pants and dresses, even hunter-gatherer tribes. How do these hunter-gatherers get shirts and dresses in the first place? Do they trade with other human societies and clothes just happen to be on the list they trade for? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

See Westernization. --Jayron32 15:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a whole industry, which has been written about several times in magazine articles that I've seen, which exports unsaleable donated second-hand clothes from first-world countries to third-world countries... AnonMoos (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

But in ancient times, China influenced the Far Eastern countries - food, values, written language. Apparently, this isn't just a modern phenomenon. It seems to happen whenever there is a dominant, powerful civilization and less developed peoples. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

In that case, the word you seek is hegemony, also possibly cultural hegemony or cultural imperialism. From a political science point of view, Soft power is also relevant, but that's a more deliberate, modern concept. --Jayron32 17:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with AnonMoos. They can get Western clothes free, while traditional clothes take lots of work (or goods in trade) to afford. If the only way we could get Western clothes was to raise sheep, shear them, dye the wool, spin the wool into yarn, then knit what we need, but we could get saris and other foreign clothes for free, a lot of people here would wear those. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think they quite get the clothing items for free in most cases, but certainly at a price far below what they would sell for in their original countries... AnonMoos (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

In China, native cloth was displaced by first Japanese and British, and later Indian, cloth in the late 19th century because imported cloth, made with Western technology, was cheaper and better quality. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

In India itself, the wearing of khadi or homespun cloth became a cause célèbre for Ghandi's Swadeshi movement. "If you are left with only one piece of homespun,wear it with dignity" was the slogan of a boycott of British-made cloth. Some decades later, the boot was on the other foot as cheap Indian textiles put the British cotton mills out of business. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

One semi famous example is the shipping of SuperBowl (and I guess other sport championship) losing team shirts/jerseys produced before the final match was held in case they were the winners. [14]. Nil Einne (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I moved my reply back to this section after it was moved to a different section by an IP (where as I pointed out it made no sense). I should perhaps also mention I'm not intending to imply such items make up a significant proportion of clothing given away, it's likely to only be a tiny proportion. Also re-reading Anonmoos post, this is only a related example since these items aren't second-hand but are new. Note that there are concerns over the effect of second hand clothing from wealthier countries on the economies of poorer countries, see e.g. [15] [16]. (There are also similar concerns about other things, e.g. food aide.) Although as also clear from those sources, there is a vibrant economy around such things. Not clearly mentioned there but my memory is that many of the companies involved in exporting such clothes were founded by migrants from some of the countries where the trade happens. Also it's perhaps worth noting that as per AnonMoos and those sources and others like [17], these clothes despite being donated often aren't beign given away for free. (SuperBowl etc jerseys tend to be given away for free and I'm fairly sure there are other cases of new and old clothes being given away, it depends significantly on the target market, who's the one handling the clothes etc.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

US Navy vs PLAN uniform

From a link[18] from a question above, this picture really stood out[19]. That looks like a PLA Navy officer greeting two US Navy officers, but their uniforms look almost identical. Not just the color and style of the shirts and pants, even down to minor details like the identical white color of the shoes and hats and the golden trim on the hats. Are the US Navy and PLAN uniforms really that similar? Or is it some kind of the ceremonial thing to "blend in" with the other party as a welcoming gesture? Scala Cats (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems that naval uniforms are rather similar the world over. I found this image of Royal Australian Navy officers that have remarkably similar attributes. This image shows a different view of the same event in China, while this image shows that the most formal Chinese uniforms differ somewhat from the US formal ones, note the black tie, while the US version has a stand-up collar. Alansplodge (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Nitpick - that's not the most formal uniform, that's the general duty dress for the PLA Reserve - I think roughly requivalent to the no. 3 in the Royal Navy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That's kinda bizarre. I wonder which country started this trend? Was it the Royal Navy? Scala Cats (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

From our article Uniforms of the Royal Navy: "RN uniforms have served as the template for many maritime/naval uniforms throughout the world . . . ." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

One more, this time British, US and Australian officers. Alansplodge (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

For those, like me, who are not up on such things, the PLA Navy is the People's Liberation Army Navy. I always just assumed it was called the Chinese Navy, but there you (or I) go. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if they have a Navy Army as well as an Army Navy? Alansplodge (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That could make the recruitment advertisement jingle a mouthful: "People's Liberation Army! People's Liberation Army Navy! People's Liberation Army Air Force! People's Liberation Army Marines!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, they actually do have an Army Navy Air Force! Alansplodge (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

List of manufacturers with emission scandals

Saw this[20] on the news today and it does not surprise me at all. There's been a string of investigations on car companies that it's getting hard to keep track of them all.

Googling "COMPANY NAME raided emission" got me Suzuki[21], Fiat Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz[22], Renault[23], Mitsubishi[24]. I'm sure there are plenty others.

Is there a reliably-sourced webpage (preferably on Wikipedia) that keeps track of all the car companies that's being investigated for emission cheating? Volkswagen emissions scandal is good, but it's mostly about Volkswagen; I'd like to get an industry-wide view. Scala Cats (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Keeping lists of entities under investigation would be counter to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:CRYSTAL, and possibly WP:BLP. We don't normally list anything except actual convictions or settlements and fines. μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The Volkswagen emissions scandal article was started back in 2015[25], way before any "convictions or settlements and fines" happened, so what you wrote is blatantly false. Scala Cats (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really. It was a prominent news story, which made it notable enough for an article. And it has various categories which link it with other companies that have had some sort of scandal (which is probably most of them at one time or another). But there's no category called "car companies being investigated for emission cheating." A cat like that might well get deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, then, I'll restrict my question to non-Wikipedia websites. Scala Cats (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You might want to inform the good people who wrote the Diesel emissions scandal article about their various rule violations then. Scala Cats (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a very complicated question and whether the good people cheated or not in the end their cars'll do just the same. --Askedonty (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think all the companies who make diesel cars are being investigated. I hope they are. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, all diesel engines (not just cars) that are subject to emissions regulation and which do not require Diesel exhaust fluid are being investigated by several countries. I know of no diesel engines that require Diesel exhaust fluid that are being investigated.

Full disclosure: I designed one of the most commonly-used emissions-testing systems for automobiles and light trucks. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomads

In some countries, there are nomadic peoples and hunter-gatherer tribes. Are they considered citizens of the country in which they live? If a group of people continue to live the traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyle and no one is bothering them and they just cope with parasites and high infant mortality like other animals do, then are they considered one massive undeveloped, moving "country" the size of whatever the land can sustain? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

See the articles Nomad and Hunter-gatherer that describe example groups. Blooteuth (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Groups "living the traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyle" are confined to quite remote areas nowadays (generally those which are unsuitable for agriculture and/or hard to get to and/or climatically extreme). Most groups which are nomadic now or were nomadic in the recent past are actually animal-herders. In a number of countries, such nomadic animal herders have been subject to forced or semi-voluntary "sedentarization" for various reasons. (In the lands of the former Ottoman Empire, bedouin did not legally own most of the land they periodically made use of, which created problems in the Post-Ottoman era...) AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Some information at Nomadic Peoples and Human Rights by Jérémie Gilbert and Denotified and Nomadic Tribes: The Challenge of Free and Equal Citizenship by Rudolph C Heredia. Alansplodge (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Coincidentally (I assume since the OP doesn't seem to know anything) I read this story [26] about an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights decision dealing with the eviction of hunter-gatherer Ogiek from their ancestral land in Kenya. Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

May 26

Living in poverty vs living self-sufficiently but away from large society

There are poor and disadvantaged people within a society. Then, there are people living in nomadic hunter-gatherer groups. Both groups of people may experience high child mortality and parasitic/viral/bacterial infections. Are they both living in poverty? Or, are only the social outcasts of either group the ones in poverty? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

First you have to define poverty - and particularly whether you are talking about relative poverty (the poorer in an affluent society) or absolute poverty (being unable to obtain the absolute necessities of life). Being a social outcast is irrelevant - the outcasts may actually be richer than the rest of the society. Wymspen (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

But what if a person has excellent survival skills and know how to obtain food by gathering food in trash cans and in parks and hunting for tiny edible insects? Would that person still be living in absolute poverty if he knows how to obtain resources, even if it means disobeying the law and stealing food from a grocery store? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

As Wymspen said, whether such edge cases are included depends entirely on how you define "poverty". Under some definitions, yes, for other definitions no.

Is there context to this question? ApLundell (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

140.254.70.33 -- I'm sure that you're well-meaning in your own way, but you don't seem to understand that hunter-gatherers have been squeezed into a few rather marginal areas in today's world (see my answer to the previous question above), and few of them (outside of inhabitants of some of the Andaman islands) are unaffected by contacts with more organized societies... AnonMoos (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Failure to wear caps?

I was doing some research into my former home town of Leyton and came across an account of the ancient manorial court. One of the cases mentioned in the Victoria County History is "A solitary instance of presentment for failure to wear caps according to the statute is found in 1595". Why on earth would there be a law making people wear a cap, and how long was it in force? Alansplodge (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I've observed that American schoolchildren are discouraged from wearing hats indoors, but hats outside are acceptable. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Some people were required to wear hats to indicate their status, students, soldiers, guild members etc.

But if it went to the courts, I'll bet it was a jew who wasn't wearing the required clothing identifying himself as such. That was common enough during that time period. This is the fastest reference I could find. It just goes to Quora, which isn't the best source, but books about the time period will also mention it. [27]

ApLundell (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds logical, but the Edict of Expulsion in 1290 expelled all Jewish people from England until the Resettlement of the Jews in England in the second half of the 17th century. See History of the Jews in England. Alansplodge (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sumptuary laws is our article on the subject. Specifically about caps: "A 1571 Act of Parliament to stimulate domestic wool consumption and general trade decreed that on Sundays and holidays all males over six years of age, except for the nobility and persons of degree, were to wear woollen caps on pain of a fine of three farthings (¾ penny) per day. This law instituted the flat cap as part of English wear. The Bill was repealed in 1597". Rmhermen (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Splendid, many thanks. An early form of economic interventionism. Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource:Acts of the Parliament of England/Elizabeth I ~ 1571 shows it as the "Caps Act 1571" (what else would you call it?). It also gets a mention at Monmouth cap. Alansplodge (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

LGBT in Europe

Why is Western Europe generally much more advanced than Eastern Europe in terms of LGBT rights? (I mean, it's been over 25 years - a whole generation - since the fall of the Iron Curtain, if that's part of the reason - other countries that were once virtually theocracies (Ireland) or dictatorships (Spain, Portugal) have been totally tolerant for years.) --ZygonLieutenant (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Because the concept of "gay" is a Western concept. In non-Western countries, homosexuality is a punishable behavior, because it is thought that anybody can engage in it voluntarily. The notion of "gay" assumes that the person does not choose this behavior and thus should be removed from censure. Instead, the person should accept himself as gay and allow homosexual behavior to be the outward sign of being gay. Same goes for fat people. Some people blame fat people as if fatness is their fault, and that they deserve to be punished for sloth and gluttony. Other people take a more sympathetic view and say that there are many factors that affect a person's weight, some of which are out of a person's control. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Fat Chance is a book by Dr Lustig on obesity and excessive sugar consumption. The introduction goes in depth about how obesity is beyond the individual's control, but treatment is within the individual's control if the individual had the money to buy low-sugar food and time to cook. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Humans are not robots. Sexual orientation might not be chosen, but behavior IS chosen. And it happens that western Europe has a more enlightened view about the right to chose one's lifestyle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

May 27

Does the Speaker have to resign their speakership before succeeding the presidency

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is right after the VP in the presidential line of succession. But the Ineligibility Clause says that members of Congress aren't allowed to be simultaneously employed by the executive branch. So presumably the Speaker would have to resign first before succeeding the presidency (in case both POTUS and VP are gone). But once they resign, they are no longer Speaker and thus no longer in the presidential line of succession. Is it just me or is there a paradox here? Does the Speaker have to resign their speakership before succeeding the presidency? Scala Cats (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This is covered in our article Presidential Succession Act, which gives us the text of the law:

"3 U.S.C. § 19 (a) (1). Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act:

"If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President". (Emphasis added) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Scala Cats (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Niihau lakes

I need help finding reliable sources that support these (below) stating that Aylmer Robinson plowed the lakes (preferably one that mentions the exact lake(s)) during WWII to stop the Japanese from landing and this later caused the crash landing in the Niihau incident? Flickr is not a great source yet it seems the most detailed and most search I've done only turn up Pinterest entries.

• Gobetz, Wally (May 26, 2010). "Oʻahu – Honolulu – Ford Island: Pacific Aviation Museum – Cletrac Tractor". Flickr. Retrieved May 16, 2017.
• Young, Peter T. (August 22, 2012). "Ni'ihau Lakes". Image of Old Hawaiʻi. Hoʻokuleana LLC. Retrieved May 16, 2017.

red coordinations

I know about Go Red for Women Day, which was created by the American Heart Association. I also know about The Heart Truth, which was created by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. But do both organizations coordinate on the same thing, or are they different from one another?2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

They are separate organizations, but there appears to be cooperation on various projects. I found:

"September 2001 — The NHLBI, along with the American Heart Association and other partners, launched a national Act in Time to Heart Attack Signs campaign to increase awareness of the symptoms of heart attack and the need for a fast response".

"November 12, 2013 — As part of a new collaborative partnership model to develop new cardiovascular disease clinical guidelines, NHLBI provided completed rigorous, evidentiary reviews to the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and other professional societies. The new partnership model led to the rapid publication of four key guidelines for lifestyle, risk assessment, cholesterol, and overweight and obesity". [28] Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Kitchen Cabinet (US)

Our article on kitchen cabinets refers primarily to Westminster style governments (UK and Oz). There is some reference to Andrew Jackson´s ginger group, but that is hardly current news.
So, does the US Constitution plus any amendments expressis verbis prevent the emergence of a small group of “trusted" presidential advisors to establish a secretive executive? Were it, in theory, possible to bypass the “checks and balances” established by those who doubted the benevolence and sanity of elected holders of the office?
Needless to say, such kitchen cabinets are the normal high-level decision makers in any private enterprise. An individual inexperienced with - or even hostile to - democratic processes and / or the media may see this as a legit (?) shortcut to achieve their goals. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Article Two of the United States Constitution doesn't define what the "executive officers" will be and doesn't mention the word "cabinet". The Senate has to approve the executive officers, though. And certainly there's room for abuse of power, which is what happened with Nixon and his own "kitchen cabinet" - and that's why the House and Senate combined can boot him out of office if they think he's abused his powers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

He did and they would have. Blooteuth (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Grevinec

Does anyone know such a place in Russia. If yes, how is it pronounced? Thanks in advance. Omidinist (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain it was a fictional location invented by Guareschi in "Il compagno Don Camillo" ("Comrade Don Camillo"), but I couldn't find any reference for this, nor whether any pun is involved. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The novel is Italian, so the name must be pronounced like ... what? Omidinist (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Like an Italian trying to sound like a Russian? Dmcq (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

If it matters, the Don Camillo stories have been translated into English and there are a few collections of them. They are very funny though I've forgotten or didn't see the one mentioning Grevinec. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

May 28

Zhou Yi (周顗)

Who was the Jin Dynasty official Zhou Yi (周顗)? Can't read Chinese and all of this is copied and pasted. I think he inspired a Chinese idiom about killing Boren (another one of his name or something).--96.41.155.253 (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)