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

July 6

NFL football team doctors

What percentage of team doctors in the nfl were formerly military doctors? also, has there been any speculation in the media that team doctors might face civil or criminal penalties if they had knowingly deceived players about the danger of getting dementia from head injuries? thanks.64.134.223.214 (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't really an answer, but I think some general background regarding medical accountability can be gleaned from the case of Purdue Pharma (see also [1]). I think the "new nonaddictive opiate" scam has been run four or five times over the past two centuries; this time the government managed to seize a fraction of the take, and 400 hours of community service. Wnt (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where the question about being former military doctors comes from or how it has any relevance. The importance is that the doctors used by NFL team be trained in sports medicine, not battlefield trauma, because that is the field they need to intervene in. It's not a full-time job either, so team doctors usually have a medical practice on the side. Whether or not they served in the military is immaterial. --Xuxl (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• • I am the OP.-Military service is certainly immaterial to the second question(about legal repercussions) that I asked, but it definitely isn't immaterial to me! I have a personal interest in finding out more about whether what seem to me to be callous attitudes among team doctors and workmans comp doctors come from previous military medical practice and the military triage type of thinking.64.134.234.17 (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Concussion can occur in either area - a lot of military injuries are "mild traumatic brain injury" [2] and some references in [3] seem to suggest the same for sports. The OP's suggestion that doctors in either area might be tempted to downplay concussion for their employers' benefit seems like a reasonable idea, though by nature it would seem hard to prove, since the standard of care in any industry is the standard of care in that industry. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The NFL and the NFL Players Association include medical liability (especially concussion liability) in the NFL player's agreement signed by both sides. It is an extensive document, full of legal speak. The take-away is that the NFL reduced liability for concussions (and general medical liability) to cases of extreme negligence while the players got better health care coverage and more concussion rules. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hanging Gardens of Babylon

Are the Hanging Gardens of Babylon an early implementation of an Elevated park? -- SGBailey (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

They are, quite obviously, Hanging Garden. This article (as of now) do NOT link to Elevated park, and i don't feel it should (while i think it should link to terrace and mound)?

Now, draw you own conclusion

Gem fr (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Terraces seems the more likely structure, though there is very little evidence to show what they looked like. Wymspen (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at our article and was quite impressed. We currently quote a wide range of ancient sources, all of which are in practically perfect agreement about the construction and dimensions (400 feet on either side) of the Gardens, and also seeming in agreement with the ancient bas-relief of the Nineveh gardens. So the trees were growing atop wide stone platforms that sat upon four pillars each coming together in arches, with the roots visible (in some way I don't fully understand) in places between them. The floor was made watertight with bitumen/asphalt reinforced with reeds, brick and mortar, and lead; Archimedes screws were used to bring water up from an aqueduct. I had no idea that the design was so well known. I think this pretty clearly qualifies as an elevated park, at least for Refdesk purposes - you could practically rebuild it from these instructions, and it ought to work just as well, and have it decay just as quickly once the favorite wife no longer is in the picture. You might encounter hindrances from WP:NOR policy if you edit the article, but this isn't the place to discuss that aspect of it (use the talk page for that). Wnt (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be some possible traces of the aqueducts remaining in Nineveh (if ISIL didn't destroy them). Also, it should be explained that at the time, Nineveh was briefly the capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. However, Babylon is the more widely known ancient capital city of the region, so the story of the hanging gardens being built in "the great capital" was moved there. StuRat (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

From our Nineveh article: "At this time, the total area of Nineveh comprised about 7 square kilometres (1,730 acres), and fifteen great gates penetrated its walls. An elaborate system of eighteen canals brought water from the hills to Nineveh, and several sections of a magnificently constructed aqueduct erected by Sennacherib were discovered at Jerwan, about 65 kilometres (40 mi) distant.[18] The enclosed area had more than 100,000 inhabitants (maybe closer to 150,000), about twice as many as Babylon at the time, placing it among the largest settlements worldwide. Some scholars believe that the garden which Sennacherib built next to his palace, with its associated irrigation works, comprised the original Hanging Gardens of Babylon." StuRat (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The ancient sources listed seem awfully consistent and specific for people who are going to get confused what city they are talking about. Is there any reason why the idea, once successful, would not be copied from one place to another? Wnt (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

For one thing, you would need certain geographic conditions to permit aqueducts. That is, you need a consistent water supply at higher elevation, nearby, and no mountains in-between, unless you plan to drill a hole through them. Then you need lots of masons with free time to construct it all, and the money to pay them, and the will to do this rather than some other large project, like a higher, thicker city wall. StuRat (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I would rather qualify an elevated park as a sort of hanging garden, than the other way round. My 2 cents. Gem fr (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

July 7

DEA constitutional mandate

What part of the US Constitution does the DEA claim allows it to enforce the laws (rather than leaving it to the states to decide) against drugs that are consumed in the state where they're produced, and thus don't fall under the Foreign and Interstate Commerce Clause? NeonMerlin 11:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's a 2005 article which explains the fed's reasoning on this subject. It has to do with taxation:[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Bear in mind that "Prohibition in the United States" predated the Franklin Delano Roosevelt era of unlimited extension of the interstate commerce clause. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 came afterward, and started with the legal fiction of collecting a tax rather than making a ban. Wnt (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not really most accurately described as a DEA-derived policy; long before there was a DEA, the federal government (both Congress and various branches of the Executive) had asserted authority in this area, an authority that has been consistently upheld in a series of Supreme Court rulings. In short, illicit substances generally are seen to fall under the purview of the Commerce Clause, regardless of whether or not they cross interstate borders. Note that in the present day, different administrations have given differing levels of ascension to the rights of individual states to determine the legality of production and sale of certain substances and the legitimacy of regulations covering the same. Notably, the Obama administration directed the Justice Department to respect (at least in some circumstances) the state legalization schemes for marijuana, even as state referendums/legislation on the topic were gaining the largest amount of traction they have seen since the first prohibitions of that substance. The Trump administration has already made intimations that they intend to step back this policy. This could set of a new round of public debate about states' rights on these issues, as I doubt that genie is going back into the bottle (or bong, as the case may be). Snow ^{let's rap} 09:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Are black people more likely to engage in crime or more likely to be accused?

It is true that blacks do enter the US prisons more often than other races and get a lot of media coverage. In my email, I keep receiving alerts about crime incidents and I've noticed a number of supposedly black criminals. Are blacks more likely to commit crime because of poverty and desperation or are they more likely to get accused by white victims who may experience outgroup homogeneity? 2600:387:0:805:0:0:0:A4 (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Race and crime in the United States may help answer the question. Bear in mind that most people, regardless of race or circumstance, are not criminals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I have lived in Nigeria, England, Norway, Panama, and the United States. I have traveled to many other countries. The worldwide rule is that the poor are more likely to commit crimes and more likely to be accused of committing crimes. Depending on the leaning of the researcher, the correlation between poverty and crime can be as low as 0.4 (average correlation) [5] or much higher [6]. If your goal is to say "poor people aren't that bad", you find a way to reduce the correlation. If you want to say "we really need to give money to poor people so they will stop all their criminal behavior", you find a way to increase the correlation. Regardless, the correlation exists and, if you scan as many sources as you can find, you will certainly find mean correlation around 0.6. From there, you look at the correlation between poverty and race in the United States. It is not surprising that more black people are in poverty to a greater degree than white people. Therefore, depending on where you live, you may find that most of the poor in your area are black and, therefore, they contribute to most of the crime that you see in the news. When I was in London and Oslo, Pakastanis were known as the poorest of the poor and the main source of crime. In Panama, the Guaymí were the poor and blamed for most of the crime. In the US, it is the blacks. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The wealthy white folks commit crimes that are exponentially worse than the poor blacks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Exponentially? Really? I'm not a prescriptionist, but this really ruins a perfectly fine word with a precise and important meaning.. At least financially, you are probably right in spirit, if not in language. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

"exponentially worse"? You mean like murder? Do you have a cite for that claim? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

If the IP can give uncited personal opinions, there's no reason you and I can't too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

See Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties for an estimate of mass-murder committed, to a significant degree, by the US elites (with willing support from the unwashed masses and a good part of the rest of the "Free World"). Or look at Slavery in the United States for historical examples of crimes, including mass kidnapping, rape, and murder, by the (at least somewhat) rich against some of the poor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: Can you be more specific? I don't see any mentions of murder, let alone mass murder, nor do I see any mention of US servicemen and women being wealthy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that if you don't get it, you don't want to get it. (Some) US service men and women individually certainly have a lot of things to answer for, but they are not, in general, the responsible perpetrators for the war as a whole. In this case, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their ilk are most directly responsible, but they are, of course, just part of the establishment that started and conducted the Iraq war based on a combination of lies and incompetence. I'm sure Noam Chomsky has written and talked about this a lot more eloquently than I can. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. I personally believe that the "wealthy white folk" you cited, Bush, Cheney, etc. plus wealthy black folk such as Powell and Rice should be tried for (per Nuremberg):

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace

But they haven't been tried, let alone convicted. Even if they were, they wouldn't be considered mass murder.

Also, let's not forget that someone else waged the same war in Iraq, plus wars in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.[7]

In any case, I don't think the OP was asking about war crimes. So again, if anyone has a cite that supports the contention that "wealthy white folks commit crimes that are exponentially worse than the poor blacks", I'd love to see it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The question was not asking about the severity of crimes. It asked if black people are MORE LIKELY to commit a crime. I gave two resources to point out that poverty is correlated with crime rates. The claim "black people are more likely to commit a crime" is not correct as a worldwide absolute. Instead, the claim should be "poor people are more likely to commit a crime." That does not take into account the severity of any particular crime. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Then it's a bogus question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It is a statistical question. It is, in my opinion, no different than "Are black people more likely to have a heart attack?" or "Are black people more likely to become an NFL player?" In many cases, there is no correlation. In this case, the correlation only exists in areas where being black is highly correlated with being poor. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Race is always a controversial subject in the US. The question does mention the US. One response does mention the US, so it does support the original poster's conjecture that blacks are more likely to commit crimes, because they are poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:0:805:0:0:0:A4 (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It is different, because such stats lead to racist assumptions... like those of the Nazi troll immediately below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

That is why I tried very hard to make it clear that it isn't about race. It is about poverty. Educate the person asking the question. He or she may comprehend that poverty is a vicious cycle that is hard to break out of. Then, he or she might decide to try and help people escape poverty. Racism is based heavily on ignorance. Refusing to educate a person leads to ignorance, which leads to racism. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

What's the explanation for gigantic thefts by white-collar criminals? It sure ain't poverty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Greed and stupidity. Are you claiming that there is more white-collar crime than all the petty crimes committed by the poor? 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A reference (old, but I doubt it has changed much) [8]. White collar crime was 6% of the felonies. Even if it has tripled since then, it is still less than a quarter of all crime. It is not anywhere as pervasive as the claims above seem to make it. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about the impact. A street thug impacts a small quantity of victims. A white collar thug can impact thousands or millions of victims. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

That is an entirely different question. I do not see why it is necessary to censor the question asked by changing it into a different question. I understand that you are very sensitive about race. I am not. I've experienced both sides, being black in Africa and being black in America. It doesn't bother me at all if someone wants to educate themselves. Why not help them understand the relationship between poverty and crime? Then, maybe, they will become a person who tried to help the poor instead of claiming that race is the source of all problems for the poor. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not separate. You can't isolate the pure stat and claim it's meaningful by itself. Also, you said the motive for fat-cat crime is "greed and stupidity". I would argue that characterization applies to nearly all crime. And there's also the question of how you define a "crime". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have an article on "poverty tax"? I cannot find one. It is a negative term for taxes, regulations, fees, etc... that unfairly burden the poor who, because they cannot pay, end up being deemed criminals. I feel it is closely related to this question because it is an entire area of law-breaking that is, in my opinion, unjustly heaped upon the poor. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Regressive tax? i.e. sales taxes and poll taxes. If you charge each person X dollars that's regressive. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Related are also the fees that they can charge prison inmates for room and board. [9].

If you don't pay, back to prison with you. (Accumulating even more debt!)

ApLundell (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There is an article on Debtors' prison. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, especially the section "Modern debtors' prisons (1970-current)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

correlation and statistical bias are of help, here.

It is quite obvious that race/ skin color has absolutely nothing to do with crime, so the basic answer is NO, "blacks" per se are NOT more likely to commit crime.

However, as much as obviously, blacks DO, more than other racial groups, statically belongs to social groups that commit crime (for instance, fatherless childs are more engaged in gang and crime than child of stable families, and most blacks are raised by single mothers)

Furthermore, War on Drugs:

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
- John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum for Harper's Magazine in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971.

Gem fr (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Complex industries.

Are all regulated, safety critical industries complex? So defence, utilities, transport etc? 82.17.228.192 (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Define "complex". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Define "industry" and "safety critical".Hofhof (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You might be thinking of the phrase "military industrial complex" and other related phrases. In that case, 'complex' is used as a noun meaning "An assemblage of related things; a collection".

ie: It just refers to the collection of all corporations that contribute to that industry. ApLundell (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

82.17.228 might be referring to that noun, but clarification might indeed be helpful. My first thought were complex industrial systems (complex systems) which, from a risk managemental point of view, can include "defence, utilities, transport" systems, as described, for example, in Perrow's classic Normal Accidents. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"Bavaria and Tyrol Region" or "Bavaria-Tyrol Region"/"Vatican City" or "Vatican"

I am working on a project, and in it, I am labeling pictures taken from different regions. In many instances, I cannot differentiate Tyrol in Austria from Bavaria in Germany, so I thought that it would be more convenient for me to just refer to them collectively as one region. It is of importance that I do not mislabel anything in this project, so just to be clear, is that region referred to as Bavaria-Tyrol?

Additionally, can the country "Vatican City" be accurately just be called "Vatican" or is the full form required? I am using a software to create an art piece including country names, and it is counting "Vatican" and "City" as two separate countries, which is why a shortened, one-word means of referring to the country would be preferable.

I realize how silly these questions likely sound, and I hope that nobody is offended by my stupidity, as that is never my intention.

HarryOtter (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Vatican City is the correct name of the country. The single word "Vatican" can be used to describe the leadership of the Catholic Church, the Holy See, or as an adjective to describe anything to do with either of those - so the Vatican Palace, Vatican Library, Vatican Basilica, Vatican Hill etc.

There is no formally organised or structured region called Bavaria-Tirol or anything similar - if you use that it is going to sound confusing. Describe it as the German-Austrian border area, or something like that. Wymspen (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and helpful answer, Wymspen. Yes, the German-Austrian border area is a good alternative that I had not thought about. I will figure out a way to make it work using the correct name. HarryOtter (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

If you are certain that the pictures were either taken in Tyrol or in Bavaria, then you might simply wish to write "Tyrol or Bavaria". I'm just throwing this in because the German-Austrian (as well as the Bavarian-Austrian) border area also includes the Austrian states Vorarlberg, Salzburg and Upper Austria. Moreover, depending on where in Tyrol the pictures were taken, they might lie closer to the Italian-Austrian border. (e.g. Lienz District). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

July 8

Buses and PSV

In the UK, is a vehicle used for training bus drivers (that is, one not carrying paying passengers) still classified as a PSV by the DVLC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinningspark (talk • contribs) 23:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Does this help? If not, it might provide links to pages that do. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe - maybe not. "Is a vehicle still a PSV even when it is not carrying passengers? If the vehicle is parked in a depot or garage (or is being driven between two depots or is temporarily laid up for any reason) it is still a PSV. It only stops being a PSV when its use as one has been permanently discontinued; for example, if you take a vehicle out of service altogether and adapt it for some other use (such as driver training)." ([10]). So if a bus is being used for training which carries passengers at other times, it is still a PSV. If it is only ever used for training, it is not. The difference is not actually in the vehicle, but about whether you need a PSV Operator Licence to run it. Wymspen (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• In the UK, vehicles are PSVs if they're registered as PSVs. You can own anything you like without registering it, but if you want to use it on the road, and need to register it, then it will be difficult to register it as something other than a PSV if it has too many seats in it. It's not hard to register as something else (commonly a bus recovery truck, or a domestic camper) by starting with a bus and taking the seats out. If you leave the seats in (mobile cafe) it can be difficult to register it as a non-PSV, even though it's function is no longer to move with anyone sitting in those seats. Some have got round this by removing the seats for transport to site (you can carry them inside, so long as they're not installed), then re-installing them. It can be difficult to register a double decker though, because stability tests might be needed if you make major modifications, such as putting more weight upstairs, or just take the seats out downstairs.

If you use a working fleet bus as a PCV driver training vehicle (seats still in, plates on the ends), then it's still a PSV. But if you're a fleet operator and already have a PSV Operator licence, then that's not too difficult. The MOT is more rigorous, but not terribly more so than for the same chassis as a non-PSV. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Companies other than Apple that are considered by some to be cult-like

Are there any companies other than Apple that have a reputation for being cult-like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Multi-level marketing... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Cult-like for customers or employees?
Sleigh (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Define "cult". For example, does a joint like Hobby Lobby qualify? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Well... for a definition, let's start with: "do sources call the company a cult"? Blueboar (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the OP could present a valid source that claims Apple is a "cult". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The OP is under no obligation to do so, but I will. https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-is-obviously-a-cult-and-samsung-isnt-says-cultural-historian/ Mingmingla (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The opinion from that one writer sounds like Samsung is expressing professional jealousy. It's well to keep in mind that the term "computer geek" also implies a "cult". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Harley-Davidson? 72.38.213.159 (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

How about Saturn?[11][12][13] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah... that last one (Saturn) is more responsive to the question... instead of giving his personal opinion, Guy points us to sources to show that someone else thinks the company is like a cult. Let's see more of that. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar is right, and those of us who offer opinions without sources make the reference desks lower quality than they could be. Reddit, on the other hand. loves that sort of answer. BTW, if you haven't watched the YouTube video that I linked to between the legitimate sources, you are missing out. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Starting with the OP's own unsourced premise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say that OPs are limited to sources in constructing their questions? Nowhere. They're allowed to be as wrong-headed and sourceless as possible. It's OUR job to find sources that answer their questions, and that sometimes means correcting the implicit or explicit assumptions in their questions. How many more aspects of how the Ref Desks work have you still not figured out yet, after all these years? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say the responders have to do the OP's work for him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone who has given this any serious thought agrees with JackofOz and disagrees with Baseball Bugs on how we should respond when someone posts a question on the ref desks. The problem is that Baseball Bugs is immune to both social pressure and to logical arguments about what is best for Wikipedia. The most effective response is to simply refuse to reply to him in the hope that he will eventually grow tired of shouting into and empty hall. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No reference desk librarian is a slave to a questioner's unsupported premise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote, particularly "It's OUR job to find sources that answer their questions, and that sometimes means correcting the implicit or explicit assumptions in their questions". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

How do you deal with a premise that's thoroughly bogus on its face? The Roman Catholic Church has been called a "cult". That don't make it so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

(How do I deal with a fellow refdesker who seems unwilling to accept what I have now said twice?) Well, it has indeed sometimes been called a cult. If the OP's question is seeking verification of the fact that it has been called a cult, we could quickly find sources attesting to that. If the OP's question is whether or not it actually is a cult, we would need to provide a source for the mainstream consensus, and maybe for good measure find sources that argue that it is, and for balance, others that argue that it is not. Then we let the OP come to their own conclusion. It is not for us as individual refdesk respondents to add our own personal opinions into the mix. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Samsung calling Apple a "cult" amounts to griping that Apple is better at marketing than they are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Electronic Data Systems had a bit of cult of personality based on it's founder, Ross Perot. Had he become US President, it might have gotten worse, but since he didn't, and retired from the company, that era ended, and now EDS has been absorbed into other companies. StuRat (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Microsoft: [14] — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:AC70:E52:BE83:E545 (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

See also: Arnott, Dave (2000). Corporate cults : the insidious lure of the all-consuming organization. New York: AMACOM. ISBN 0814404936.

Mary Kay? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

A lot depends on what's meant by "cult". And to say that something is a cult IFF a reliable source calls it a cult is a cop-out, because it's obvious that persons writing for "reliable sources" (and getting their output through the copyediting process) can have different understandings of "cult". The OED gives this definition (as well as others): a collective obsession with or intense admiration for a particular person, thing, or idea. I'd suggest that, for starters, this applies to every "maker" (brand name) of every "luxury good". These aren't just the brands for which people of other genders or social strata than your own pay ludicrous prices, they're also what you and your mates waste your money on (or would, if you had money). They're even what I [blush] waste my money on, so far as this is collective (and it often is). -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Can a renter decline to have electricity in the apartment?

Is the renter required to accept everything that the apartment manager offers? If the renter doesn't want electricity or Internet service but wants easy access to clean water and a functional stove, then can the renter negotiate with the manager? Or is it all subjective? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The owner of the apartment can install or not install whatever they please, as long as the apartment meets certain minimum standards. Those standards are likely to include an electricity supply.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that in many markets, water and electricity are metered, so you only pay what you use for. Internet is often not provided by the landlord, but by a third party, and probably via an independent contract. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

In many US markets, electricity is often also maintained as a separate contract, and one can in principle choose not to have any electricity service. Dragons flight (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I've honestly never heard of an electric meter not owned by an electric company, though of course in principle they could exist. And because electricity is charged per use, allowing tenants unlimited electricity could be a very costly mistake for a landlord. The only situations I can picture it coming up is where a tenant is short term (like at a hotel) so the risk is averaged, or where they rent a room as a "boarder", which I've only heard of in fiction or in informal family type arrangements. A landlord doesn't want to sign a year lease and then find out his tenant is growing a house full of hydroponic ... tomatoes. Wnt (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• You say very costly mistake, I say common practice. My parents and/or I used to live in a series of high-rise apartments none of which had metered utilities (electricity or water). Each building had about 200 apartments and it was simpler if the landlord didn't have to bother about everyone's individual usage. To be fair, that was some decades back and quite possibly in a different country. Oh, and obviously for these apartments the answer to the original question was no. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Informally renting a room in strangers' apartments is extremely, extremely, extremely common in New York City. Even illegal ones in basements with no window or fire escape. The population density is very high and rooms start at $5 or 6 hundred (ghetto, no bathroom). I doubt many have electric meters. They would have to ask for more money if their electric bill's too high (or kick you out or ask for some of your weed or call the cops or tell you to stop growing weed). Many (most?) people don't want to see their landlord every time they pee or cook though and pay double to live alone. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

If the heating and/or cooling systems require electricity, the landlord might require it, in order to keep the building in good shape. Internet is normally optional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I have seen a contract which states "the landlord shall provide a supply of electricity and/or gas". In rented accommodation there used to be meters which accepted shillings. If you didn't feed the meter you would be plunged into darkness. Every so often the landlord would come along, open the meter and take out the shillings. This would be a very dangerous arrangement with a gas meter. Landlords could set the quantity of electricity provided for a shilling, thus providing scope for overcharging. 92.19.185.111 (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

In the UK a property without an electricity supply and a water supply would be deemed unfit for habitation (unless in some very isolated location, with alternatives available), and it would be illegal to let it to tenants. Wymspen (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

So every historical building ever has electricity even if you rent it by the week to 18th century life cosplayers? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• It's not illegal to rent out a UK property that's unfit for human habitation. A law to make it so was defeated recently [15], by a vote of landlords.

Nor is it a requirement for a habitable house to include a mains electricity supply (many still don't, from being too remote) or water supply. Access to water might be argued as a need, but this can be a single private borehole, a well and pump, or even barrels of water brought in by vehicles. Sanitation can certainly be by earth composting toilet or cesspit.

As to whether a tenant wants a service, that's a matter for discussion with the landlord. Who might agree to instate or remove it - but probably not if it's going to cost money or inconvenience to have it removed. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I just have to say, it's a bit misleading to say that it's legal to rent out property unfit for human habitation. It's currently a matter for local authorities to assess whether or not a property is in a fit condition using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System - the rejected law would have changed the rules in order to standardize them nationwide. Full Fact has a good summary. (Also, whether or not an MP was a landlord seems to have played no role in whether or not they voted for or against: all Tory MPs who voted voted against and all Labour/LD/SNP MPs voted for, regardless of whether or not they were landlords. Had it been a straight vote of landlord MPs, it would actually have probably passed - 72 landlord MPs voted against, out of the 196 landlord MPs in Commons all together) Smurrayinchester 08:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

As Baseball Bugs notes, it's highly dependent on the manager in question, but it also depends on how the building's constructed; in grad school I considered renting a place with water included in the rent, for example, while other apartments offered coverage of all the utilities except Internet. I now rent an apartment with gas, electricity, water, and Internet: I decided to get Internet, the rental contract absolutely required me to get electricity (the contract would have been voided had I not), and ownership pays for gas and water. Presumably they just have a single meter for each one that covers the whole building, and ownership figures the average costs into what they decide to charge for rent; I expect they'd be unable to give me a figure on how much of either one I consume. Maybe they'd be able to notice if I started consuming massive amounts of one or the other (e.g. I set up some sort of mini-hydroelectric plant in the bathtub to save myself money on electricity), but I don't expect that they'd be able to be precise. Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

In a market in which there is reasonable demand for rental apartments the owner is unlikely to accept a lower rent in exchange for not providing electricity or Internet because the owner would prefer to rent at a higher fee and provide electricity and Internet. Each enhancement theoretically is an opportunity for the owner to make more money, as long as there is a general demand for these amenities in the population. In this question, electricity and Internet are widely demanded services. Very few people are looking for the opportunity to save on rent in exchange for doing without electricity and Internet. Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

What proportion of the population must be low-risk to support insurance?

I'm thinking about health insurance and the rise of obesity and metabolic diseases. If obesity and metabolic diseases take over, then at what point will the whole society be doomed because most people are sick and require healthcare? Although health insurance is one example, I'm concerned with insurance in general. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

At no point is society doomed, but it may be forced to limit medical services for people who are "at fault" for their medical conditions, and this may mean they die sooner than they would have (with taxpayer-supported medical services). As far as health insurance goes, the insurers would just need to charge higher rates for the obese, smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc., quite possibly making health insurance unaffordable for those people. However, if these are legislated as pre-existing conditions which they can't discriminate against, then everyone's health insurance rates may become unaffordable. But, many people in the US have no insurance now, and even more went without before Obamacare (and may again soon, if Republicans get their way). Yes, they die sooner, but society doesn't collapse. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that Cuba provides a comparable level of health care outcomes than the US, but with, IIRC, 5% of per-patient-cost. Health care has two properties. On an individual level, the pareto principle apples. You can provide good healthcare quite cheaply. Going the last few percent is what makes it expensive. On a societal level, having broad, low barrier access to health care, especially including free or even mandatory access to precautionary measures such as vaccination and regular screenings, can reduce the need for later expensive interventions. That is one reason why co-payments, by keeping people away from doctors for perceived minor ailments, may actually increase overall cost. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Their doctors and auxillary labor (nurses, janitors..) also work for less than American doctors. Even their best baseball players get paid very little and baseball is very popular in Cuba. An ounce of prevention is still definitely worth a pound of cure though. Imagine how much more it is to treat something like colon cancer if you don't start till it hurts a lot. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The pareto principle says 80/20. 20% of the richest, in the original example, owns 80% of the wealth. In science, the most predicable theories are least expensive to prove. How does this principle address healthcare? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@StuRat: Deciding who is "at fault" is an exercise in bullying. A rich teenager gets a fast car for his 16th birthday and winds up in the hospital with a severed spine - will the health insurance company say he is "at fault"? Certainly not. In concept, every injury is "at fault" - even the parents of a child with Tay-Sachs could be told that they "should have gotten genetically tested and decided not to mate". But in practice, bullying means "let's go pick on the fat kid". There is no real logic to it, but eventually the same solution seems likely to come up as at the schoolyard: the fat kid comes into class with a bunch of guns and casts a Vote to clean house that changes overall policy on a widespread basis.

Now as for metabolic diseases, well, most Americans are "overweight or obese" already: [16] Obviously, like any medical problem, this can get more prevalent or more severe to an unlimited degree; however, it is clear that the overall level of medical care required is not extraordinary. Though the American health system is legendarily inefficient, residents actually see physicians only 4 times per year versus 12 times for Japanese residents. Most drugs for diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and such are cheap generics. And when everyone in a society has a problem -- if reducing costs rather than fueling racketeers were a priority -- they could be herded through automated glucose, BP and cholesterol tests at the local supermarket and given prescriptions by minimum wage laborers. So I don't view any of the U.S. health care problem as something that could be fixed by rationing -- it's all about the cadre of marketers, lawyers, regulators, and paper pushers who make their living by standing between the person with an often mild medical issue and the obvious and well known remedies that might help to alleviate some of its effects. Wnt (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Certainly the inefficient US health care system needs fixing, and we don't need doctors to all become millionaires, but every nation may eventually arrive at the same problem, that providing every possible medical treatment to every possible patient, at taxpayer expense, isn't possible. So, some form of rationing must be applied. The most obvious form of rationing taxpayer dollars is that the rich can pay for their own medical care. Then we have expensive procedures that aren't very effective, like a heart transplant on an elderly patient with other terminal medical problems. StuRat (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: 'Deciding who is "at fault" is an exercise in bullying' ... that would make the courts all bullies. StuRat (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@StuRat: Indeed. One might merely consider the typical American jail full of black folks to see this is true, and true in the worst way. But you have to decide -- are people entitled to medical care, or are they entitled to be treated like criminals because they have a health problem, to face a biased judgment on whether they got the health problem for the "right" reasons or the wrong? And why is it popular to pick on some folks, like a fat guy who likes to eat a lot, but not on others, like a gay guy who sleeps around too much and catches an incurable disease? I mean, if you proposed a big per capita tax for being gay because of higher HIV rates, even if you worked it out as some luxury license fee per relationship/liason, how do you think people would react? Well, that's how they ought to react when you propose taxes on obese people for eating. Wnt (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't just make biased judges and juries bullies. It would make ALL judges and juries bullies. StuRat (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed so. Show me a single judge who will not impose escalating penalties on someone who doesn't comply with his demands on even the most trivial of issues, or for expressing himself in an outspoken manner with some contempt for the etiquette of the court. We should not forget that bullying is in fact the law of the land. The question is, do you condone that bullying toward people for being obese, and if so ... how far? Suppose you impose your "sin tax", you cut $1000 off the incomes of folks many of whom are poor, and ... nothing happens, same with any other diet. Then what do you do? Do you apologetically say oh, I'm sorry, I realize now that isn't a working idea? I doubt it. Instead you rely on it as a revenue source, and make it $2000. Then $4000. Then you find out people are growing black market potatoes and making black market vegetable oil and mixing moonshine cola from black market sugar beets, and you send out the guys with guns. See Death of Eric Garner, or how cops really want to help keep you safe by demanding you wear a seat belt. Today obese folks are the target of bigots, but there are two saving graces in this case: a) overweight folks are the majority, and b) bullies are made out of meat. Wnt (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The 80/20 rule was mentioned above. That is the specific topic here. It is supported by extensive research and described well here. There are many proposed solutions to the problem. Two common solutions are 1) force everyone to pay into a pool that is used to cover medical expenses. That is basically what insurance is. 2) Ration health care so the sickest die before they cost too much. There are many forms of rationing from simply not covering certain procedures to having out-of-pocket expenses to weed out the poor. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

In Hungarian politics, what is a "Nemzeti konzultáció"?

Nemzeti konzultáció seems to translate to national consultation, but I am unsure what this means in English. Is it a referendum or something else? There appears to be an article in Hungarian, but nothing corresponding in English. Can someone explain what it is, how it works, etc? Thanks.2601:642:C301:119A:15EE:EB3A:DFD8:4CDC (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Nemzeti konzultáció means National (i.e. nationwide) consultation. The expression was used in the 2005 "State of the Union" speech and referred to questionnaires posted to about 1.6 million people asking their views on political events and public issues. Here are reports in English. From October 2015 the newly formed Prime Minister's Cabinet Office took over the national consultations. The consultations are not a referendum, they are more like opinion research about subjects such as basic law, economics, immigration, terrorism, and the wording of the questions has been criticized as manipulative[17]. Blooteuth (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

When Europe industrialized and peasants moved to the cities, what happened to the gentry?

When Europe industrialized and peasants moved to the cities to find work in the factories, what happened to the gentry and nobility that depended on peasants for labor? Did they have to start working for a living? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Not all agricultural workers ("peasant" has a pejorative sense these days) moved to cities, so many landowners continued with a smaller workforce. Dbfirs 18:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. But also the gentry did suffer a loss of income and assets. Some did become part of the workforce, while others rented out parts of their estate, charged for tours, etc., to make a living. StuRat (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Dbfirs -- The term "agricultural worker" is most often synonymous with "landless laborer", but peasants in many areas were not pure landless laborers... AnonMoos (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The landless labourers were the ones that the gentry relied upon to get the work done. The yeomen, who owned their own land, tended to stay in the countryside and continue farming (though there were exceptions, of course). Dbfirs 14:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Agriculture started to mechanise around the same period, so it became possible to farm estates with a smaller workforce anyway. Most estates continued in much the same way until the First World War - that was the real moment of change. After that the estates did start to decline much more. Wymspen (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

50.4.236.254 -- You might be interested in Barrington Moore Jr.'s classic book Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World... AnonMoos (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Ooooh, that sounds interesting. I love social history books. :) SSS (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

See also British Agricultural Revolution. Not only mechanisation, but improved farming practices such as inclosure and crop rotation led to increased productivity with fewer labourers. The "loss of income and assets" mentioned by User:StuRat above (assuming that he is referring to the UK), was brought about not by industrialisation but by the Great Depression of British Agriculture which was "caused by the dramatic fall in grain prices following the opening up of the American prairies to cultivation in the 1870s and the advent of cheap transportation with the rise of steamships". Alansplodge (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

One thing the factories needed was coal. Some land-owners were fortunate enough to dig a little deeper and find that newly important source of wealth. Of course, it wasn't them personally doing the digging. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• To cut a long story short, the nineteenth century happened. The more forward-thinking members of the upper classes (and upper-middle classes) used their wealth to invest in new high-tech ideas (canals, railways, factories) and imperial projects (mining in South Africa, sheep farming in Australia, rubber tapping in the Belgian Congo, and so on), creating a new moneyed class that wasn't as tied to the land and could therefore move to the cities or to the colonies, while those who didn't or whose investments failed either fell into destitution or clung on until WWI. European countries that industrialised became imperial powers run in large part by and for the new investing class (you can, in part, blame the Prussian "Junker" agricultural nobles who maintained a lot of political and military power, and their dislike for the wealthy traders in cities like Hamburg, for the fact that Germany industrialised late and didn't develop the same kind of overseas empires that the UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal etc did) Smurrayinchester 08:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the reason that domestic UK agriculture became unprofitable was that mechanisation allowed a flood of cheap food imports from North America. Other European countries fared less badly because they protected themselves with trade barriers, but this was contrary to the free trade ethos espoused by the British political class. Germany's late start may also be down to the fact that it wasn't actually a country until 1871. Alansplodge (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Britain did protect itself with the Corn Laws till mid century. However the thing that really made the difference was cheap shipping after 1880 - so basically as you say mechanization. Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and the machinery to convert the prairies into productive land; much of it horse-powered at that stage, but machinery nonetheless; for example the Hussey Reaper, invented by Obed Hussey earlier in the century. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• In the U.K., The gentry ("landed gentry") owned the land. They are the ones that profited by increased agricultural efficiency, so they invested in enclosure. This meant they needed fewer laborers on their land. The population of landed gentry remained (roughly) constant while the number of laborers declined. -Arch dude (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, in the UK, "what happened" was the People's Budget; the descendants of city-bound peasants, having gradually acquired the franchise, voted for a party that basically destroyed the centuries-old constitution of government in order to tax the gentry and nobility severely. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

In Poland many nobles also left the contryside for cities and either became entrepeneurs or got into highly skilled jobs like doctors, lawyers, professors, artists, etc., eventually becoming a new social class known as the intelligentsia. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Sam Ruby

I was looking for books for learning Ruby (programming language) when I came across one by Sam Ruby. Is this a case of Nominative determinism or was his birth name different? Scala Cats (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

From Sam Ruby#Ruby: "Sam Ruby has done development in the Ruby programming language, leading to some confusion between the person's name and the language. However, there is no formal connection—they both just coincidentally have the same name." However, this is uncited. Rojomoke (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yukihiro Matsumoto named Ruby (the language). There is no reason to assume he had any contact with Sam Ruby. Sam Ruby's primary work with Ruby is the Ruby2js tool, which was developed a good 10 years after the development of Ruby. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

July 9

Good Soundtracks for beginning singers

My nephews play 5 instruments between them, the eldest being 12. My niece, age 7, sings strongly, and can hit pure notes, but has no idea of key or the scales. I was thinking of getting her the soundtrack to The Sound of Music which she knows and loves. Obviously the "Do Re Mi" song will be a good influence. Are there other "contemporary" albums I can look at that will teach her to sing on key or in harmony without all the artificial nonsense of items like "Frozen" which depend on running an off-key or weak voice through a synthesizer? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with The Sound of Music and suggest adding in Mary Poppins. I particularly like how in A Spoonful of Sugar they sing "dow....wn", with a decreasing frequency as the word progresses. That's a good lesson for beginning singers, so they don't think a syllable always needs to be sung at a single frequency. StuRat (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not thinking of Rock Lobster? --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are videos that may help. Blooteuth (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and I actually did just pick up Mary Poppins before reading Stu's suggestion. μηδείς (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Medeis, can I ask, is there a particular reason these should be soundtracks, or is it just that you think that they will provide the best chances at music jaunty enough to capture and maintain your niece's attention? I ask because Id on't know that soundtrack pieces (even those arising from children's films) are likely to provide any concrete lessons on music basics (other than the previously mentioned Do Re Mi song, for obvious reasons) any more so than musical pieces in any number of genres. If your niece can hit and carry notes across a range, one singer she might find inspiring is Chloe Agnew, as that's the quality I associate most with this flawless, amazingly talented soprano; her music isn't quite as up as a Disney film, but it's entirely appropriate to children: [18], [19]. Not every track in her albums is in English, and some of it is quite technically demanding ([20]), but a majority of pieces are more melodically simple, requiring controlled and sustained notes more than anything ([21]). And I can't imagine any 7-year-old girl who is a singer not loving it all. Do you think she might suit, or is it not bright enough? Snow ^{let's rap} 20:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

July 10

Why'd Hong Kong's post-financial crisis skyscraper boom last so long?

Gluts of skyscraper completions after economic bubbles burst aren't unusual but why'd this one last so long? 73% of Hong Kong skyscrapers opened 1998-2011! (6x the pace of 2012-now). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong is part of china and china shurely was in no economic crisis during the last 20 years with its GDP growth always between 7% and 14%. The IMF and the World Bank even argue china to be the world’s largest economy based on Purchasing power parity, surpassing the EU and USA, both with higher GDP. So there actually is even reason to ask why there are not more skyscrapers build in Hong Kong. --Kharon (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Then why'd they stop? And the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis did hurt Hong Kong. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It affected Hong Kong sure, but you're still making assumptions without any evidence presented. I guess this will be amazing news to you, but as it turns out 1997 was also when the Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong happened. Blew your mind didn't it? Seems multiple things can happen over a short space of time. Point is there's a reason why people studying history need to actually be aware of as much of the related history as possible and particularly major events and not just coming up with one event and proscribing it as the reason for everything. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't find any source really going into reasons for the boom from 1998 nor for it ending although List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong does note it and mentions it was primarily a surge in residential buildings particularly luxury ones (at least partially also mentioned in this source [22]). It also mentions a relaxation of height restrictions on the Kowloon Peninsula due the closure of the Kai Tak Airport lead to more high rises there and increase opposition in later years. These source also seem to be illustrative of what the things are like in HK [23] [24]. Probably Economy of Hong Kong is also a decent read although a little short in some areas. Maybe [25] too. Although of course short opinion articles on news sources should generally be treated with care. I think these all do illustrate that economic situations including related things like construction booms and gluts or busts tend to be quite complex requiring careful analysis (and as anyone with even a basic experience knows, even then tends to result in wide disagreement), and anyone who claims to come up with one factor as the reason for something should be treated with great caution. Well unless you come up with very simple answers like "because people decided to build a lot" and "people stopped building". Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong is also according to Oxfam one of the world’s worst tax havens (1. Bermuda, 2. the Cayman Islands, 3. the Netherlands, 4. Switzerland, 5. Singapore, 6. Ireland, 7. Luxembourg, 8. Curaçao, 9. Hong Kong, 10. Cyprus, 11. Bahamas, 12. Jersey, 13. Barbados, 14. Mauritius, 15. the British Virgin Islands). --Kharon (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The term "worst" here is not really correct. If you're looking for a tax haven, these are the "best". They're only "worst" from the taxman's viewpoint. The better term would be "notorious". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

7-Eleven Inc is wholly owned by Seven & I Holdings Co.

7-Eleven Inc is wholly owned by Seven & I Holdings Co.. Seven & I Holdings Co. apparently completed this purchase in November 2005. How did this happen? How did a child corporation managed to economically overpower its parent?

When a child corporation gets richer, doesn't the parent get richer as well by virtue of its ownership share? How did a slice of the pie get bigger than the pie itself? Scala Cats (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Seven & I was not a subsidiary of 7-11. They were a large Japenese retail industry giant who, among other holdings, owned the 7-11 rights for Japan and later bought out the US operation as well. I learned this in less than 60 seconds by reading the article you linked, which it appears you didn't because your question has so much wrong with it that it could only be answered by correcting the wrongness with facts from the article you cited.--Jayron32 18:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Cats' proper response here could be "D'oh!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

In any case, a child corporation do not need to economically overpower its parent to buy it, it is just a matter of paperwork (exchanging shares in such a way that the "child" now owns the "parent", for instance), usually related to tax issues.

Gem fr (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

July 11

Two embassies in the same building

I just discovered that the Lion Building in Washington DC hosts two separate countries' embassies: Vietnam and South Sudan. How do the normal rules of extraterritorial jurisdiction apply in such a case? Does such a building tend to be operated as an informal condominium between the two missions? Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the building in Google Maps, it's a 7-story office block. The article says Vietnam's embassy is suite 400, and the S Sudanese are in suite 602. That implies to me that there are multiple suites on each floor, and the embassies only occupy part of a floor each. Extraterritoriality will apply to each embassy individually, and not to the rest of the building. Rojomoke (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

As Rojomoke says, in cases like this the embassy is just the suite of offices they occupy. They have territorial jurisdiction over those offices, but not the rest of the building. Such a situation is not uncommon for smaller countries that can not afford to occupy their own free-standing building(s). Dragons flight (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sure Norway and Sweden can afford to occupy their own buildings but nevertheless choose to share one in Sarajevo.[26] Surtsicna (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Think the confusion arises because some think that the grounds of an embassy is the sovereign land of that embassy’s country. Which it is not. It is still the sovereign land belonging to the host country. There are very few examples of exceptions to this. The only two that springs instantly to mind is Great Scotland Yard which was Sottish sovereign land but came under English law and a plot of land in Hawaii which is British sovereign soil but even so acknowledges local US state laws. So one could have any number of trailer-homes parked on an iceberg and call them embassies if some countries so wished. For those that want to get into the nitty-gritty of this – don't for get the Principality of Sealand. Aspro (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're in error; note my use of "extraterritorial jurisdiction", which wouldn't be the case if I'd thought that the embassy was part of the sending country. Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

While diplomatic immunity might have an effect similar to extraterritorial jurisdiction, I did not think "extraterritorial jurisdiction" is usually used to describe diplomatic immunity. I think the similar term that covers diplomatic immunity is "extraterritoriality", i.e. the removal of a thing or place from territorial jurisdiction, a negative quality. By contrast, "extraterritorial jurisdiction" is a positive quality, i.e. jurisdiction exercised outside of one's territory, such as leasing powers sometimes possess in leased territories. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

How does the hospital determine how much the patient and insurer should pay?

I think some vaccinations require co-pay, while other vaccinations are completely paid for by the health insurance company. How does the hospital determine who pays what? Can the patient ask the hospital in advance how much the patient will be charged for and how much will be paid for by the insurer, as well as ask for a list of all the medical tests and their costs so that the patient will know exactly what he's being charged for? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to link to here, but in my experience, it's the insurance company that makes those decisions, not the hospital. If your insurance policy is a 70/30, it means roughly that you'll pay for 30 percent of the cost. The hospital should also be able to estimate your cost on various specific procedures. What is typically done, though, is that they will submit the entire claim, and once the insurance company has processed it, you'll be billed for the balance, maybe a month or two later (or more). The reconciliation will show the total cost and how much of it is the patient's responsibility. The hospital sets the prices, of course, but it's likely they'll be cognizant of what the insurance company will consider to be a "reasonable" cost. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

How do medical coders tie in? Do they just translate the services into standardized medical codes, send them to the billers, who would send the bills to the insurance company or the patient? Are the prices standardized or do they vary by the hospital? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The hospital will code the insurance forms to indicate what procedures were done. The insurance company and/or the hospital (or clinic, or whatever) will send you a statement showing what was covered and what wasn't. The balance will be what you owe the hospital. You're using the term biller, but generally the hospital itself is the biller, from the patient's viewpoint. Keep in mind we're talking America here. I don't know how it works in Europe and elsewhere. I can't say for sure about pricing. It's conceivable it could vary. The insurance company has a sense of the "maximum" it will allow for a given procedure. It's also worth noting that significant procedures, such as surgery or the like, may require advance approval. That way there should be no surprises. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that coders do more than just code a procedure. The exact same procedure will likely require a different set of billing codes from one insurance company to the next. It is the job of the coder to read the insurance company billing information and customize the claim to maximize payment from the insurance company. That can required the addition of diagnosis codes as well as very specific procedure codes. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No. Medical coding is highly standardized. Coding practices may vary between countries, but are unlikely to vary between insurers or hospitals. See clinical coder, ICD-10-CM, HCPCS, Current Procedural Terminology, and also [27]. In the US, the practice of medical coding and the certification of professional coders is overseen by the AAPC. Dragons flight (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

ICD, HCPCS, and CPT codes are standardized. Exactly WHICH code to use is not standardized. Suppose you do tobacco cessation counseling and you want to get paid. Medicare will require a HCPCS code or refuse to pay. Blue Cross may require a completely different CPT code. Another insurance company may require both an ICD10 and a CPT code to get paid. That is the purpose of clearing houses. You use whatever codes are easiest in your EMR and the clearing house alters them to get maximum payment from the insurance companies. The difference here is that the codes themselves are standardized. Which codes are accepted for which amounts is not. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

A specific example for right now in South Carolina (rules change quarterly and are different from state to state): BCBS requires ICD10 F17.2X and a CPT from 99393 to 99397 to receive payment for tobacco counselling. Aetna requires ICD10 F17 (no extension) and CPT 99401-99404 to receive payment. Medicare requires HCPCS G0436-G0437. All of these are a claim for the exact same procedure, but the codes required are different from insurance company to insurance company. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Most insurance cards have a copay amount written on the card. That tells the office what the copay should be. The medical office can call the insurance company to clarify issues, but they don't have time for that. Instead, clearing houses are used. Medical organizations send all bills to the clearing house and the clearing house works with the insurance companies to get as much money as possible out of them. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

American Express in Canada

How widespread is American Express in Canada, and how widespread is it in its home country of United States? I don't see too many people with Amex cards,but lots of people with Mastercards and Visas,but could that simply be because I'm in Canada where American Express isn't too common?Uncle dan is home (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

For the US, this page says that in 2012 there were an estimated 52 million American Express cards in the US compared to 261 million Visa and 174 million Mastercard; and linked from this page is this diagram showing that in 2015 people spent $717 billion using American Express compared to $2,718 billion using Visa and $1,233 billion using Mastercard.

For Canada, linked from this page on the same site is this diagram showing that in 2012 American Express was used for 5.6% of $554.9 billion of purchases (I don't know which currency "$" is, but it doesn' matter here) compared with 40.7% for Visa and 21.0% for Mastercard; or by number of transactions, American Express was used for 2.5% compared with 26.1% for Visa and 6.3% for Mastercard, with Interac (i.e. direct bank debits) accounting for the other transactions tabulated.

So it looks as though American Express's numbers are somewhat lower in Canada compared to the other two cards than they are in the US, but they aren't all that high in the US either. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The three cards are not equivalent: Note that originally, Visa and Mastercard offered true credit cards while American Express offered only a charge card. A charge card requires the balance be paid in full at the end of the billing period, while a credit card provides longer-term credit by requiring only a portion of the balance to be paid back each month and a finance charge is added to the balance until the balance is paid. In practice, many credit card holders carry balances for many months or even years. It can be argued that American Express cards are used by fewer shoppers simply because there are fewer consumers who are financially able to pay the balance in full each month. --Thomprod (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If people still believe that this is the case, then AMEX are terrible at marketing their brand. I hold 2 different types of AMEX here in the US, and both are what you call "true credit cards", they are not charge cards. --Lgriot (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

English football hooligans, Donald Trump

How do English football hooligans feel about Donald Trump?64.134.238.21 (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You will have to ask them yourself. MarnetteD|Talk 21:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's doubtful we can provide you with meaningful references or research which provide any firm, non-speculative, information about how this niche segment of a population feels about the president of another nation entirely. Even given Trump's high profile worldwide, that is just too specific a group of people to be likely to have been the subject of significant inquiry. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I need assistance finding sources

I need a few references for Naval wars fought in ancient times in the Persian Gulf between various folk especially Persians and Arabs. I tried looking everywhere on the Internet, but nothing on Naval wars. Can anybody help me? Please leave a message on my discussion page. --Boxman88 (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you--Boxman88 (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)