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 31

Apartment property classes

I was reading apartment, and I noticed that apartments are classified by classes so investors and real estate brokers can assess the quality of the property. But my question is, is it possible for a very old property to be very luxurious and desirable? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

How old is very old? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

30-40 years old. Can a 40-year-old luxury apartment be Class A if it's well maintained and updated? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Who knows but 84 year old apartments can cost $71,277,500. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

30-40 equals very old? Judging by the section to which you refer, anything older than 1977 is in the lowest class, which doesn't make much sense; 740 Park Avenue is an exception, of course, but tons of 41-and-older buildings can be found in rich or middle-class areas and considered to be on par with the rest of the area. The section has no sources whatsoever, and its unusual conclusions make me question its trustworthiness. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

With housing, age alone doesn't mean it's in bad shape, as long as it's maintained properly. Parts of the White House were built over 200 years ago, but it isn't ready for the wrecking ball quite yet. StuRat (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I know a guy who did some electrical work in the White House a while back, not in one of the fancy parts of the building that the public or the bigwigs ever see. He said the out-of-sight parts were as decrepit as hell. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

That paragraph lacks sources, so I wouldn't trust it too much. But actually, I think this whole discussion is based on misreading the article. It says class A properties are "usually less than ten years old" and class B "can be 10 to 25 years old" (my italics). The modality in those sentences should indicate that all the age ranges are approximate; the verbs have been changed in the later sentences for stylistic reasons. Read as a whole, the section indicates that the age ranges are approximate. In addition, it says these grades are used by investors. I think that's very important context: you might buy a Victorian mansion in need of loving care and attention as a residence, but many (most?) professional investors getting into properly will be asking their broker for 400 units with a particular rental return. These classifications are for bulk buying and older properties are not investment grade (to borrow a term from another market). Matt's talk 09:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Jehovah's (W/w)itnesses

I was under the impression that members of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society typically referred to themselves (in print) as "Jehovah's witnesses", i.e. they're people who had witnessed the work of Jehovah, but not some sort of status as would be conveyed by a capitalised "Witnesses". However, https://www.jw.org/en consistently uses "Witnesses": not just in lots-of-caps bits like "OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES" or "How Is the Work of Jehovah’s Witnesses Financed?", but also in a normal sentence, "You are warmly invited to attend all three days of the upcoming convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses." The same usage appears in a prominent subpage, https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses.

So, was I wrong in believing that there's historically been a preference for "witnesses" (i.e. "Witnesses" has long been common), or has there been some sort of switch from "witnesses" to "Witnesses" in recent years? Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I, personally (being 60), have no recollection of ever seeing the name written (in the UK) either by the Society itself or by a third party (e.g. in a newspaper report) with anything other than a capital 'W'. While my experience is of course in no way definitive, it leads me to ask if you have any evidence of the lower-case 'w' being used by any Reliable Source. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.182.36 (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I've never witnessed it being lower case here in Canada. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend -- they're functionally and organizationally (and in most countries legally) a separate denomination, and I don't know what purpose there would be for trying to deny this (as an uncapitalized "w" would suggest). Before they were a fully-separate denomination, they were actually known as "Bible Students". Of course, the real problem in the name is the word "Jehovah"[sic], which never existed in the Hebrew language in that form, and originated as a mistake... AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You can blame King James for that oddity. And, yes, it's a capital W. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"Jehovah" originated (or started to be popularized) among Christian Hebraists of the 16th century who didn't know as much Hebrew as they thought they did. It actually only occurs seven times in the KJV (three of those occurrences in place names). It wasn't until the late 19th century that a general-purpose Bible version with liberal use of "Jehovah" was published... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"YHWH's Witnesses" just doesn't have the same ring to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure the mistake is unintentional? Old Testament literalists might be reluctant to say "Yahweh" - I wonder if the term is viewed as an alternative to saying "Adonai" or "Lord" or whatever. Wnt (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Wnt -- Yahweh originated as a scholarly/linguistic reconstruction in the early 19th century. It does not directly come from Jewish tradition, and was not in the mix in the 16th and 17th centuries. If Christian Hebraists of the 16th century deliberately applied the vowels of one word to the consonants of another word, creating a strange mish-mash (Yehowah or in Latinized form "Jehovah") which never existed in Hebrew, then they were still doing something rather bizarre which it's hard to characterize as not being a mistake... AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't have, because faithful Jews would have considered it a grave sin to say God's name out loud. The final irony is their assumption that YHWH is God's name. It isn't. It's merely the response God gave to Moses when asked what His name is: "I am that I am." No human knows wha6 God's actual name is - assuming He even has one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Not so, Baseball Bugs. The response is recorded as אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה‎, ehyeh ašer ehyeh [ehˈje aˈʃer ehˈje] "I am who I am". It is certainly arguable that YHWH is derived from the root HYH of "ehyeh", but it is neither the same word nor a regular derivative. --ColinFine (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The triliteral roots h-y-y and h-w-y are probably variants of each other (only differing by a semivowel). The root h-y-y is used to form the common verb meaning "to be" in Hebrew. Modern reconstructions of the pronunciation of YHWH commonly assume that it's an inflected verb form of h-w-y (following a common Semitic name pattern, where Isaac is originally a verb which means "he laughs" etc.). The hypothetical reconstructed form yahweh could mean "he is" or "he causes to be", or several less likely possibilities. The pseudo-form yehowah (i.e. Jehovah) of course has no assignable meaning. P.S. If you're attempting to transcribe Biblical Hebrew pronunciation, you shouldn't leave out the glottal stops [ʔ]. -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

In any case, it's not God telling Moses what His name is. But over time it came to be treated that way. That's why the RSV translated it as "I am that I am" and then just "I am". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

As I misunderstand it: the original four-letter word is customarily written in the Torah with the vowel-points for ə-o-a, as a reminder to substitute the word ǝdonaj ('my lord') for that which must not be uttered. Not knowing that tradition, it's natural to read it as jǝhowah. —Tamfang (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It could be considered a relatively easy mistake to make if you're poring over a Hebrew Bible manuscript with the help of a basic symbol pronunciation cribsheet (probably grossly inadequate by the standards of modern linguistic phonology), but you're not aware of the finer points of Jewish recitation traditions, and you're not actually talking to any Jewish scholars (or you don't trust anything that Jewish scholars say to you). However, that doesn't do anything to change the fact that it's a major blunder which leads to a useless result (or "the bastard word...obtained by fusing the vowels of the one word with the consonants of the other" as it's called in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd. edition, 1978) edited by F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone ISBN 0-19-211545-6). AnonMoos (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I've never seen anything by outsiders that used "witnesses"; I was simply asking about a preference for "witnesses" in official Society publications or by its members. Nyttend (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Their website uses the capital W.[1] As it happens, I have a relative who's a member, and they use the capital W. It's a part of the title. To lower-case it would be like writing "church of England" or "Roman catholic". Or "New York yankees". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It used to be lower case, then changed to upper case at some point in the 1970s. 203.63.198.211 (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It was being spelled with a capital W in newspapers in at least the 1940s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"The" Hague

Is there a specific reason The Hague always includes "The"? Are there any other "The" cities? — 107.15.152.93 (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The article explains some of the reason, and at least a few come to mind: The Dalles, Oregon, The Woodlands, Texas, and The Valley, Anguilla. --Golbez (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention that, translated literally, El Paso means "The Pass" and Los Angeles means "The Angels". --Golbez (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The article is not explicit, but apparently, 'The Hague' translates as 'The Wood'. With Los Angeles being the outlier, the examples are named after a geographic feature. — 107.15.152.93 (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The definite article also exists in the original Dutch, Den Haag. The name may literally mean "the wood", it is better translated as "The Hedge in the sense of "an enclosure", as explained in the article's history section. This article also has more background.--Jayron32 12:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

France has Le Mans, Le Havre, Le Touquet (which is not a city), and no doubt others. Oporto includes the definite article in the English version of its name, but not the Portuguese. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Countries and important cities are prefaced by the definite articles "o" and "a" in Portuguese but are not part of the name. Hack (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Other places that always include the definite article (either English or another language) include The Villages, Florida, Los Alamos, New Mexico, Las Cruces, New Mexico, The Gambia (definitive article is always part of the country name), The Bronx, The Plains, Virginia, 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands, La Rochelle, France, and probably many more. There are also many Arabic-origin place names that begin with "Al-" which is the Arabic definitive article. --Jayron32 12:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The odd thing about The Hague is that it is not "The Wood" or "Den Hague". —OP:dynamic IP=2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E14F:DD6F:CFA5:F319 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that is odd; English rarely translates place names directly. Le Havre is not called "The Harbor" and "Los Alamos" is not called "The Cottonwoods". --Jayron32 16:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Odd in the sense that it uses the English article + Dutch noun. (OP:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E14F:DD6F:CFA5:F319 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC))

Not so unusual. For example, the German Air Force, which we called "The Luftwaffe". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

However, note that the article name is Luftwaffe and not The Luftwaffe. OP:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E14F:DD6F:CFA5:F319 (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Language is not a consistent system, and should never be expected to be. "Why does this weird thing happen here?" can only be answered with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . Yes, there are standards. Yes, sometimes they are disobeyed. Whatchagonnado? --Jayron32 17:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Tangent Warning! — To me, the oddest English placename translation is Cologne, Germany. Before my first (pre-internet) visit to Germany (English: "Land of Germs"), I went to a repository of bound text files and made a mental note of places to visit. Near the end of my visit, I realized that I hadn't been to Cologne yet, and couldn't find it on a map (that I acquired after arrival), but I knew it was a major city -- where is "Cologne"? Eventually I figured it out, or was told. —OP:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E14F:DD6F:CFA5:F319 (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Much of Western Germany is like this; the region was contested so often between France and Germany (and going back further to when they were both part of Francia) place names often had a French and German version; for various historical reasons the French version of the name was often used for the English name; more egregious than Cologne is Aix-la-Chapelle, which until fairly recently was the common English name for Aachen. Even cities that are not particularly close to France are known by their French names, i.e. fr:Nuremberg. Whether a name is known in English by the German version or the French version probably has more to do with the size and importance of the settlement; the larger and more often a place name has been used the more "linguistic inertia" the form has, which is why Cologne has persisted. --Jayron32 17:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I see your Cologne, and raise you a Leghorn. --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Also Flushing is quite amusing. But when Johnny Foreigner stops calling London Lontoo (Finnish) or Rondon (Japanese), we might think about using the right names for their cities (see List of names of European cities in different languages). Alansplodge (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

[2]. In reality, no bus goes from Flushing Meadows to the World Trade Center. (Flushing Meadows Park is New York's 4th biggest park). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Then there's Prague, a French version of Praha. And the Russian capital, which we call Saint Petersburg (rather than St Peter's City, perhaps) is still known by the Russians in its German form "Sankt-Peterburg". At one time it was given a more Russian name, Petrograd, but they dropped the Sankt/Saint part. If they had gone the whole hog, it would be something like "Svyatoy-Petrograd". All very weird and interesting. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It became "Petrograd" around the outbreak of the First World War (if I remember rightly, the rationale was that Germany was now an enemy) and remained thus until being renamed "Leningrad", so the time periods for "St. Petersburg" are 1703-1914 and 1991-present. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The Pas in Manitoba. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

La Paz (the peace). The Bronx. Lizard Lick, North Carolina. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no definite article in Lizard Lick. There's not much of anything there. There's a damned fine burger joint in nearby Wendell, however.--Jayron32 03:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Lizard Lick is a place name that's funnier than Flushing though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Not nearly as funny as Coxsackie though. --Jayron32 13:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Very Lolworthy AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

We have an article Exonym and endonym... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

We also have a raft of articles like Estonian exonyms, potentially endless collections of trivial illustrations of the obvious fact that each language adapts borrowed words, including foreign place-names, to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I would just like to mention that in English, most country names also don't use an article, eg. China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, Germany, France, Australia. But there are a few exceptions, such as the Netherlands, the United States, and the United Kingdom, which always get a definite article. – b_jonas 20:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

That's because the core name is either plural or qualified by an adjective, or both.

• Plural: Bahamas, Comoros‎, Maldives, Netherlands, Philippines, Seychelles
• Qualified: Central African Republic, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Congo, Republic of Ireland, Republic of Macedonia, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic‎, United Kingdom, Vatican City
• Both: British Virgin Islands, Caribbean Netherlands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, United Arab Emirates, United States, US Virgin Islands

But then there are countries that seem to fall into the above groups, but which do NOT take "The":

• East Timor (or Timor-Leste), Equatorial Guinea‎, French Guiana, New Zealand, Northern Cyprus, South Africa, South Sudan, Western Sahara, Western Samoa

And then there are countries that do NOT fall into the above groups but DO take "The":

• The Gambia (the "The" is an inherent part of its name), Ukraine, and still occasionally Lebanon.
• During the Falklands War some media persons insisted on referring to Argentina as "The Argentine", but that affectation seems to have died a natural death.

The above is not necessarily comprehensive or accurate for all dialects. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Jack, not an affectation. I know people (not "media" people, just ordinary ones, who are mostly rather old) who still call Argetina "The Argentine". The reason is given in Argentina: "In the English language the country was traditionally called "the Argentine", mimicking the typical Spanish usage la Argentina[32] and perhaps resulting from a mistaken shortening of the fuller name 'Argentine Republic'. 'The Argentine' fell out of fashion during the mid-to-late 20th century, and now the country is simply referred to as "Argentina"." --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

JackofOz, your OR is a good effort, but goes in the wrong direction. This is one of those things that people who learn English as a second/foreign/other language learn as a rule, but 'native' speakers never think about. The rule is that if the head noun (which is usually the last word) in the name is a common noun (island, republic, kingdom), then country names take the definite article. If it is a special noun (a word that only has a meaning as the name of one particular place/person/thing), then there is no definite article. All but one of your cases fitted that rule at some point in their history. The exception is "The Gambia", which takes its name from the river, which follows the rule that special nouns in river names always take the definite article ("Death on the Nile", "the Amazon", "the Yangtze", etc.). In some cases, the link between the rule and the name requires some explanation:

• Some names have an implicit "X Islands", even it was never in common speech (this covers most of your plural group)
• "Netherlands" was obviously originally "Nether Lands" (as in the Low Countries)
• "The Argentine" was originally +Republic, as Dweller has explained.
• "The Sudan" and "the Ukraine" used to be used with an article because those words originated in common nouns. Ukraine was originally 'the borderland' (compare Krajina, from the same root - why those articles aren't throughly wikilinked is beyond me). The Sudan originally referred to an area much larger than the present states of that name, and had a similar meaning to Sahel.

The best account of all this is Michael Swan's Practical English Usage. Matt's talk 17:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

"Argentine" from the Falklands war onwards was also used to mean "belonging to" the country (i.e. in place of "Argentinian"). 92.8.219.206 (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Question about WSJ source

Could someone with the relevant access tell what the title and date of this article is? Hack (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The link is behind a paywall. Try WP:REX for help of this nature. Someone there can likely help. --Jayron32 13:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

August 1

Tom Sawyer and the Public Domain

The article on Bobby Driscoll states: "Disney... always planned to cast Driscoll as Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer... but because of a story rights ownership dispute with Hollywood producer David O. Selznick, who had previously produced the property in 1938, Disney ultimately had to cancel the entire project." If Selznick owned some kind of "story rights" to The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, does this mean that the novel was not in the public domain at that time? In any case, when did Tom Sawyer enter the public domain, and is there any kind of database which lists the historical dates of public domain entry for various well-known properties?--129.97.125.27 (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Tom Sawyer was published in 1876. Since copyright lasted for 28 years, with the opportunity to renew it for another 28 years, it fell into the public domain in 1932 if Clemens and his heirs took full advantage of the law's provisions. Any copyright dispute was related to something other than the original storyline. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

why don't I hear much about the Byzantines

Why do I hear very little about them in popular culture, high school, or on TV? I know I can easily find out about them easily if I do a Google search, but why do I hear little about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 02:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It may depend on your location. Different locations have different interests inherited from the generations before them. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Interest in history is mostly connected to achievements. It Seems we are mostly interested in war and spectacle since everyone knows what the word Colosseum describes yet at best some architect can tell you about Byzantine architecture, nomatter it had much more historical influence than the concept of the Colosseum. --Kharon (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The Eastern empire had plenty of "war and spectacle", as evidenced by all the articles here with "Byzantine" and "war" in the title. And there are the legendary chariot races in the Hippodrome of Constantinople, which occasionally turned into riots that leveled half the city. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Part of it is probably all the different names, some of which you've probably heard:

Byzantium = Constantinople = Istanbul.

Byzantine Empire = Eastern Roman Empire.

So, unlike say Athens, Greece, the names have changed, making the original names somewhat obscure now. Also note that "byzantine" has survived as a term, meaning unnecessarily complex: [3]. StuRat (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Because your education is limited by time and resources, and there's only so much time for schools to teach you things. Now that you know it exists, you can spend any amount of your free time learning as much as you like. The first thing you'll learn about it however is that it didn't exist. Rather, the term is a historiographical word invented by historians with a certain perspective they were trying to push. The people we now call the Byzantines would have never heard the term. They would have just called themselves "Romans", because that's what they were. There's a whole lot of Western history built upon the idea that the Roman Empire fell in the fifth century, when in reality it merely lost its Western territories. The Wikipedia article titled Byzantine Empire is as good a place as any to start learning more.--Jayron32 03:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Uncle_dan_is_home -- The Kingdom of Gondor in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings was based on the Byzantine Empire (see Gondor#Influences), and Greek scholars fleeing the Turkish conquests of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries significantly helped the Italian Renaissance take place. However, most Western Europeans and cultural offshoots of Western Europe don't really see the Byzantines as a direct precursor to modern Western civilization (unlike classical Athens etc.), so the Byzantine civilization can get kind of shunted aside when the roots of Western civilization are explored. I'm sure that the Greeks and the Russians don't consider the Byzantines irrelevant to the development of their cultures... AnonMoos (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The issue with the Eastern Roman Empire is a little more complex than that, and is largely based around the historiographical need of most Western powers during the bulk of history to pretend as though it wasn't really the Roman Empire. While it may not make sense today, for much of the Middle Ages, the concept of Translatio imperii (similar to the Chinese concept of the Mandate of Heaven) was a vital Constitutional concept to establish the legitimacy of their states. Without going into the myriad complexities of the situation, the basic principle is that the constitution of much of Western Europe (and thus legitimacy of their governance) require the Roman Empire to have ended in 476 AD. Such a viewpoint was so pervasive in Western thought that even as late as the late 18th century it formed the central thesis of The greatest work of historical writing in the English language, and even today pervades much of the Western history tradition. That's why the so-called Byzantine Empire gets the shaft. Even 100 years later, the need for translatio imperii was influencing politics in Europe; the reason why the German Empire was proclaimed in Versailles in 1871, is because of what happened in that exact place at that exact time. The Prussian King couldn't just up and declare himself Emperor if another Emperor still existed; which is why he had to defeat the last one in war and then declare his Empire in the other's seat. This very thinking is a direct consequence of the Western thought that Rome ended in 476. --Jayron32 12:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Now that is an insightful answer! Wnt (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

That is in hindsight how people thought of it centuries later, but translatio imperii was amazingly even more complicated in the Middle Ages. There could certainly be two emperors - and in fact there were, until 476 - so that wasn't the problem. Why couldn't Charlemagne (since the matter is really about Charlemagne being crowned emperor in 800) be the Western Emperor, and the Eastern Emperor stay the Eastern Emperor? Because in 800, the Eastern Emperor was was actually an empress. The empire did not pass to a male emperor, therefore in the eyes of the Pope and Charlemagne, there no longer was an emperor at all. By then the west had a tradition of Germanic law where women were explicitly forbidden from inheriting the throne (Salic law) while Roman law, as i was still used in the east, didn't specifically forbid them. Translatio imperii is sort of an afterthought trying to justify this whole shady affair. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

That's part of the mess I didn't want to get into, altogether. The complex constitutional relationship between the Holy Roman Empire, the constituent states that made it up, and the myriad and (excuse the term) byzantine political relationships it caused in medieval Western Europe is enough to make one's head explode. Even after the HRE ceased to exist (even on paper) after the early 1800s, it took more than a century to unravel all of the complex political relationships it created, i.e. the Duchy of Limburg (1839–67), the Schleswig-Holstein Question, etc. etc. --Jayron32 19:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, see BYZANTIUM AND ITALIAN RENAISSANCE ART and The Byzantine Empire had a lasting legacy in religion, architecture, art, literature, and law.. Alansplodge (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This answer is maybe a little opinion-y, but it's pretty clear to me. "History" in most places usually means "Things that happened here when it was inhabited by people like us, and things that influenced it." I'm assuming you grew up in the Anglosphere? In U.S. K-12 (which I attended), "history" is "What happened to white people in the present-day U.S., and some stuff that happened in Western Europe before/during that, and we'll throw in an occasional mention of other cultures to seem open-minded." If you want to learn about anything else in history, you take classes called something like "World History" or "<country> History", which only exist in the better high schools as electives. Or you wait until college/university and take such classes, assuming you're able to. As AnonMoos said, if you went to school in Greece or Turkey you'd probably know a lot more about the Byzantines, just as if you went to school in Japan you'd probably be able to name the periods of Japanese history from memory. And since "culture" is "stuff shared among a particular group", if my assumption was right, most people where you live know little to nothing about the Byzantines, so no one talks about them. Just as here in the U.S., if you show someone a depiction of people in dour clothing in a ship landing by a rock, they'll almost certainly identify it as the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock (which, if you read the article, you'll know they didn't even do), while if you show it to someone in, say, India, they'll draw a blank. Also, as Jayron32 touched on, there's an additional layer of a long-standing divide in how Western and Eastern Europe have perceived history. To Western Europe, Rome was the big deal. Up until the 20th century rulers and nations were still, to some degree, claiming they were the rightful inheritors of Ancient Rome. See Third Rome, translatio imperii. To Western European thought, the Easterners who spoke a funny language weren't really Romans, plus after the Great Schism they were Orthodox heretics to boot, so they didn't really matter. (Compare and contrast the idea of the Mandate of Heaven in the Sinosphere.) --47.138.161.183 (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

+1. Except that I suspect Turks do not care very much about Byzantines, since they were foes they ultimately subdued.

However, scholars DO care about Byzantines: Byzantine studies are quite populated. You may even say that they fell to "Byzantinism", that is, arguing endlessly about very trifles matters [4].

Note that according to this article, Byzantinism is generally despised in the western world, this doesn't help making it into the popular culture

Gem fr (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Polish złoty in 1974

How can I find the value of the Polish złoty compared to other currencies in the summer of 1974? Thanks. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This looks promising. --Jayron32 14:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Except it only goes back as far as 2007.

The answer is not simple. The Polish government maintained at least six different official fixed exchange rates (for various types of transactions) for złoty versus U.S. dollar, which in 1972 ranged from 3.32 to 60 PLZ/USD. The black market exchange rate in the 1970s ranged between 80 and 120 PLZ/USD. In terms of purchasing parity, the value of the złoty was estimated at about 20 PLZ/USD.[5] — Kpalion^(talk) 15:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! This is perfect. The distinction between black market and purchasing power is great to know. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Birth control and poor people

I already know some people don't like Trump, because he has plans to defund Planned Parenthood, and that organization provides contraceptives to poor people. But I wonder why the American poor cares about contraceptives in the first place. I remember watching a documentary about pneumonia in the Phillippines and how poor Filipino families just have a lot of children. And Michael Pollan hosts a food documentary, talking about how a hunter-gatherer society is seemingly very healthy despite the high child mortality rate. That said, I would reason that the poor would want to have as many children as possible because of economic security and necessity. More children = more income. Maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't get why the American poor want contraceptives, when in worldwide, the poor just make do without contraceptives. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Just because some '"make do'" without something is not a reason why everyone should want to make do without that thing. Can't some opt to use contraceptives and others not? Bus stop (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

But when you are poor, you can't afford healthcare. If you can't afford healthcare or your employer doesn't pay into a health insurance program, then you can't take care of your children when they are sick. And when they are sick, it's likely that they will die, which means no one will take care you in your old age. Therefore, it's best to have as many children as possible, just in case one gets sick and dies. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You say that you "wonder why the American poor cares about contraceptives in the first place". Because they are not a monolithic block. They are individuals. Some would like as an option the availability of contraceptives. Bus stop (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to go into an argument about this, so I am going to assume that you are right. It still seems counterintuitive (to me), though. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems counterintuitive to you that one poor person may have different needs and wants than a different poor person, and that they may therefore need access to services for different reasons? Does that mean your intuition tells you that all poor people are identical can be treated as such? --Jayron32 13:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Humans are animals. As animals, it makes more sense to me that they will reproduce as much as possible. With scarce resources, it becomes difficult to take care of the offspring's health. They can die at any moment. Because humans can predict the future, one reproductive strategy is to produce as many offspring as possible in case some of them succumb to disease. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Every animal does not try to have as many offspring as possible; either behaviorally or biologically. Many animals have a relatively small number of offspring but still thrive as a species. Your notions about these matters indicate a profound refusal to accept actual evidence which may alter your understanding of the world, which makes it difficult to provide you with satisfactory answers. You have made it clear time and time again that you're seeking affirmation of your set-in-stone beliefs rather than information to expand your understanding of the world. Stop arguing with people who are directing you to information to change your misconceptions. --Jayron32 01:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• What the eff do you have against poor people dude? First you want them to have to eat dog food, and now you're like "fuck'em, what do they need birth control for" Boggles the fucking mind...--Jayron32 01:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Eh? Where did I link poor people to dog food? I merely posted a inquiry about making well-portioned food for humans like dog food in general. It was not directed at poor people. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, I think the IP is right here. They've suggested at least twice before that poor people shouldn't be allowed to eat much or any meat Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 April 6#Economics of intensive animal farming & Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 March 3#Meat fillers & other weird or at least borderline stuff like that before (e.g. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 April 27#Portion control, food rationing, and economics) and have asked weird crap about humans and dog or pet food multiple times Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 March 26#Can food be made to be suitable for both dogs and humans? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 May 18#Homogenous packaged, pre-cooked food Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 July 2#Can dogs control their appetites? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 July 2#How can dogs eat white rice? (possibly Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2017_February_18#Can dogs and cats eat cooked foods? too although I'm not so sure). But they haven't AFAIK gones so far as to link the two in suggesting poor people should eat dog food while the rest of the meat is reserved for the rich. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Children of poor people are only a net economic asset in a subsistence farming society, where they can work from an early age. A 5 year old could collect eggs, feed the chickens, and milk the cow, but driving a truck or welding is not a good idea. So, in an industrialized society they are a net economic negative. This is one factor that leads to decreased fertility in industrialized societies. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• More interesting background reading may possibly be found at the article Income and fertility which was formerly titled Demographic economic paradox, because it is a long studied trend in demographic-economics: In countries with higher standards of living, the birth-rate goes down rather than up at first glance. The standard explanation for this is that societal attitudes towards the role of children and women in society change slower than standard of living; so there's a "lag effect" of a few generations. In societies with extremely high infant mortality and low economic freedom for women, there are more children born, though not necessarily much population growth because poor access to modern healthcare means low life expectancy and high infant mortality. When a society gets access to proper women's health care, infant mortality plummets, but societal attitudes towards numbers of children and a woman's role in society take several generations to change, so there's a "bubble" of extremely high birth rate, but low death rate, that leads to a surge in population growth. After several generations, as economics improves, these countries stabilize to lower birth rate. As noted in the lead of the article "Development is the best contraceptive." The answer to why American poor people want access to contraception is that poor American women have (and should expect) the same rights to control the fates of their own bodies as more privileged women. "You don't get to enjoy sex without fear of pregnancy because you're poor" is a shitty paternalistic thing for rich policy-makers to say. Margaret Sanger fought this battle for American society a hundred years ago, and it boggles the mind that we're still having the debate. It should be settled by now. Access to such basic health care needs as contraception is not a privilege reserved for people with economic or political power. --Jayron32 10:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

StuRat mentioned "net economic asset" and "net economic negative", so I looked those terms up with "children". This appears: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c9663.pdf. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Though, who says that society needs to develop? With an undeveloped society, the high infant mortality can really control population growth. And living with parasites and other germs may be better than the situation as posed by the hygiene hypothesis. Parasites can control the population and stimulate one's immune system. Lack of electricity may help humans return to a more natural sleep cycle. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a balance to be made, I'm sure, but outside of small communities of Luddites, it would be hard to argue that controlling the population by allowing preventable suffering and death is less desirable than controlling the population by treating women better. The notion that "Some aspects of modern society need to be tweaked as it's probably unhealthy" is quite distinct from "We were better when most people died horrible deaths of preventable diseases." --Jayron32 12:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

But a poor person is poor, because he has little or no resources. Without the necessary resources, he may contract a disease and cannot heal it. And he may not be able to prevent the disease, because he lacks the knowledge (such as germ theory). Therefore, the disease is only preventable at a societal level, but not preventable at a personal level. I guess it's up to society to judge whether that person deserves to live or die. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

A poor person is poor because the people who control the resources don't provide that person the means by which to obtain those resources. That your only considered solution of "do nothing and let them die" is a solution to that problem is troubling when trying to provide reasonable answers to your query. --Jayron32 01:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Some poor people are that way because they are oppressed, but others choose not to work, or have problems like alcoholism and drug abuse and mental problems that make it impossible to hold a job. Society can help them out a bit, but they really need to do their part, too. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, provided that by "hard" you meant "easy" or by "less desirable" you meant "more desirable" (you seem to have said the opposite of what you meant via a double negative). StuRat (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I meant we don't want people to die of diseases that can be cured. We should not argue that point, it seems self-evidently better. --Jayron32 13:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

How many people die annually from lack of exposure to microbes ? Perhaps thousands. How many people die annually of infectious diseases caused by exposure to microbes ? Millions. The two risks aren't anywhere near equivalent. StuRat (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Of note, based on the question, the claim that Planned Parenthood provides contraception is not entirely true. In South Carolina, Planned Parenthood performs abortions. Contraceptive services (as well as everything else) is referred to a nearby FQHC under the guise that the FQHC is part of Planned Parenthood. They are two completely different services. I assume, but have not checked, that other states function similarly. Therefore, in South Carolina, cutting funding for Planned Parenthood will not directly affect contraceptive services for the poor (and it is important to note that the poor are not the only people who use Planned Parenthood). They just need to learn that they can go directly to the FQHC without a Planned Parenthood referral. That is not the problem though. I work in a large hospital network that covers half the state. The poor primarily go to the Emergency Room for everything from getting free condoms to getting a pregnancy test. A lot of money is spent every year to try to educate the public that the Emergency Room is not for those services, but they keep coming because they strongly believe that the ER is absolutely free. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming you have references for all of that. Because just asserting things is not the same as establishing them as true. --Jayron32 12:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you've been listening to too much right-wing extremist talk radio. None of what you've just said is true, but it's common extremist propaganda. ApLundell (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

[6] from the Guttmacher Institute so obviously not a neutral source and not specifically considering the situation in South Carolina explicitly rejects the idea that FQHCs could replace Planned Parenthood for contraceptive services.

The closest counter I came across is from the Charlotte Lozier Institute but I'd note [7] it simply looks at individuals served (served for what?) rather than explicitly considering contraceptive services and doesn't seem to have considered the actual consequence of closure of Planned Parenthood centres. I'd note that either way it seems to actual reject the notion Planned Parenthood centres only performs abortions although again it doesn't explicitly have data for South Carolina [8] since the number of individuals served is significantly higher than those receiving abortions. As stated earlier, what services these inviduals are receiving doesn't seem to be in the data they've presented so it can't be said explicitly that it's contraceptive services. Since there are supposedly only 2 Planned Parenthood centres in South Carolina, it's possible the effect of the closure for services besides abortions will not be so significant as in other places, but I don't know.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

South Carolina has 2 Planned Parenthood offices and 14 FQHCs. Both Planned Parenthood offices are less than 1 mile from an FQHC. The Charleston office is very tiny - so tiny that they don't even do abortions there[9]. They refer those to a different clinic. They are only open 3 days (and not a full schedule during those days). They hand out condoms, morning after pills and pregnancy tests in office. They perform some urine tests and pin-prick blood tests. They also do counseling, including LGBT counseling. Just look at the building on Google Maps and you can see that there is no room for radiology. They do not do mammograms in office (or any other radiology services). However, their website [10] clearly states that do radiology. It simply doesn't specifically state that it is performed by them in their office. It is referred to Fetter FQHC, as are most services. The photo on their website is stock. I've been in their office and they don't look like that at all. Further, notice that no doctor is listed on their website. What doctor (actual MD) works there? None is required because medical examinations and procedures are not performed in office. They are referred to the FQHC. Yes, this is one example of one clinic. It is not representative of every Planned Parenthood office in the country. But, it does point out that the women in Charleston may still get the same service (including abortions) if the Planned Parenthood office was closed. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that poverty/wealth is relative (the stranded island refugee with the most coconuts is the richest in his group), perhaps a slight aside to correct a common misconception might be in order. By convention, 20% of the people in any society are poor, 20% are rich and 60% are middle class. The definition of each category can easily be adjusted to arrive at this breakdown. As the saying goes, the poor will always be with us … DOR (HK) (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2

A 1967 gay wedding in the Netherlands

During the debate on the Sexual Offences Act 1967, one the Lords, Lord Auckland, says: "In one of the more popular Sunday newspapers last week there appeared an account, which some of your Lordships may have seen, of a homosexual wedding in a Continental country." Clearly this isn't referring to a legally recognized wedding, but I'm curious about the background here. It looks like it's referring to an event in the Netherlands where two men were married in a chapel, but the only reference I can find is an offhand mention in a Gay Star News article about the Sexual Offences Act. Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands#Religious denominations says "The Dutch Remonstrants were the world's first Christian denomination to perform same-sex unions and marriages in 1986", but if these men married in a chapel in 1967 that must surely be incorrect. Smurrayinchester 07:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a mention of this wedding in "Touch -- And Go: A Magazine For Deaf-Blind Readers", August 1967, p. 18, in which it's said that Harry Rietra and Jean Knockhart exchanged rings in a marriage Mass in a Roman Catholic chapel in Rotterdam. A few more details are given here, including a correction of the names to Henryk Rietra and Jean Knockhaert. As you say, the marriage could have been recognized neither by the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy (of course) nor by Netherlands law. --Antiquary (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Some further details and images here, from the September 21 1967 issue of Jet Magazine. Alansplodge (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, good find! Smurrayinchester 12:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Is preferred room tempersture considered a culturally acquired or innate biological trait?

I searched Google for the above question and did not find much. Does someone who grew up in a very warm African climate consider it "normal" in the sense they would also set a thermostat high, or is preferred room temperature pretty universal and people in warmer climates simply are uncomfortable and consider it annoying? (Even if it's the temperature all the time.) Thank you. 193.224.49.51 (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Likely a bit of both, and also other factors, like basal metabolic rate, current activity level, psychological stress level, and body mass index will affect it. Humidity, of course, also plays a role (and there's an accustomization to that, as well). Also note that the range which is considered acceptable will vary by culture. (For many in developed nations, if they sweat or shiver, they consider that uncomfortable, while in a developing nation, that's normal.) StuRat (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Inuits complain about temperatures below room temperature and sweat in them. Their body shapes retain heat better. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, there's quite a variation in willingness to do other things to compensate for high temps by drinking iced tea, turning on a fan, closing the curtains or shades, and stripping down to underwear or a swimsuit, or to compensate for low temps by wearing a sweater, sitting by the fireplace or in a sunny spot, or drinking hot cocoa. For people willing to do these things, a much wider range of room temperatures are acceptable. StuRat (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• See nature vs. nurture. The notion that some trait or behavior is strictly "biological" or strictly "learned" is a false dichotomy; the reality is that behavior is caused by a complex interplay of environment and genetics, and it's not possible, nor useful, to ignore the influence of the one over the other, or pretend as the two exist in isolation or even can be considered as distinct and isolatable causes (as though we could say "75% of one and 25% of the other). Some aspects of temperature comfort are biological (else concepts like frostbite, hypothermia, heat stroke, etc. wouldn't make sense) while others are probably learned or acquired through acclimatization and adaptation. --Jayron32 14:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

193.224.49.51 -- It's not exactly the same thing as preferred room temperature, but it's well-known that how much you sweat in response to a given temperature is almost entirely determined by the temperatures you were exposed to as a baby. Here's what I was able to find with a quick search: [11] -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• See Karjalainen, Sami. (2012). "Thermal comfort and gender: a literature review." Gender is one item that matters. There are other interesting articles that show different temperature reactions by country by gender. For example, Indraganti & Rao (2010) show that Indian women were more sensitive to temperature differences than men but were less likely to report discomfort, while a study by Karjalainen in 2007 found that Finnish women were more likely to report discomfort than men. This seems to point to a culture explanation in reaction. Other research finds that nutrition may matter at extremes, those with depression have difficulty regulating temperature, and that people can train their bodies to have a reduced automatic temperature response (see Wim Hof). What I have found in looking at temperature setting data is that demographics such as gender and race are very small determinants of temperature preference. Most of the variation is idiosyncratic by personal preference. Malinaccier (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

What is room temperature? We usually keep our living room about 18–19 °C (64–66 °F). On the other hand most Inuit (no s at the end) seem to prefer their living room anywhere up to 25 °C (77 °F). Only ever seen an one Inuk sweat indoors. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Room temperature, oddly enough, does have a definition. In colloquial terms, its the temperature range by which the inhabitants of a room feel comfortable, and while it isn't a single, exact, infinitely precise number, it does have an expected range of values, which altogether, is not that wide. There is also the scientific Standard state temperature, at 25 degrees C, so chosen because most science is done, well, in a room, and that's about room temperature, thus lab conditions would not usually deviate much from standard state conditions. --Jayron32 01:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you/they mean gender, or do you mean sex? Because the latter is an objective biological fact, while the former is... something. Iapetus (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The former is no less a fact than the latter, or do you mean to say that people frequently lie or deceive others about their gender? --Jayron32 11:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Iapetus said it was not a fact, I think he said it was not a biological fact. If you consider psychology to be a branch of biology, then I think you can contradict Iapetus and say "given that it is a psychological fact, it is also a biological one", but if you consider those 2 branches to be separate, then Iapetus can claim that psychological facts cannot be categorised as biological facts and his last statement stands. I myself make no claim on the classification of psychology. --Lgriot (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No, there's clear subtext in the exact phrasing he chose. If he said "gender is psychological and sex is biological" that's pretty straightforward and doesn't carry any pejorative sense. By choosing the exact words he did, and the exact phrasing he did, he's clearly expressing doubt about the validity of non-standard gender identities. By using two clarifying adjectives (including the word "objective") to classify one, and then classifying the other with a "...something", he's clearly drawing a distinction in validity between the two concepts. If he meant what you're saying, he'd have said what you're saying. He said something entirely different. --Jayron32 14:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, not everyone is able to express themselves clearly all the time. I would be very surprised to meet someone that seriously believes that gender is not a question of psychology. What will they claim it is then, a social construct? But then will they claim that social constructs exist without some underlying human psychology? I see no logical line of reasoning, so I assume good faith until proven guilty. Iapetus, want to chip in about what you meant? --Lgriot (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

What I meant is that I frequently have no idea what people are referring to when they talk about gender, because sometimes it is used as a synonym for sex; sometimes it is used where it would make more sense if they were referring to sex but it isn't clear if that is what they are actually doing; sometimes it is used to mean identity; sometimes it even seems to be used to mean personality; and sometimes possibly something else altogether. Iapetus (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Different strokes for different folks. I recall one time I was playing blackjack at a charity casino. It was about 30+ degrees C; I was sweating like a pig, while my female dealer was wearing a sweater! Women really are from Venus. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Role of a Senior Watch Officer in a shore establishment?

I'm fairly sure I understand what the Senior Watch Officer of a US Navy vessel does (see [12], section 303.18, and Wikipedia's watchstanding article). However, I'm not clear how that applies to a shore establishment. Could someone explain it to me? Prioryman (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The term "watch officer" is used in the U.S. navy for what in other branches is called a Duty officer and the roles of a senior watch officer on shore post would not differ significantly from that of a duty officer in other branches; of course watch officers on ships have a different list of specific tasks than one on shore, but the basic job description, an officer who is consider "in charge" in the absence of the commanding officer, is the same. The watch officer of a ship is the person who gives orders on the bridge in the ship's captain's stead (when he isn't present on the bridge), and would have the same role in a shore establishment (acting as the commander when the commander is not present.) --Jayron32 01:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

August 3

Yellow things and sexual attitudes in Chinese culture

I am aware that it is insulting to a woman to be compared to a prostitute. How is this similar or different from the Western view of prostitution? In the West, it seems that there is the slut, which is also a demeaning title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Your question is not entirely clear, and I especially don't understand the connection with yellow -- the color yellow was often considered an Imperial color by Chinese (see Yellow#In_China). AnonMoos (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The question is very broad, but "yellow" (wikt:黃 is used in Mandarin with the same meaning as "blue" in English. This was actually in the article on Yellow, but not in the Chinese section. I have now fixed that and linked to the 'very yellow, very violent' controversy. The fact that the OP asked the question suggests that they are a Mandarin speaker. Matt's talk 17:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

OK -- still not sure whether I fully understand the original question, but you certainly clarified the yellow part, thanks... AnonMoos (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

How can Pip NOT know his own sister's name?

Yeah, I understand it's perfectly normal to go by Mrs. Gargery or Mrs. Joe Gargery, especially if you just know her relationship to her husband, not her name. But this is Pip, or Phillip Pirrup. He should know his own sister's name. But then, despite being siblings, Pip seems to be closer to Joe than to his own sister. Sure, the sister may be tough on him, but Pip doesn't know his sister's name? In general, what kind of genre is Charles Dickens writing in? The number of crazy females in Great Expectations is just creepy. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Does his sister seem like the sort that would want to be addressed by her first name or by her married name? Especially by some filthy orphan. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

50.4.236.254 -- Pip's sister is more than 20 years older than himself (first sentence of chapter 2), and has much more of a parent role than a sibling role to Pip. AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is a work of fiction which means we are provided no means by which to interview the characters or obtain more information from them or about them by any means at all. We are left solely with the words on the page left to us by the author, and the only additional answers that can be provided are the ones you yourself arrive at by your own interpretation of the work. That's how fiction works. It doesn't have any built-in "whys" or "hows". You create your own whys and hows. --Jayron32 01:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Jayron32 -- that would apply to fairy tales or similar works of free-floating imagination, but Dickens was writing about a time in English history which was within the living memory of his first readers (about 40 years before the book's first publication), so what he wrote had to have a fairly firm resemblance to English society of that period (even if a little stylized at times), or some of his readership would have strongly objected, and the sales of his book might have been affected... AnonMoos (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So, then maybe you can produce additional writings that answer the OP's question? I'd be shocked, but by all means, go ask Pip why he didn't know his sister's name. Or produce an interview with Pip. I'd like to see that! --Jayron32 11:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

We can ask "Under what circumstances in English society of the late 1810s would it be likely that a boy wouldn't know (or would never use) his sister's given name(s)?" and the main answer relevant to Pip in the novel (as far as I can see) is that she's more than 20 years older than him and has much more of a parent role than a sibling role to him... AnonMoos (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The OP didn't ask that question. --Jayron32 13:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say Pip did not know his own sister's name? I know he refers to her as "Mrs. Joe" or "my sister", but that doesn't prove he didn't know her name. In Chapter 58, Pumblechook says "her name was Georgiana M'ria from her own mother", with no indication that this is news to Pip. jnestorius^(talk) 12:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding genre, Dickens is generally included in Victorian literature, specifically the genre known as the Social novel, which examined society and class issues through the vehicle of the novel. Great Expectations is also a bildungsroman, ,or "coming-of-age" story. --Jayron32 13:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

By way of a reference, Values Across Cultures and Times: "By giving his female character the name Mrs Joe, Dickens deconstructs the woman's tradition of taking her husband's name in marriage whose purpose is to show symbolically that she belongs to him. In the case of Mrs Joe's marriage with Joe, it is him who belongs to her rather than vice versa". (p. 135)

Cheese, tofu, and geography

In Northern Europe, there was cheese production. In Eastern Asia, there was tofu production. East Asian countries seem to be lower in latitude than the Northern European countries, closer to the equator. Up north, it may be difficult to grow food, so is this why Northern Europeans have a history of dairy consumption while East Asians have a history of soy consumption? (I pick tofu and cheese, because the processes of making them seem very similar.) 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

China specifically doesn't have a history of dairy, but many nearby countries do. Your thesis that lower latitudes don't produce cheeses is easily disproven as India has a dairy and cheesemaking tradition, and it's closer to the equator than China. See paneer, kalari, khoa, chhurpi, etc. As well, there are many varieties of Tibetan cheese. --Jayron32 02:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Then, soybeans were probably a localized food then, as with other things. Societies were much more isolated in the past than today. Nowadays, countries literally border each other. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

If you do want to know more about the history of Chinese cuisine, you could start your research at the Wikipedia article titled History of Chinese cuisine. --Jayron32 02:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Kalari cheese. (The above didn't have a link in the hatnote until now.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

50.4.236.254 -- also keep in mind that major human populations without significant animal-herder (pastoralist) ancestry are prone to lactose intolerance... AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

OP, once again you are starting from a false premise. Cheese and tofu are both made in China. There is a long tradition of dairy products especially in northern China, including some that are cheese-like. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Northern China is the area which has most heavily interacted with animal-herders/pastoralists throughout history. Is there a long tradition of dairy products among typical Han Chinese, or just "in China"? AnonMoos (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, ethnic and cultural lines are pretty fluid in many parts of China, and if you try to divide the lines too finely at some point it stops making sense. For example, Beijing (which has a rich tradition of dairy products in its cuisine) was certainly subject to Mongol and Manchu rule for centuries, but the majority of its population is, and certainly has been for the last 600 years or so, predominantly Han Chinese. At some point it stops making sense to ask whether its tradition of dairy products is "really" Chinese or just Mongol- or Manchu-influenced. And if it is, given that the Manchus live almost exclusively in China, does it make it less Chinese if it was? Just as it does not really make sense to ask whether the use of Worcestershire sauce in fried rice cakes in Shanghainese cuisine is "really" Chinese or just English-influenced.

Subject to that caveat, certainly there is a long established tradition amongst people who are certainly regarded as "Han Chinese" today. Various dairy products are found in Beijing's traditional cuisine, including a dry one which is cheese-like. There is also a cheese-like product from Shunde in Guangdong province, which can also be found in Chinese communities in Southeast Asia. The Bai people and Yi people of Yunnan also make cheese - they are not Han Chinese, so I don't know whether you think of them as "typical" Chinese people or not. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

About the product from Shunde, this may be of interest [13]. Our article linked above claims, without sources, the use of dairy products in Shunde cuisine is an influence of European merchants and missionaries since the 16th century but I'm not sure that the above source really agrees. (In any case when you're going that far back the question becomes whatever the influence, whether it makes sense to say it isn't part of the cuisine. I mean who is going to seriously argue that chillies are not a part of many forms on Indian cuisine, Thai cuisine or Malaysian cuisine? Or tomatoes aren't part of many forms of Italian cuisine?)

Anyway back to the published source, in reference to cheese it mentions "Rufu (also known as ruping and rutuan) "said to be listed in "Chinese food literature from the Tang (618–906 CE) and Yuan Dynasties (1271–1368 CE)". Note that although the earlier copied terminology calls them the same thing, it later suggests rufu is curdled with vinegar while rutuan is curdled with naturally forming lactic acid. (It also mentions that water buffalo cheese was said to be cooling while yak cheese was warming.) It also mentions Niuru said to "probably the most ancient water buffalo milk product in Shunde and is believed to have been consumed since the Ming Dynasty" which I assume means rufu is not believed to have been traditional produced in Shunde. Or maybe the practice died our and was revied later.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, this only brings up the point to be made about the illusion of "pure culture". Very few cultures existed in isolation for eternity and developed without influence from any other culture, and this is as true of China as anywhere. When we speak of some cultural element as being "native" or "imported" it really shows a very limited thinking about culture; that it is somehow an immutable thing which becomes "contaminated" when elements from other cultures enter in. What is "traditional". How far back do we have to go? Is Sichuan cuisine a native Chinese cuisine? Chilis are not native to anywhere near China; they were imported to the region by the Spanish from Central America. It's a wrong-headed way of thinking about culture, and a classic example of the No True Scotsman fallacy: If we start with the notion that Chinese cuisine doesn't traditionally include cultured dairy products, then when we find Chinese examples of cultured dairy products, we have to bend over backwards to assert "Those aren't really Chinese people" or "That cuisine may be around now, but it was introduced by someone who wasn't Chinese, so it's not really Chinese". Go back far enough, and no one was Chinese. Culture is fluid and continuously changing, tied to a specific time and place, and none of those is rightly more "pure" or "correct" than any other time and place. --Jayron32 12:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about "cultural purity" -- I merely observed that PalaceGuard008 seemed to be shifting the discussion from Chinese cuisine to food "in China", which is not necessarily exactly the same thing (especially if by "North China" he meant Inner Mongolia and Manchuria, which historically were only marginally part of East Asia). I didn't know, so I asked. AnonMoos (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

But it is the same thing. Where do Chinese people live other than "In china". Any other definition is a No True Scotsman fallacy. It doesn't matter if people's ancestors lived elsewhere, or if China's borders have changed, or any of that. Culture is not static, and while understanding past cultural connections is valid for understanding modern culture, definitions of what it means to be "Chinese" outside of "Is in China" open up a slew of problems with moving goalposts and the like. China's culture has contributions from Inner Mongolia and Manchuria. That those areas used to be "not China" in the past doesn't mean they are somehow "less China" today. --Jayron32 14:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Jayron32, your original point about cultural fluidity was put very well, but saying that "within China's borders = Chinese" opens up an enormous can of worms. Are you saying that Lee Kuan Yew wasn't Chinese? Part of the problem is that the English word "Chinese" is the equivalent of several Chinese words; Lee was Chinese (华人) but not Chinese (中国人) . Our articles on Chinese people, Han Chinese, and Zhonghua minzu describe the difficulties. Do you think of Jonathan Edwards as a British theologian? He never lived within the borders of the US. Would you view Tagore as a British poet and Karl Marx as a British writer? EDIT:Sorry, these cases are consistent with your argument. Your points about cultural fluidity help to show that present political borders are often a poor guide to past cultural phenomena. Matt's talk 17:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

We are getting a bit off topic here, but just to throw in my two cents. On matters of culture and ethnicity I believe in a weakly essentialist worldview, i.e. matters of culture and ethnicity cannot be precisely defined, but just because a concept is imprecise and fluid it does not mean that it does not exist (which is why I think I have disagreed with Jayron32 before on such matters). That said, the reason I prefaced my response to AnonMoos with a big header is because I wanted to head off the hint I detected in the question that there is some sort of "essential" Chineseness. It is a common misconception that there are precise lines that can be drawn about what is "Chinese" in any of the three senses Matt quotes - e.g. tofu is Chinese, cheese is non-Chinese. Sharp national borders or ethnic or cultural identities are a very recent thing when you are talking about communities that have existed for thousands of years. Genetic studies show that northern (Han) Chinese populations share more genetic affinity with northern/central Asian peoples than they do with southern (Han) Chinese populations, and conversely southern (Han) Chinese populations share more genetic affinity with Indochinese/southeast Asian peoples than they do with northerners. Likewise, culturally whether in terms of cuisine or other lifestyle you are likely to find that Han Chinese people from one region are more likely to share similarities with other ethnic groups living nearby than with other Han Chinese people from a faraway province. To echo Jayron32's point, there isn't really one "typical" cultural China, or if there is, it is a fluid spectrum. If you try to stick to any rigid concept of "typical" Chineseness you will fall into the No True Scotsman trap.

That said, to clarify the precise point AnonMoos had in mind, when I originally said "northern China" I meant it roughly in the orthodox geographical sense, which is the part of China stretching north from the Yellow River basin and excluding Manchuria. I was not thinking of Mongols and Manchus per se. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

PalaceGuard008 -- I'm sure that there's quite a bit of local variation and cultural borrowing -- but nevertheless, if something was mainly eaten by the groups traditionally inhabiting Inner Mongolia and Manchuria, and was only weakly and sporadically taken up by Han Chinese, then it would not be considered "Chinese cuisine" in the usual sense, even though it would be indubitably food eaten in China, so your choice of terminology unfortunately somewhat obscured your intended meaning. Also, Jayron32 may have very good intentions, but he seems to be quite a bit more preoccupied with notions of "cultural purity" than I am, since I never mentioned or alluded to that particular idea... AnonMoos (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The issue is nuance, not purity. I have no belief in such a concept, so I don't know why you keep saying I do. Also, I've never used your name nor addressed you. I don't know why you believe I was talking to you at all. You were the first one to address me. I have no idea what notions you hold, nor do I care. I hadn't thought about you at all until you addressed me. --Jayron32 00:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You're the one who chose to intrude the concept of "cultural purity" into this thread. I don't find it very helpful that you seem to be well-versed in esoteric far-leftist epithets which are guaranteed to bring most conversations to an acrimonious screeching halt, but are very vague as to the basic ordinary meaning of "Chinese cuisine". AnonMoos (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I have said nothing negative or personal to you or about you. What is your problem? --Jayron32 04:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you clumsily insinuated that I was a supporter of "cultural purity" ideology (and you haven't added anything of value to any other aspect of the discussion in this thread in the meantime). I don't like it, and I don't have to like it. AnonMoos (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I made no comment anywhere near you, until well after you started addressing me. I also insinuated nothing, but that's neither here nor there, because my contribution had nothing to do with anything you said, which should be obvious since I didn't comment anywhere near you.--Jayron32 10:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That whole aspect of the thread developed from my use of the word "typical", which was admittedly vague terminology in that context (I originally intended it to mean "who are not heavily influenced by Mongolian or Manchu culture to an atypical degree" or something like that), but which did not really support the interpretations that other people started loading onto it (especially when you finished freely riffing off of it). AnonMoos (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Being tangentially involved in an aspect of a thread that you had previously also commented on is a long way from assuming that I directing comments at you, or even realizing you existed. Look, I've told you my comments had nothing at all to do with you, were not made with anything you stated in mind, and that should be enough. This whole misunderstanding started because you thought I was attacking something you said. I've informed you that was not the case, and that I had no thought of anything you said when I made my comments. Let's just drop it, it's gone well past the phase of usefulness. I apologize without qualification for what I have done in derailing this thread. I was in the wrong, and I fully accept ownership of and responsibility for that. I am quite sorry. --Jayron32 12:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Inevitably...
Gregory's wife: What's so special about the cheesemakers?
Gregory: Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturer of dairy products.
--Shirt58 (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Unusual given names

I don't think this is confined to African-American families, but it seems to be something that's particularly associated with them, at least in my mind. I refer to the tendency to give children given names that either have unusual spellings of existing names, or are totally unique.

Where could I find a list of these very uncommon names and spellings? Is there any evidence that the trend is abating? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you read African-American names? I don't think you'll get a list, as many of these are unique, and invented by the parents. Rojomoke (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is not confined to African-Americans. Here in South Africa, particularly among Afrikaans speaking people, the trend is to chop the parents' names in half (or so) and make a new name. Andrew and Michelle = Andelle. Sometimes I think they mashed up Pokemon names.41.13.216.144 (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Also Brazilians. And Hobbits. jnestorius^(talk) 12:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Unusual first names are also a cultural feature in the Dominican Republic and Cuba these days. These trends tend to be cyclical. In North America, the late 19th century was notorious for its love of unusual first names (usually plucked from the more obscure chapters of the Bible or from lists of forgotten Catholic saints), leading to a reaction a few decades later. --Xuxl (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Obligatory reference to Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned as an unusual names. Neither African-American nor modern. --Jayron32 14:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Uh, what? What definition are you using for "modern"? Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

1a here.--Jayron32 09:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I've also noticed many commonly-pronounced names that are spelled "creatively" or with unnecessary apostrophes or other diacritical marks. Is there a greater point to doing this, other than attracting attention or looking "fancy"? -Thomprod (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Guayaquil Conference

Where exactly did the Guayaquil Conference took place? As a recent visitor to Guayaquil I was not aware that such a pivotal event in South American history took place in the city, now I am curious to know where it actually took place. --Sodacan (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This article goes into more detail than the Wikipedia article does, but does not give the location of the office where they met. It does say that there were no records of the conference, which was in private between the two men, excepting partial recollections from letters written well after the event. However, This article says clearly that they met in the City Hall. I have no idea what that building was in 1822, as the current Palacio Municipal was built a century later. But if you can find out what the City Hall was in 1822, they would have met there. --Jayron32 11:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The Spanish wiki article you link suggests the city hall was a building called "Casa Consistorial", inaugurated as the city government building in 1817 and eventually deliberately demolished by burning in 1908. The location given for this city hall is on the old site of the Mercado de Abastos, between Calle Real (now Calle Pichincha) and the river. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone with a diplomatic visa ever tried to use it to become an illegal immigrant?

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

According to this, 629,000 people overstayed the terms of their visa in the year 2016. The largest number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are thus those who came to the country on a legal visa, but stayed longer than the terms allowed. The number of people who enter the country under no visa and stay permanently is much smaller than those who entered under a valid visa and simply stayed after it expired. So, if you count 629,000 in one year as "anyone" then the answer is "yes". --Jayron32 15:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Uhm, the OP specifically asked about diplomatic visa, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In that case, it is still a number greater than zero (which is what "anyone" means), per this. --Jayron32 15:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It happens sometimes, diplomats are usually privileged enough to be able to emigrate pretty smoothly through normal means, but not always.

Thae Yong-ho was in the news last year. He was a North Korean diplomat in London, but defected to the South Korea. ApLundell (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That isn't always so. Many people who are on a "diplomatic visa" may not be high-level diplomats, for example an office intern who is on a six-month diplomatic visa to work doing light filing and clerical work for the embassy. When his term of employment expires, and his visa is no longer valid, if he stays behind, he's now not in that country legally. The link I provided above shows clear evidence that people have had that happen to them. --Jayron32 16:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, the families of diplomats, including minor children, who live with the diplomat during their posting generally enter on diplomatic passports as well. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Is the U.S. allowing Syrian Muslims but not Syrian Christians to immigrate? Why?

From [14]:

Donald Trump: Do you know four years ago Malcom, I was with a man who does this for a living. He was telling me, before the migration, that if you were a Christian from Syria, you had no chance of coming to the United States. Zero. They were the ones being persecuted. When I say persecuted, I mean their heads were being chopped off. If you were a Muslim we have nothing against Muslims, but if you were a Muslim you were not persecuted at least to the extent – but if you were a Muslim from Syria that was the number one place to get into the United States from. That was the easiest thing. But if you were a Christian from Syria you have no chance of getting into the United States. I just thought it was an incredible statistic. Totally true – and you have seen the same thing. It is incredible.

Washington Post: While a relatively small percentage of Syrian Christian refugees have been admitted to the United States, The Post's Fact Checker found that Trump's suggestion that they face discrimination is false ...

Washington Post: While it's accurate to say that a small percentage of Syrian Christian refugees have been admitted to the United States, The Post's Fact Checker found that the reason for this disparity is unclear.

(Turnbull talked about a program to take mostly Syrian Christian refugees) To me the "Fact Checker" seems rather inconsistent, and not very convincing. Is there a way to shed light on this statistic? Wnt (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

[15] [16] [17] [18] has some more discussion. I think the simple answer is that no one is sure why the disparity exists although there are several issues which are likely contributing factors, and there's no evidence it arises due to religious discrimination against Christians on the part of the US refugee process, and no one has presented any evidence for such discrimination. [19] while explicitly an opinion piece and from the Heritage Foundation so not exactly a neutral source may also be of interest. P.S. To be clear, the disparity here is between estimates of the Syrian christian population and their percentage of US Syrian refugees. The fact that they are a small percent is not in itself surprising without considering such factors any more than the fact there are probably zero "white" Somali refugees but plenty of "black" ones is evidence of discrimination by the US refugee programme against "white" Somalis. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, it's difficult to tell what Trump is talking about at the best of times, but here if he means "if you were a Muslim you were not persecuted at least to the extent" in Syria, that is obviously untrue as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

One final comment have you actual read the WP's fact checker? I originally assumed you did but I'm now starting to wonder if you only read the summary you mentioned above since it's not directly linked in the transcript page and you also didn't link to it. If you didn't it's here [20]. I didn't link to it earlier because of the aforementioned assumption. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

D'oh! No, I had not realized there was a separate column. (Though your references above were even more enlightening) Wnt (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The majority of Syrian refugees outside of Syria are Sunnis. Christians in Syria, even if they have reason to hate the Assad government, are extremely wary of Islamic religious extremism, and of lending support to anything which might lead to Islamic extremist rule. Sunnis often perceive Christians to be pro-Assad (and many Christians do see Assad as being at least the lesser of two evils). As was said above, the exact reasons for the disparity in admitted refugees are unknown, but it's been speculated that Christians sometimes do not feel safe going to Sunni-dominated camps where they could be registered with the UNHCR, which is a preliminary step towards being considered for asylum. Some seem to go to Christian areas of Lebanon instead... AnonMoos (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The Trump administration seems to have targeted one group of Middle Eastern Christian refugees already admitted to the US for deportation: [21]... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that 4 years ago was prior to the rise of ISIL. Before that, Christians weren't particularly persecuted in Syria, it was enemies of Assad, who were mainly Sunni Muslims, who were the main group persecuted. So, at that time, it would make sense that most of the people being granted asylum from Syria would be Muslim. StuRat (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Custody battles lost by both parents

In the US, how common are custody battles where both parents want custody of the child, but custody is ultimately awarded to neither of them (e.g. with the judge granting custody to an aunt or uncle, or decreeing that the child be put up for adoption)? NeonMerlin 22:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't mention the time frame, so I will suggest this: http://www3.uakron.edu/witt/father/parke7.htm

In 90% of divorce cases, the custody of the children goes to the mother, while in only 10% the custody goes to the father. This implies that in 0% of cases, the custody goes to a different person. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Custody does sometimes go to other parties, so that stat must be strictly of the cases where the only contestants are the father and mother. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe it's because custody to other parties in divorce cases is so rare it's within the margin of error.... Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

In the UK, removing a child from the care of their parent(s) is an entirely distinct procedure from a divorce settlement, and I suspect that would be the same in the US. Alansplodge (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

See American Common Law. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That neither mentions divorce, nor emancipation of minors, nor disownment, nor Child Protective Services, nor any other means by which a child may be legally separated from the responsibility of their parents. --Jayron32 11:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The link to "American Common Law" is supposed to supplement Alansplodge's contribution. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

When custody is awarded to someone other than the parents it's for good reason: [22] 86.136.177.211 (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

August 4

J W Armstrong who professed urine therapy

The Urine therapy article states that John W. Armstrong was the most important name for urine therapy. His book The Water of Life: A treatise on urine therapy, is said to have been published in 1944. A Google search yielded no result for the book earlier than a 1970s edition. There is no biographical material available on the author. I have heard some rationalists claiming that there never was such an author; that the book was invented by some Indian guy belonging to some sect practising urine therapy. No online source mentioning him is on sure grounds. The language in the book (available on Google books) sounds old fashioned and could have been an imitation. Anybody can throw light on this? --117.253.184.183 (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Differences in transport disciplines

What's the difference between transport planning, transport engineering, transport scheme sponsorship, transport policy development, transport programme development and transport programme/project delivery? These all seem to be similar? 82.132.236.20 (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Planning is choosing goals and defining a path to achieve those goals. Engineering is designing some tangible thing, like a road or automobile. Policy is legal and regulatory framework. Program management is overseeing a large project with many moving parts. Wikipedia has no articles on scheme sponsorship, and I'm not familiar with that term, so I can't answer to it. The differences between these disciplines are stark and wide and I'm not sure how they could be confused with each other, as they have little overlap; some are technical fields, some are management fields, and some are governance fields. Your question feels like asking "How is an apple different from Hinduism". There's not a point of commonality from which we can start to compare differences! --Jayron32 15:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Genghis Khan and crosscontinental migration?

I was browsing through an old reference book today, and I was surprised to find it unequivocally state the following: "1206: Genghis Khan becomes leader of the Mongols. His conquests cause some tribes to migrate from Kamchatka to Alaska." Is there any truth to this? A bit of googling doesn't bring up anything to confirm this, and my understanding is that movement across the Bering Strait (landbridge or otherwise) ended a few thousand years beforehand. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Doubtfull because the Mongols didnt even conquer the northern parts above their origin. They didnt go near the arctic circle anywhere. Since the main aim of conquering in that time was usually robbing and/or enslaving other civilisations, it would not have made much sense to go that far north or to Alaska because there was no civilisation to enslave or rob of their accumulated riches there in that time. However, since they actually tried to invade Japan twice, they clearly could have gone to Alaska too. They certainly send their scouts and spys as far as they could so they probably knew quite well Alaska was just wildness and arctic desert. --Kharon (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

... but how would they have travelled there to find out? Dbfirs 06:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Presumably... in boats. Blueboar (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Battlefield anecdote

I am trying to verify a battlefield anecdote. I added it here:[23], and the source that I used is certainly notable and reliable, but this incident falls under "too good to be true" (IMHO). Although WP prefers secondary sources, I would like to find a more contemporary source to verify. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4890:FAC5:8AED:1CC9 (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Too good to be true, but true nonetheless. You can see a transcript of a draft of Washington's covering letter here at the website of the National Archives and Records Administration. --Antiquary (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for adding the citation to the article. This could make an interesting addition to the 'Did you know...' section of the main page (but this is beyond my purview). — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4890:FAC5:8AED:1CC9 (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Data on how people decide on moral scenarios

I'm doing some research in ethical philosophy and I'm looking for some actual data on how people respond to ethical scenarios. I mean things like the trolley problem and Moral Foundations Theory (MFT). I know that MFT has a web site but I've never been able to find any of the actual data on their experiments. I would also be interested in any experimental results regarding hunter gatherers, most severe taboos, etc. Also, I'm wondering are there any public domain repositories for this kind of social science/anthropology data I could be searching through? Thanks in advance for any suggestions. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You are lucky. There is even an complete science branch dedicated to this. You can find it hidden behind the term Game theory. --Kharon (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)