Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:00, 11 December 2017

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

December 4

Messer

In The Book of the Courtier, the author refers to a "messer Cesare" a lot. What does "messer" mean in this case? I don't see it anywhere on Messer, nor on the messer Wiktionary entry. PseudoSkull (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1]: From Italian messere, (before a title) messer, title of respect given to persons of importance, especially jurors, notaries, etc. from French mes sire. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:en:messer#Italian or wikt:en:messere#Italian. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of left–right distinction: political and spatial criteria

Hello, I think that there is an inconsistency in some articles (Left–right political spectrum, Left-wing politics, Right-wing politics) regarding the origin of the left–right distinction. According to the cited articles, the distinction dates back to the Estates General of 1789, when the "the anti-monarchist Montagnard and Jacobin deputies from the Third Estate generally sat to the left" of the president point o view, and "the nobility, members of the Second Estate, generally sat to the right".

However, according to the French articles about the Parliement of France (see fr:Parlement français, fr:Liste des législatures françaises, fr:États généraux de 1789 etc.), in 1789, the nobility sat on the left, the Third Estate on the center, and the clergy on the right. Thus, the distinction at that time existed only in political terms, with the "left"/Third Estate and the "right"/nobility/clergy, but it did not yet exist in "spatial" terms, that is, of placement of the groups in the French Parliament.

It seems that only after 1791 (see fr:Assemblée nationale législative (Révolution française), with Jacobins-Girondins on the left, and Feuillants on the right, the distinction really emerged in spatial terms.

Later, in 1792 (see fr:Convention nationale), Jacobins-Montagnards became the new left, and Jacobin-Girondins turned to be the new right. Zorahia (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with what an article says and what it says is cited then you've got to show the citations has been misinterpreted or there is a reliable citation saying something else. We can't research things ourselves for putting in articles - that is called WP:OR. ARe you asking if someone can check up the citation against what you think or have you some better citation? You should also put your worry onto the talk page of a relevant article. The template dubious can also be put into the article after the sentence as in {{dubious|talk page section name}} if one really is concerned that wa is there is wrong and have good reason to think otherwise.Dmcq (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one source outside of Wikipedia. --Jayron 32 15:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another. --Jayron 32 15:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

Distribution by birthday

Are there any references available for %births by day of the year, either globally or preferably by country? (Is there a peak 9 months after Dec 25 or ...? -- SGBailey (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted some data for the US at the bottom of this thread in 2006. Unfortunately the link to "this article" at ScienceNews no longer works. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Indy article has some information for the UK.--Phil Holmes (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This data is by raw rank, not % on each day. Still looking. --Jayron 32 13:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article [2] gives some data about the US (by month, rather than by day) and compares it with Japan - where a preference for spring weddings seems to have an effect. There are also some UN data tables [3] showing births per month for a lot of countries (though not for all - some may not be keeping the data). China and India are not on the list, but it would be interesting to compare areas with different religions, climates and hemispheres to see what effect that might have. Wymspen (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one but teens, college students, and people in non-Western countries have sex on Dec 25. (Those were the days!) Parents are too tired from the night before and getting up at dawn, and adults are too full and/or drunk after 4pm. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most college students are home for the holidays and staying in their childhood bedroom with their parents in the next room. Christmas day sex would be a bit tough on the family dynamic... --Jayron 32 13:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I grew up in a more liberal area with larger houses. Then there was that Christmas when my parents went to Mexico, and they wondered why I didn't go with them. In any case, my point was that if the idea is that most people are bunnying their brains out on the 25th, it ignores parents being overstuffed and worn out. My dad's favorite tactic was to get my mom drunk on the boat, but that was from may to september, since the boat was on the Great Bay. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 6

Forest dweller, jungle man, you get the idea...

The concept of people who living in the forest or jungle seems to be a popular theme in stories. Such people live really natural lifestyles. They live in the forest or jungle naked and they eat everything fresh and raw. But is there such a thing as a forest man or jungle man in real life? Dominicrepublican (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, Orangutan means "forest man". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course.[4] There are still tribes out there that haven't yet contacted what we laughingly call "civilization". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that’s not quite what I had in mind. It’s close though. But what I’m thinking about is, are there any “true” forest or jungle people, as in those who completely live and behave like nature’s animals? For example, having no experience of human language? Dominicrepublican (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People in groups don't live or act like animals. Why would they? Perhaps you're thinking of feral children? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to why would they, the answer is because living or acting like an animal is the natural thing to do. Animals don’t cut open their food with blades or daggers, they rip off chunks of it with their teeth. If you’re hungry, all you need is a mouth, no blades or daggers. Dominicrepublican (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be missing some essential connections between facts. Humans and human ancestors have been using stone tools for over 2 million years, including all or almost all the time that genus homo has been in existence. Compared to chimpanzees, modern humans lack large canine teeth, solidly-anchored jaw muscles etc. which make many kind of tool-less eating more feasible... AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sure there were humans who never used stone tools. It is quite possible for humans to eat without tools. Bear Grylls has done it when eating a fresh snake whose head he buried in the sand after decapitating it, and Louis Cole has done it when eating a fresh roadkill rabbit. Dominicrepublican (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birds, chimps, etc. can and do use tools. So your scenario about living like an animal without tools doesn't make a lot of sense. Humans will create/use them at every opportunity; that's in our nature. We do without tools only as a very last resort (or for a reality TV show). There may be some perverse masochist out that who insists on eschewing tools of any sort, but it's simply not natural for homo sap (and just begging for a Darwin Award). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically referring to the use of tools to cut open food, not the use of tools in general. Dominicrepublican (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominicrepublican -- You're still not getting it. Human bodies have been shaped over millions of years of evolution by offloading tasks from the body on its own to the body plus tools. Chimpanzees have very solidly-anchored jaw muscles capable of delivering strong bite force because they do all their processing of food directly with their body (aside from the occasional erratic smashing of nuts with stones). Humans have a weaker bite force because we systematically do processing of food with tools, fire, etc. It's similar with a lot of other things. We don't have fur because we offloaded keeping warm when it's cold to clothes made with tools. If you eliminate fire, language, systematic and intensive use of tools etc., then humans would be at a great disadvantage. A few young and strong carefully-trained individuals may be able to live like that in isolation for a certain time, but it's no way for a human group to thrive and flourish... AnonMoos (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a human group can not thrive and flourish without processing food with fire, etc., then are there currently any young and strong individuals who are living in such a way in the forest or jungle naked in isolation in real life? Dominicrepublican (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who brought up Bear Grylls; you probably know a lot more about him than I do, since I haven't seen a minute of his show... AnonMoos (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominicrepublican -- using language and having control over fire are part of what it means to compose a human group. Without these, humans would have few advantages compared to a number of other species. If you're interested in folklore rather than real science/anthropology, then we have article Wild man... -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems we even have a Category:Uncontacted peoples. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which confuses me... if no one has contacted these peoples, how do we know about them? (or at least, how do we know enough to write an article?) Blueboar (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontacted Tribe - Human Planet: Jungles - BBC One Bus stop (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Uncontacted peoples, "Knowledge of the existence of these groups comes mostly from infrequent and sometimes violent encounters with neighboring tribes, and from aerial footage." Clarityfiend (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar -- in the case of the Sentinelese, everybody knows where they are, but they're not integrated into civilization. AnonMoos (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. there are a lot of "survival shows" that purport to demonstrate that people can starve for seven days in almost any environment. To spice them up, some of them become longer and longer, more abusive, more medical interventions etc. I've often longed to see a survival show where the contestants actually get native assistance from local tribesmen, or at least, we get to watch local tribesmen watch the video of the contestants and laugh at them and say "you missed this ... you ate THAT?" I feel sure there is a local technology to every place, and that includes at "primitive" modes of hunting and gathering. Any one know, is there any show in history that has taken that approach? (Honestly I think we're seeing the reverse ... nowadays natives themselves in documentaries always come back from "unsuccessful hunts"; I don't believe they really are that bad at hunting -- I think that the PETA freaks just can't tolerate the notion of one of them succeeding and/or a film crew getting it on tape) Wnt (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are now pampered ghosts of our former selves to varying degrees and in a variety of different ways. Bus stop (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds a bit like you are talking about the concept of the savage, which etymologically literally means "of the woods", although doesn't usually imply quite such an animalistic lifestyle as you are talking about. (I'm surprised we don't have an article on the subject, as historically it was an important aspect of how "civilized" peoples saw "the other"). In mediaeval thought, there was also the Wild man, which does seem closer to what you are describing, I don't think is such a common theme in more recent stories. Iapetus (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, if being a “savage” doesn’t usually imply the lifestyle I’m talking about, then that means a savage (and likely modern hunter-gatherers) could be considered a “civilized man” as well. The non-civilized man would be the “wild man”, and the civilized man would be the modern hunter-gatherer tribesman (the “savage”) and businessman. Yes, I think a “wild man” is what I was describing. I guess I’m looking for a human who is not civilized at all. Modern hunter-gatherers, on the other hand, are a bit civilized. Dominicrepublican (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primitive Technology is one of the most successful youtube channels. According to the maker he is probably a "parttime jungle man", if that is good enough for you. --Kharon (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Savage - barbarian - civilisation is covered under the Three-age system. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Savages" in that sense is basically an old-fashioned way of referring to stone-tool-using hunter-gatherers, and has little to do with what Dominicrepublican is asking about... AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have a decent article on the term Barbarian and the various "uncivilized" or "primitive" groups called this by the Greeks and Romans. However these so-called barbarians still lived in organized societies or tribes, had their own languages or even literate elites, had metallurgy comparable to their "civilized" opponents, and took part in complex trade networks of antiquity. And of course we have people like the prolific writer Lucian who called themselves barbarians due to their descent, while otherwise assimilated into the Greco-Roman civilization. Dimadick (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

don't understand this sentence

hello people, today my janitor told me the following: "During the winter months, demand for heating oil tends to be price-inelastic." I have no idea what this signifies. Does anybody have a short explanation? Thanks! --91.5.22.157 (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Elasticity (economics) can get pretty detailed, but basically it means people will buy pretty much the same amount no matter what the price is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's some highfalutin janitor! Clarityfiend (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started my career as a janitor, and ended up as a Wikipedia administrator 45 years later. Demand for bread and milk is price inelastic, while demand for new luxury cars is price elastic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying you have't changed jobs in 45 years? Matt Deres (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

More correctly, Matt Deres, I used a literal mop back then and a figurative mop these days. I was far better paid back then, because $3.75 per hour in 1972 dollars plus union fringe benefits is much better than zero dollars and zero cents and no t-shirts recently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

independent vote breakdown in 2016 US presidential primaries

In some states (rules varied by state and party), independent voters (those not enrolled in a party) were allowed to vote in party primaries. I had no luck finding a breakdown of which candidates they preferred, but I'm sure the info exists somewhere. E.g. I'd like to know whether Trump did better among independents than he did among Republican regulars, or maybe vice versa, etc. Any advice? This is just about major parties--I'm not too concerned about how things went in the minor ones. Thanks. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, while we might know how many Independents voted in a Republican primary, we don’t know which of several Republican candidates a given person voted for. For example, an independent voter might have voted in the last Republican presidential primary because he supported Trump... BUT another independent might have decided to vote in the Republican primary in a failed attempt to OPPOSE Trump (by voting for another Republican, such as Marco Rubio or Dennis Kucinich). Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for Dennis Kucinich in a Republican primary!?! older ≠ wiser 11:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opps... sorry. Got my losing candidates mixed up... I meant John Kasich. How soon we forget. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best poll aggregation sites is FiveThirtyEight.com. I would check in their archives first when researching this information. --Jayron 32 12:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two sites with extensive data are [The Green Papers] and [United States Elections Project].DOR (HK) (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, sure, we don't get to see the votes since it's a secret ballot, but usually they get reasonably accurate numbers by polling, especially exit polls. DOR and Jayron, thanks, I'll check those links. I think I already did look on 538 but I'll check again. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a well-formed subject since in states with open primaries asking for a party's ballot is the only party "enrollment" (or everyone could be considered an independent). Rmhermen (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 7

Subscription based app for short classic sci-fi stories

I've been reading some of my dad's extensive collection of old sci-fi paperbacks, many of which are collections of short stories. They are mostly quite obscure by now (quite a few are books he stumbled upon in charity shops, decades ago) but they seem perfect for a "read a different 10 minute short story every day" app, probably with a subscription charge since they would still be copyrighted (mostly dating from the 1950s and 60s). Something like TED talks in the way that a new one would be presented every day, but still text based. Does anything like that already exist? I'm asking because I wonder if it's something I could try to make myself. I quite fancy the challenge of coding an app, and while I don't know anything about licencing yet, surely the worst a rightsholder could do is say no? I'd even type up the stories for them. 129.67.119.159 (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'HOOKED' by Telepathic, Inc. is similar to your concept. It formats "short stories [in the] form of text message conversations. Instead of turning pages, you tap the screen to bring on the next message" —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E0C2:7665:8339:5B1F (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just yahoo or google "sci-fi repository". --Kharon (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Season of goodwill

The blurb for this book [5] says:

Religion for Atheists suggests that rather than mocking religions, agnostics and atheists should instead steal from them - because they're packed with good ideas on how we might live and arrange our societies. Blending deep respect with total impiety, de Botton (a non-believer himself) proposes that we should look to religions for insights into, among other concerns, how to:

Build a sense of community

Make our relationships last

Overcome feelings of envy and inadequacy

Escape the twenty-four-hour media world

Go travelling

Get more out of art, architecture and music

And create new businesses designed to address our emotional needs.

Is this completely new or has it been done before? Some Jews observe Christmas (e.g. they bring a Christmas tree into their homes) although for the ultra-observant when Christmas Day falls on Saturday (as last happened in 2010) it's just another sabbath. What about agnostics and atheists? Many non-believers attend choral evensong and Christmas services in cathedrals for the music. Most of the Christmas traditions have been imported from Germany. What did the Nazis think of Christmas? Did they go to church? We have Holidays in Nazi Germany and there's some information here:[6] and here:[7]. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing new under the sun. The ethical movements or societies of the C19 borrowed plenty from the Christian churches around them: Sunday meetings, communal singing, activities for children, support for one another at life's crisis points. Secular humanism has some of its roots in the ethical movement, and the International Humanist and Ethical Union still exists. The Sunday Assembly, approaching its fifth anniversary, has for some years been meeting at Conway Hall; its founders were clear that they wanted to take what was good from religions^[1] - call it stealing or borrowing, as you wish. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pigott, Robert (1 November 2013). "Doing church without God". BBC News. Retrieved 7 December 2017.

The link to the history of the South Place Ethical Society is interesting. Eldon Street and South Place run west from Liverpool Street Station. The church was built on the north side of Eldon Street. The northern boundary of the City of London ran down the middle of the road, but a few years ago the southern tip of the neighbouring borough of Hackney was transferred to the City. It thereby gained its first and only Roman Catholic church, and I can now see why. Auguste Comte proposed the building of atheist churches in France and the "Positivist calendar" to replace the Gregorian. This was shortly after the attempt to de-Christianise France and the introduction of the "French Revolutionary Calendar". None of these ideas caught on. 92.8.221.62 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moorfields, being just outside the City, had its own flavour. From Finsbury Square: "It has also been <snip> the first home of the rabbinical seminary that became the London School of Jewish Studies (1855–81), of the Greek Orthodox church of Saint Sophia and of the Roman Catholic Church of St Mary Moorfields (1820–1900)." I think the London Institution might have had something to do with it too. The advantages of living on the edge. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley's Chapel is nearby, opposite Bunhill Fields, a burial ground that was never consecrated by the Church of England and was therefore the resting place of choice for Nonconformists and atheists. Alansplodge (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may be interested in Unitarian Universalism, which as a religion doesn't even mandate a belief in God, merely a desire to aid congregants in a search for their own spiritual growth. UU grows out of a Christian tradition, but there are similar faiths which grew out of other traditions, i.e. Bahá'í Faith which grew out of Islam. Though unlike UU, Baha'i is expressly theistic, it still fits broadly into the Liberal religion end of the spectrum. --Jayron 32 01:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that the Bahá'í Faith is an offshoot of Islam (like Yazidism). That would explain why it is proscribed in Persia. Wesley's Chapel is where Jimbo married, (with Tony Blair in attendance). On the other side of Bunhill Row from Bunhill Fields is Quaker Gardens, a short walk from Quaker Court, where the meeting is held. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can read about the historical connections between Baha'i and Islam at History of the Bahá'í Faith, you can see it's an offshoot of the Iranian Twelver Shi'a sect. --Jayron 32 11:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Up to a point it seems to overlap with the concept of the Cultural Christian. Atheists, agnostics, and people of various religious beliefs who are not strictly Christian, but still adhere to Christian values and appreciate or support Christian culture. Dimadick (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the subject has come up, and since the OP cites a British author, Alain de Botton, it might be geographically more useful to point to British Unitarians. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester College, Oxford is a Unitarian foundation and use of its chapel for Sunday Unitarian worship [8] is secured by Royal Charter. Unlike Ruskin College, however, it's part of the University and it recently changed its name to Harris Manchester College. There doesn't seem to be much commitment - there will be no service on Christmas Eve, while over at the Shrewsbury Unitarian Church would-be worshippers are informed:

"Please note our service on Sunday 10 December 2017 has been cancelled due to deteriorating weather."

Apparently there was a "brouhaha" last year about whether a Unitarian minister who described himself as "an atheist" could do "Thought for the Day" on the BBC on Boxing Day. 92.27.49.50 (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can find further information, including full references, at Andrew Pakula. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newington Green is my local Unitarian church. It used to have a long banner outside reading "A Buddhist, a Jew and a Muslim went into a church ..." I never stopped to find out the punchline. 92.8.221.62 (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See here. There is no punchline because it is not a joke. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 8

SCOTUS rulings on school desegregation, 1956

While looking through church meeting minutes, I discovered that the meeting supported "the action of the Supreme Court of the United States on desegregation". The date is 9 June 1956, the same day as President Eisenhower's surgery after he almost died of intestinal inflammation. Were there any SCOTUS rulings on the subject in 1956, or should I take this as a reference to Brown v. Board and associated rulings? Category:United States school desegregation case law doesn't appear to have any articles about post-Brown and pre-June 1956 rulings. My Google searches are being heavily skewed by results for Browder v. Gayle, related to desegregation on school buses, which the district court decided four days earlier, and which didn't have SCOTUS involvement except for denying cert six months later. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's got to be the Brown v. Board of Education and related cases. The article itself notes continuing cases into 1955, including the so-called "Brown II" ruling that included the deliberate speed doctrine. --Jayron 32 01:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the largest company in Transdnistria?

The article on Sheriff (company) states in the first paragraph that it is the second largest company in the (unrecognised) country of Transdnistria. So who is number one? It's quite a small place, and I had assumed Sheriff was the biggest private firm by a large margin. 82.55.122.128 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your searches may be skewed by your spelling; it's Transnistria. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search found this book, which basically reprints Wikipedia articles, so with it I found the answer in the Transnistria article. In short, Moldova Steel Works paid more taxes than literally the rest of Transnistria put together (it was responsible for 60% of state revenues, versus 40% from all other sources), so I'm sure that it's the largest company in Transnistria. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't mortgage payments usually increase with inflation?

At least I don't think they do. If the bank doesn't trust the government of 2037 to report accurately or its better for the accounting if future values are known then couldn't it make the payments 601/600ths of the previous month or so? I'm not complaining, I just wonder why it's done one way and not the other. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They do if you have a Adjustable-rate mortgage, but only indirectly: lenders charge higher interest when there's greater inflation. Of course, it's illegal for lenders to raise interest rates or to adjust the amount of principal required, unless it's in the original contract; I can speculate on the reasons why contracts normally don't permit this, but that's not what a reference desk is for, so you'll have to wait for someone more knowledgeable on that. Please note that avoiding high payments has often been the reason for people urging governments to inflate their currency; see our Free silver article (and Cross of Gold speech), which discusses proponents' advocacy of inflation partly because it would raise prices and thus make it easier for them to repay loans. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that these costs are incorporated into mortgages. For standard fixed-rate mortgages of a given amount, a longer term will have a higher interest rate than a shorter term; part of this difference is to account for future uncertainty with respect to prevailing interest rates. Further, fixed-rate mortgages have higher rates than the initial portions of adjustable-rate mortgages; in that case, the customer is paying the extra interest early as a hedge against future uncertainty. In short, why? Some do. Those that do not are priced accordingly because customers are willing to pay for that assurance, not because lenders have a particular need to not track the current interest rate.

Further, I would expect (but don't know) that major lenders of fixed-rate products are in turn taking out fixed-rate loans themselves at slightly better rates to hedge. So rather than lending at (making up numbers, but vaguely reasonable ones) 4% and trusting that inflation will keep that profitable for 30 years, a bank might lend at 4% and simultaneously borrow at 3% to lock in that 1% difference as income regardless of the future performance of the economy. — Lomn 21:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Graduated payment mortgage loan. Loraof (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you change "higher" to "hwigher"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t know that I did—a slip of the finger on a touchy keypad. Loraof (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banks actually don't need that. In the worst case they will bluntly cancel the contract arguing else they would have to file for bankruptcy, which of course also would cancel all contracts. So Lenders can easily be forced into a new deal more favorable for the bank since in this sense, in the end, the bank is always able to cause a Foreclosure, no matter the lender fulfilled his part of the contract, his payments, without flaw and is willing and able to continue that.

In fact this is just yet another proof for the well known international proverb: The Bank always wins! --Kharon (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bank is the lender; the homeowner is the borrower. How would the bank's merely unilateral threatening to go bankrupt allow it to pressure the borrower to pay more? If, as you say, the contracts were actually voided, then the obligation of the borrower to pay would be voided. That's not how it would work. The bank would go into receivership and its loans would be taken over by another party under bankruptcy court supervision. This is all highly regulated legal and financial business that needs to be addressed by a lawyer or financial advisor. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 9

Money supply (GBP)

How do I find out the value of all Pound sterling in issue? Specifically in digital form and physical (cash) combined, and secondly just the cash figure alone. Can I rightly assume that Gibraltar pounds, Jersey pounds, Guernsey pounds etc would not be included in that metric as they are issued by overseas jurisdictions despite them being essentially pegged at parity with Pound sterling? Many Thanks --Uhooep (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statista, maybe? E.g.: "Value of banknotes in circulation in the UK 2014-2017". Statista. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:CCFA:802A:8BDD:BA79 (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Money supply. Only the physical cash is known because the virtual cash, generated in banks and stock markets is for parts Stateless, at best estimated, because the Shadow banking system, tax havens and connected financial constructions and now also the crypto-currencies are beyond the reach of governments by design (and political will). --Kharon (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian constitutional amendments, c. 1960

Same church meeting minutes situation as the SCOTUS rulings, but now I'm up to 1961. In one meeting, someone proposes that the church's stated position on Canadian politics be revised "in light of the revisions of the Canadian Constitution"; given the context, it's got to be something religious-related, and I suppose that it's something shortly before the summer of 1961. What could be meant? Constitution Act, 1867 doesn't mention amendments, its sidebar links to Amendments to the Constitution of Canada, which only addresses post-patriation amendments and points me to the Constitution Act, 1867 for pre-1982 amendments. British North America Acts mentions nothing within the last decade of 1961, aside from matters that the church isn't talking about: old age pensions, House of Commons apportionment, and retirement ages for judges. And List of Canadian constitutional documents mentions the BNA Acts and a bunch of repeals (none of which occurred between 1898 and 1970), but that's it. In the meeting, the issue's raised by an American who'd temporarily lived in Canada a quarter century before, so the revisions in question are apparently not some minor thing. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Amendments to the Constitution of Canada, you missed the table of Pre-1982 amendments to the Constitution, which shows a Constitution Act, 1960. You can see this here, and I've just corrected the table to show that it amends section 99. Now I have at hand A Consolidation of the Constitution Acts: 1867 to 1982 (ISBN 0-660-60969-X), printed in 1999, which includes footnotes showing the acts as they appeared before each amendment. From this I see that the amendment just added 99(2) and the cross-reference to it from 99(1), thus imposing an age limit of 75 on superior-court judges.

Well, that doesn't seem likely to be at all relevant to religious-related politics, but I can't see any other amendments in the list from 1949 until 1960 that would be either. So I don't know what they're talking about, unless it's something either (a) even less recent, or (b) missing from that table of amendments. Sections 21 and 22 are about the Senate, the change in 91 was about amending power, 118 was about certain payments from the federal to the provincial governments, 94A is about pensions, and 51 is about the apportionment of House of Commons seats to provinces. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they were still concerned about SCOTUS decisions, they may have felt that mandatory retirement of senile judges was a good idea. Wymspen (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We were not talking about the US. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, it was a different topic; they didn't care about judge retirements. The SCOTUS bit was related to their support for racial integration, regardless of whether it were done by judges or legislatures or executives. I'm left guessing that the proposer was confused. Thanks! Nyttend backup (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went to find a little more data, and I ended up discovering more details: the subject is the Canadian Bill of Rights. The proposal gets referred to a committee, which describes it as a "recently adopted bill of rights appended to the British-North American Act which recognizes that their government acknowledges of the supremacy of God", seemingly a reference to the preamble. I see that the act today is considered quasi-constitutional, at best; at the time, was it considered to be constitutional, or should I expect that the proposer has misunderstood its import? Nyttend backup (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains it. The Bill of Rights was just an ordinary law, not a constitutional amendment. A big deal was made of this distinction when the Canadian Charter of Rights was put in the constitution. Unfortunately, the Notwithstanding Clause vitiates much of the strength of the Charter, and this was not made a big deal of. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

Christian restorationist sects and how similar they are to the Apostolic Age and other sects in Early Christianity

Following on my earlier question on Early Christianity, based on what is currently known from an archaeological and historical perspective, what practices and beliefs of Christian restorationist groups (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Adventists, Iglesia ni Cristo, etc.) are known to have actually been practiced during the Apostolic Age, and perhaps during Early Christianity? And following from that, what present day restorationist and non-restorationist churches have the most similar beliefs and practices to Apostolic Age Christianity? I'm aware that per the previous question, Early Christianity was diverse and there wasn't really a single unified sect called "Christianity" yet at the time, so I'm limiting this question to the Apostolic Age and perhaps some time after, as most restorationist churches claim to restore Christianity to a state "similar to the Christianity of Jesus and his apostles" (paraphrased) and refer to the Apostolic Age in their writings. Also, the question can also refer to specific sects during the Apostolic Age in addition to general themes and activities. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very strongly skeptical -- the early church seems to have been strongly opposed to the kind of "date-setting" which was the predominant force among Millerites (who were the origin of Adventism and had a significant influence on the development of JW's, who continued the "date-setting" tradition well into the second half of the 20th century). Also, the strong emphasis in Christianity after non-Jewish converts became predominant was to only require Christians to obey "moral" commandments of traditional Jewish law (not "ritual" or "ceremonial" commandments -- you can see the beginnings of this in Bible verse Acts 21:25), so the kind of interpretation which led to the JW ban on blood transfusion (something which has never been a part of actual Jewish interpretations of Jewish law, by the way) would contradict this. And Mormons use the title of "elder" to refer to teenagers. If they want to be originalist, then they should use the word "elder" for actual elders... AnonMoos (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and similar smaller churches (i.e. "Mormons") have many innovations and surprising ideas (like the 10 Lost Tribes of Israelites became Native Americans) not supported by non-Mormon evidence though they'd probably say it just hasn't been found yet. Jehovah's Witnesses say their Bible ("New World Translation") is supernaturally corrected but their Bible doesn't agree with everyone else's. Non-Witnesses would say they just went through an existing Bible with no supernatural knowledge of the lost first 1st century manuscripts and changed things every so often (including every non-Yahwist mention of God to Jehovah, which scholars think is a Medieval pronunciation less likely to be the unknown vowels and exact 1st and 3rd consonent of the Tetragrammation than the modern best guess) I don't know enough about Iglesia ni Cristo from a short time on its article to guess how close they are to the original church but there are likely restorationist Christian churches closer to the first church than the other three. It also matters how early a church to go back to because there were changes very early before some of the Bible was even written. Like Peter and many other Christians thinking Gentile Christians should have to follow full Mosaic Law and be circumcised even if they were adults or above the age of memory and that would hurt like hell. In Acts he changed his mind after a sheet came down from heavens with non-kosher animals on it and a voice told him to "kill and eat" and not be bound by prohibitions God doesn't prohibit any more. Atheists of course would say this didn't actually happen and he either hallucinated or the animal sheet was made up (possibly long after he's dead). Or aliens were messing with him. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

"Handmaid's tale" (idiom)

The idiom "handmaid's tale" has a meaning that predates the novel & the film & TV series (etc.). A web search results in a plethora of results for those, but I can't find anything about the meaning of the term itself. Is it nearly synonymous with "old wives' tale" or "water cooler gossip" or "palace intrigue" perhaps? —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:831:EE2:9FFB:76D0 (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC) — Would this be better asked at the Language desk?[reply]

As you see at the article about the novel, the title is a reference to The Canterbury Tales. I'm reasonably sure it was not an existing idiom before the book was written, as you think. See also the explanation here. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went through more than 20 pages of Google Books results without finding anything that didn't relate to Attwood's work. Tower Notes has some more detail about the choice of title besides the Chaucer hommage;

'The term ‘Handmaid’ derives from the Bible: particularly the story of Bilhah and Rachel discussed below, but it also references the Virgin Mary’s designation of herself as ‘the Handmaid of the Lord’ in Luke 1:38. The story of Mary’s complete abnegation of herself in accepting her pregnancy from God is twisted by the Gilead regime into a means of justifying enforced surrogacy on behalf of the powerful'. Alansplodge (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But if you restrict your Google Books search to books (ostensibly) dated before 1985, when Atwood published her novel, like so, you get 23 unique hits, which may be what the OP is talking about. Examining them you find that Google Books has without exception misdated them – a thing they are rather given to doing. Many of them are hits of the blurbs on the back of Cliff's Notes booklets listing, among many others, their notes on Atwood's book, Google Books having dated each booklet by the date of original appearance rather than the date of reprint. A few give no preview and hence can't be used as evidence of anything. The rest mention Atwood by name, or at least use the phrase as the title of a book with an unspecified author who clearly is Atwood. Conclusion: all appearances to the contrary, I don't think the phrase existed before Margaret Atwood. --Antiquary (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"First accounts made up to" & "due by"

A British company description contains the following statements:

Accounts: First accounts made up to 31 July 2018; due by 17 April 2019
Confirmation statement: First statement date 16 July 2018; due by 30 July 2018

The confirmation statement part I have understood by now (would Confirmation statement be worth an article?), but what does the "accounts" section exactly mean? --KnightMove (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every company must prepare annual accounts. The last day of the financial year is usually the anniversary of incorporation, but this can be changed (e.g. there may be tax advantages in ending your financial year shortly after the close of the fiscal year on 5 April). 86.171.242.205 (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Pigott, Robert (1 November 2013). "Doing church without God". BBC News. Retrieved 7 December 2017.

[1]

@@ Line 246: / Line 246: @@
 ::due by 30 July 2018
 The [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/confirmation-statement/confirmation-statement confirmation statement] part I have understood by now (would [[Confirmation statement]] be worth an article?), but what does the "accounts" section exactly mean? --[[User:KnightMove|KnightMove]] ([[User talk:KnightMove|talk]]) 09:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
+:Every company must prepare annual accounts.   The last day of the financial year is usually the anniversary of incorporation, but this can be changed (e.g. there may be tax advantages in ending your financial year shortly after the close of the fiscal year on 5 April). [[Special:Contributions/86.171.242.205|86.171.242.205]] ([[User talk:86.171.242.205|talk]]) 11:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)