Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 21

Why are the North African nations even in the African Union?

Culturally and historically, it looks like they adhere more to the Pan-Arabism thing than to the Pan-Africanism thing. If they identify with Sub-Saharan nations more than their fellow Arabs nations in Western Asia do, that's probably only slightly so. So why are they there? --Qnowledge (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a couple of thinking points:

• The late Muammar Gaddafi was a strong defender of uniting Africa, but not orienting his country toward other Arab countries.
• Morocco was not a member until last year.
• They have common problems with the Sub-Saharan countries like terrorism, immigration, instable governments. It's reasonable to deal with them together.
• Many of them, Arab and non-Arab nations, are ex-colonies. --Hofhof (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Qnowledge -- Some Africans were probably wondering the same thing in the 1970s, when the Organisation of African Unity (as it was then called) seemed to be a lot more consumed by Arab-motivated politics than delivering any concrete practical benefits to its member nations (the absolute low point was of course the 1976 Entebbe raid). However, it would be extremely difficult to draw any geographical line cleanly separating Arabs from "Africans" (impossible if Berbers are included among "Africans" and/or if the line must follow national boundaries only), and the (O)AU seems to have preferred not to try... AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"Morocco was not a member until last year." That was due to a territorial dispute, over the Political status of Western Sahara. Morocco has formally annexed Western Sahara (though it does not actually control the entire area), but the African Union and most of its member states have refused to recognize or support its claim. Instead the Union accepted Morocco's opponent, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, as a full member in 1982. In 1984, Morocco withdrew from the Union in protest. For a few decades (1994-2017) it was the only African state that was not a Union member. The political isolation seemingly cost more to Morocco than it cost the Union. Dimadick (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The OAU seems to nominate African candidates for Secretary General of the UN, when it's that continent's "turn" to have a SG, and Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt was among the OAU's nominees in 1991. See here. So they may consider it worth it to be in the running for that and for Security Council seats.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Etiquette: why shouldn't you tip the owner?

It seems to be a rule that you should tip employees in, but not the owner of, a bar. Why? And does it still work like that? Wild guess: maybe the owner used to be a "peer" to the guest, who should be imbursed for his costs but not for being friendly? Joepnl (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If the tip is for services rendered, then it makes sense that the tip is made to the server (who is the one who deals directly with the customer, in any case). Also, in the United States in some cases, tipped employees can be paid less than minimum wage, so that expected tips are pretty much part of their base wage. For the boss to appropriate tips can be against the law, in such a situation. AnonMoos (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If the worker is not getting decent wages, it's the owner's fault. If the owner is not getting decent wages, it's the owner's fault. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Well put. Tipping the owner would be absurd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• One tips the owner by asking him to the table for a drink, although this is usually in reverse; an owner who knows his good customers personally will often send them drinks or a bottle compliments of the house. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If there's a tip jar, put something in it even if the owner serves you; the contents are shared among the staff. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Tipping bar employees is only a 'rule' in some countries to start with. In many countries staff is actually already paid a living wage. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• If you're worrying at that level, you're overthinking it. In the U.S., you get the tab, add 15-20%, and pay that. If the owner is also the bartender or waiter who served your drinks (possible), it doesn't matter much from you're point of view as a customer; you don't really involve yourself with dispersement of funds, you just add the 15-20% and say "thank you". I go to a barber shop where there are 4 barbers; the one who owns the shop and three others who rent chairs from him. I usually get my hair cut by the owner. I still tip him, because it's customary to tip your barber. I know he's the owner because I've known him for almost 20 years; but most customers wouldn't know and it doesn't really matter. You just do it. --Jayron32 12:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

In Japan for example "no tipping" is even general consensus in any situation. There is a good chance its refused by waiters, waitresses or barman etc. when you try to tip them as foreigner. --Kharon (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Apart from what Medeis stated above, you "tip" the owner by your continued patronage to the establishment in the future. If you had a bad experience at a restaurant, you would likely not return there.--WaltCip (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  I guess, but the point is the level of thinking is just not there when you pay a tab. You don't carefully ask "So, who is getting this money" and then distribute funds to those people directly as you see fit. You get a tab, you look at the number, you add the tip in your head, and you leave that much money. I've never been to a restaurant or bar situation where it was ever more complicated than that. --Jayron32 13:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Tips are for laborers. The owner makes her money from the enterprise as a whole, and chooses how much to pay herself. The tip is for saying "Thanks for smiling and making small talk, sorry you're under the thumb of capitalism and all that." 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if this is US-centric. In the UK tipping is for very good service, going the extra mile, rather than expected. I would tip an owner as well an employee if they did this. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Good waitresses in nice restaurants can easily pull in $600 cash a night, $1,000 a week. Tax free, cash in hand. And I am talking about waitresses in diners and Denny's. This nonsense about we Europeans pay our staff a working wage bee ess is just that. I have eaten in European restaurants, and the service was perfunctory. How many Europeans actually aspire to that job? The statistics about Americans also being the most charitable people in the world seem to fit in with a spirit of generosity on one hand versus duty. I once served a table of 13 foreigners who took up 2/3 of my tables for the entire shift. I got less than $5 in change. They obviously knew about tipping or they would not have littered the table with nickels, but I guess they figured since I wasn't a geisha sitting on their laps I hadn't earned their respect. When in Rome, do as the Romans. μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Marcus H. MacWillie

Marcus H. MacWillie represented the Arizona Territory in the Confederate Congress. I had no idea that the territory sent a representative to Richmond, and I'm not sure where to look; Confederate Congress#Apportionment and representation only mentions state representatives.

Question — was MacWillie a full voting member, similar to a representative from a state? Or was his position more similar to a Delegate (United States Congress), comparable to the positions of individuals in Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Arizona Territory? Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

1st Confederate States Congress and 2nd Confederate States Congress both list him as a non-voting delegate. The articles are referenced to a book; if you can find a copy you might be able to get more information. --Jayron32 13:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Chinese education system in Singapore and Malaysia

I always get these two countries confused. So, Singapore gets the name from a Malay word. There are ethnic Han people in both Singapore and Malaysia. People in Singapore speak English, Singlish, Mandarin, Tamil, and Malay. People in Malaysia speak Malay, Tamil, varieties of Chinese, English, and Manglish. Singapore has the Speak Mandarin campaign, but to my knowledge, Malaysia does not. In Singapore, the Speak Mandarin campaign has greatly decreased the number of regional Chinese speakers, and now people largely speak English. Most people there are also Han, so Mandarin is common there as well. But the education system is just like a foreign language department. In Malaysia, people send their kids to “Chinese-medium primary schools”, or maybe that’s in Singapore? But these schools teach every subject in Mandarin. In Malaysia (or Singapore?), people who are of Han descent but only speak English or Malay are derided as the “bananas”. Though, some people of Han descent in Malaysia seem to only speak Malay, while some people of Han descent in Singapore seem to speak only English. But anyway, has anybody written anything about the differences between the Singaporean and Malaysian Chinese language education system? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The name "Singapore" comes from the Sanskrit for "lion city" (Sanskrit makes a number of modern appearances in the region, such as in "Sukarnoputri", where "putri" is Sanskrit for "daughter"). I don't know the fine details of the various educational systems, but the basic difference between the two countries is that ethnic groups are considered equal in Singapore, and the government there encourages the use of English as an inter-ethnic lingua franca, while Malaysia has an official blood-and-soil racist ideology and constitution according to which only ethnic Malays can be full citizens or "sons of the the soil" (bhumiputra, another Sanskrit word), while all members of other ethnic groups are officially foreigners in a sense, no matter how long their ancestors have lived in the territory of current-day Malaysia... AnonMoos (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Not entirely correct. Although bumiputera is often taken as a synonym for Malay, bumiputera in Sabah and Sarawak has included anyone considered native since the founding of Malaysia. In peninsular Malaysia, the definition has often excluded orang asli, it sounds like things may be changing now although this has not yet included a constitutional change. The definition of Malay requires that they are Muslim, regardless of any other factors. It also theoretically allows someone to become Malay, although how this happens is poorly defined. It is not generally possible to become one of the other Bumiputera, and there is great controversy about government encouraged Malayisation of non-Malay bumiputera. Nil Einne (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. You might be interested in Education in Singapore and Education in Malaysia; we’ve also got Language education in Singapore though not yet Language education in Malaysia. For your specific question in bold, you’d probably like to look through google scholar: https://scholar.google.com for academic studies of the two systems (examples 1 2 3) or google books https://books.google.com (example: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=x3aoBQAAQBAJ]). 70.67.222.124 (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right that in Malaysia, parents are able to send their children to government funded Chinese-medium primary schools (simplified Chinese and Mandarin), assuming they are any in their area. There are also Tamil-medium primary schools although there are a lot less common. There tends to be great controversy about whether the government is funding them sufficiently and opening enough of these schools, and also about excessive government interference or suggestions the government plans to close them. However they are fairly popular, and especially with the rising importance of China, it isn't unheard of for students not of Chinese descent to attend them. For a somewhat extreme example see e.g. [1]. In Malay-medium primary schools, Chinese or Tamil language classes may be offered if there is enough demand although the standards vary. E.g. in my school it was semi-compulsory (if you were of that ethnicity) additional classes on a Saturday. But I believe in some schools it is taught during the normal school day. You do not sit the subject in the Primary School Evaluation Test (Malaysia) (UPSR). After primary school there are only private Chinese-medium secondary schools. Again, if there is enough demand, Chinese language classes should be offered and you could choose to take a an exam for Chinese language at the Penilaian Menengah Rendah and you can still choose to sit one for the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia. That said, in my school although I think over 50% of the students came from Chinese-medium schools, very few continued with Chinese to PMR, and even fewer to the SPM. English is a compulsory subject in all government involved schools in Malaysia, which includes all exams. However the standard of teaching varies and there is often no requirement for any level of performance, unlike there is with Malay. (Although there is now for public universities.) In KL at least, I think it's very rare for someone of Chinese descent to only speak Malay. Most will at least speak English in addition, often in preference to Malay, or perhaps Manglish, and well enough that they can generally be understood by most Malaysians who speak English. At least 20 years ago, it was still very common for people of Chinese descent to converse mostly in the dominant dialect of the area. Or their own dialect if it was among family and friends who speak that dialect. While there was some very minor 'speak Mandarin' push from some teachers, and more generally a 'speak Malay' from the government, at least in my school it was very common for a lot of conversation between friends to be in Cantonese. I think things are changing slightly with the rising importance of Chinese, still Malaysia never had the push to 'speak Mandarin' that Singapore (or China) had that has pushed out dialects to a reasonable degree. Nil Einne (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Italian antarctic claims

Were there any Italian antarctic claims? Both official and not official (like from some important historical figure). Thanks! --2.34.183.183 (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

According to Territorial claims in Antarctica, no. --Jayron32 18:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

2.34.183.183 -- Any such claims would have seemed rather abstract and theoretical (not to mention slightly silly) if there was no corresponding Italian antarctic exploratory expedition. Italy already had its hands full with various ventures in Africa north of the equator... AnonMoos (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Only 7 current states have territorial claims in Antarctica: Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom. The article mentions former interest in the area by Brazil, Nazi Germany, Russia, the Soviet Union, the United States, and Uruguay (most of them never launched a formal claim, but considered it at various points), but not Italy.

In 1981, Italy became a signatory state of the Antarctic Treaty System, but it is limited to having consultative status and participating in decision-making. See: http://www.ats.aq/devAS/ats_parties.aspx?lang=e Dimadick (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

February 22

Psychology experiment similar to Stanford prison experiment

I'm trying to remember/find clues about a psychology experiment that was not the Stanford prison experiment. In it, people were divided into two groups, which spontaneously developed a conflict. The difference here was that they were not assigned different roles (like prisoners and guards). They were just two groups.--Hofhof (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There's Jane Elliott (and some variants on what she did), though not a formal scientific experiment... AnonMoos (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Muzafer Sherif did some experiments that sound a bit like what you are looking for, maybe that will lead you somewhere? --Jayron32 11:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

For interest, last week's New Scientist magazine (18 February 2018) ran a feature article (see here) on Sherif's experiments, but as the article says, there seems to have been some manipulation by the experimenters to achieve the results they, perhaps, desired.

Someone with a better overall grasp of the discipline might want to edit our article on Sherif in the light of this. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment is described in our article on realistic conflict theory. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Gun Control Laws & Psychological Evaluation.

(Eastern European here, so please do not assume I possess any in-depth knowledge on the subject).

• On one hand, the Gun Control Act of 1968 mentions, in its fourth point, denying Second Amendment rights to anyone who `has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution`.
• Background checks are also stipulated in the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
• At the same time, U.S. legislation does not seem to require mandatory psychological evaluation of gun buyers [2].

Am I right in assuming that the latter provides a sort of legal loophole, or is it something in the `fine print` of the first two (or perhaps other U.S. gun control laws which I did not mention), that either directly or indirectly prevent it from becoming such ?
— 79.113.235.61 (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The various stuff you've linked to contains the answer. Psychological evolution is a slippery slope, and is very complicated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

And dangerous - lots of people slide right down to the bottom and stay there. Textorus (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Psychological "evolution" or "evaluation"? CodeTalker (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• The issue is that gun sales and purchasing laws generally have exemptions big enough to drive a tank through; things like private sales from person to person, "gun shows", gifts, etc. are not covered, tracked, or documented in any meaningful way. Buying a gun from a licensed gun shop owner requires all of these legal loopholes, but (for example) a father gifting his son with a gun he had already legally purchased isn't. See here for example of the inconsistencies here. --Jayron32 18:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I can get you a gun in the Bronx for $50 and an hour's notice. The problem with mental defective laws is that they are often overturned as prejudicial, and "being committed" is a very broad and vague issue. I think recent proposals that a minimum age of 21 and stricter background checks are fine. But if one can get a secret warrant on a political opponent based on a falsified document, or be reported to the FBI and banned from school grounds with no consequences, or run intelligence-bearing servers installed by pot-smokers in your bathroom, while giving military bases to china, sensationalist copycat attacks while gun violence is at record lows hardly seems at the top of the list for the involved victims. As a "survivor" myself, of 9/11 and a murder, I'm more worried about hyperinflation, and EMP attack, and the flu. μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Repurposed churches in the colonial Caribbean

Many Caribbean islands changed hands several times between the Spanish, French, English, Dutch, and others, with consequent changes of predominant religion. I thought I had read elsewhere that the Anglican Cathedral of St, Jago de la Vega in Spanish Town, Jamaica, was a repurposed Catholic church - but it seems it was merely built on the ruins of a former Catholic edifice. But I wonder - does anyone know of Catholic churches that were actually converted into Protestant churches in the colonial era? Or vice-versa? Seems like it would have saved a lot of expense for hard-pressed colonial administrations. (NB - Yes, I know this happened plenty of times in Europe during the Protestant Reformation, but that's another subject.) Textorus (talk) 08:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

In the case of the British West Indies, it seems that the Protestant British allowed the existing Catholic structures to continue; “French and Spanish priests were permitted to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience" (Jamaica, 1807). The glebe land which supported the Catholic clergy was confiscated, but they were paid an allowance instead "“for the pastoral care of the papists” (Grenada, 1784). See St George's Cathedral, St Vincent & The Grenadines - History of the Church. It seems that the early churches in the West Indies were not very substantial affairs, the oldest church building in Trinidad is Our Lady of Montserrat Roman Catholic Church which was completed in 1878. [3] Alansplodge (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Textorus (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

A.L.R. in legal citation

Conversion (law) makes numerous citations to A.L.R., e.g. "51 A.L.R 1462." What could it be? It looks like a law code, but if I run a Google search (prefixed, "51 A.L.R.", to exclude anything and everything containing these letters) and exclude OCR errors for "51 Air", the first several results are coming from Georgia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and New Mexico. Or consider this judgement from the Supreme Court of North Dakota, which cited 51 A.L.R. 1462 on conversion, so apparently it's really stable if the same item deals with the same topic more than eighty years later. And the relevant state legal codes are the Code of Alabama, the Alaska Statutes, the Arizona Revised Statutes, and the Arkansas Code: nothing that could be abbreviated this way. Does the American Law Reports get cited in this manner? Our ALR disambiguation page doesn't mention anything else legal, aside from the Australian Law Reports that I assume to be irrelevant. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It's stable because of the way the system works. American Law Reports is a continuously updated system of annotated law reports, referenced to the originally published volume. There are six series plus a Federal series and 2nd Federal series. In the citation the volume number within the series comes first, then "ALR" then "2d", "3d", "5th" etc. (to indicate the series), page number and year. 92.19.172.194 (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Translation please from German to English

Hi can you please translate the following:

Eine unklare Erwähnung von Globke, die Life auf unsere Forderung hin wegläßt

Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"An unclear mention by Globke, which Life omits at our demand" should be the translation. 91.49.67.189 (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks 91.49.67.189. scope_creep (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Could also be:

"An unclear mentioning of Globke, which Life leaves off on our demand" --Kharon (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Which, however, makes considerably less sense in English.

"A . . . mentioning of Globke" suggests Globke is being mentioned by someone else (is this the implication of the German?); and "a . . . mentioning" is technically grammatical but not natural, "A . . . mention" would be more usual.

"Leaves off on our demand" is simply not coherent: leaves off what? – "Life" being presumably the magazine Life, one would leave something out of it, not off it (unless the magazine's cover was meant); "on our demand" is not a usual formation, "at our demand" would be more natural (do not be misled by the descriptive term "on demand", which cannot be expanded in the manner suggested). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The context of this book quoting the phrase in question [4] makes it clear that it's indeed a mention of Globke. The German government intervened against a news report that was to be published in Life and caused them to omit a reference to Globke from their story. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, i was actually a little uncertain because of the lack of context and thought about asking about it. Obviously i did not... sorry for being a bit off, not that it was a wrong translation in isolation though. But of course in context it was wrong. So again, sorry about that scope creep. 91.49.67.179 (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Is selling TV broadcasting rights for a % of ad revenue a thing?

Why do they usually (always?) bid/negotiate with flat fees?

If an Olympics is cancelled do the TV commercial buyers or broadcasters still have to pay? Do they get a discount if the home country boycotts?

Does the IOC have a contingency plan for if a host is so wrecked by an earthquake or hurricane or asteroid or something that it wants to delay or cancel its Games? It's kind of a tight schedule, with winter ending soon after the winter games and the US election season distracting the IOC's biggest revenue source from soon after the summer games to November, and many sports having major events the same season like the Tour de France, so close to an integer number of years late might be the only other option? Does the IOC specify a maximum games lateness above which they'll say that's too close to 4 years late, cancel them anyway?

If a Tunguska-like event's scheduled to destroy a host city late enough that most or all games infrastructure will be ready but early enough that it's unsafe or impossible to hold the games on schedule can they host the games early? In the extremely unlikely event this happens a big country that's only losing a sparsely populated evacuation zone like Winter 1980 seems much more likely to do this than say Tokyo 2020. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It strikes me as unlikely that the Olympics would be held in a city slated to be destroyed. No matter how you slice it, that means moving people and things into an area where they should rather be taken away from. Leaving aside the science fiction aspects, if there is disaster, the IOC will pick up the pieces as best it can, as it did after WWII, in a very fact-dependent situation. For smaller events, there are often backups, I know the NCAA Mens' Basketball Final Four uses Indianapolis as a backup in years when it is not scheduled to host, and as reward it gets to host fairly frequently.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you’ve asked eight questions, four about broadcast contracts and four about contingency plans. The official Olympic site has material on IOC broadcast policies. Re contingency plans, here are some references for actual recent plans: London 2012, Pyeongchang 2018. You know that we can’t answer questions about speculative scenarios. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

See 1976 Winter Olympics for an actual case. Political and/or financial turmoil is a much more likely reason than a "Tunguska-like event" for not holding an Olympics in the originally-selected location. AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course. Asteroid is very unlikely but not impossible. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A more likely scenario is the earthquake and tsunami which compelled the organizers of the 2011 World Figure Skating Championships to move the event from Japan to Russia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"If an Olympics is cancelled do the TV commercial buyers or broadcasters still have to pay?"

No idea. The five cancelled Olympics were the 1916 Summer Olympics, the 1940 Summer Olympics, the 1940 Winter Olympics, the 1944 Summer Olympics, and the 1944 Winter Olympics. The first Olympics broadcast on television were the 1936 Summer Olympics, but international broadcasting of the Olympics and selling of broadcasting rights only started with the 1956 Winter Olympics. None of the subsequent Olympics was ever cancelled, and no precedent has been set. Dimadick (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, there was the case of the 1980 Summer Olympics, in Moscow, which were boycotted by the United States. NBC had bought the broadcast rights in advance at great cost, but almost no coverage of the games was shown on US television after the US (and several other countries) decided to boycott them. There is some information at NBC_Olympic_broadcasts#1980_Summer_Olympic_boycott. According to this article [5], NBC lost $34 million in the process. --Xuxl (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I suspect all this is spelled out in tedious detail in the various contracts, and whoever would be left holding the bag, insures against the risk.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thus the answer to that depends on if the parties were willing to reveal that aspect of the contracts (potentially yes for some countries' or years' TV rights and not others). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"Well, there was the case of the 1980 Summer Olympics, in Moscow, which were boycotted by the United States." I remembered the boycott, treated as a big deal in a few 1980s works I have read, but I was not aware that there was no broadcasting. Per our article: "Eighty nations were represented at the Moscow Games – the smallest number since 1956. Led by the United States at the insistence of US President Jimmy Carter, 66 countries boycotted the games entirely because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan."

According to our article 1980 Summer Olympics boycott: the absent countries were 1) Albania, 2) Antigua and Barbuda, 3) Argentina, 4) Bahamas, 5) Bahrain, 6) Bangladesh, 7) Barbados, 8) Belize, 9) Bermuda, 10) Bolivia, 11) Canada, 12) Cayman Islands, 13) Central African Republic, 14) Chad, 15) Chile, 16) China, 17) Egypt, 18) El Salvador, 19) Fiji, 20) Gabon, 21) The Gambia, 22) Ghana, 23) Haiti, 24) Honduras, 25) Hong Kong, 26) Indonesia, 27) Iran, 28) Israel, 29) Ivory Coast, 30) Japan, 31) Kenya, 32) South Korea, 33) Liberia, 34) Liechtenstein, 35) Malawi, 36) Malaysia, 37) Mauritania, 38) Mauritius, 39) Monaco, 40) Morocco, 41) Netherlands Antilles, 42) Niger, 43) Norway, 44) Pakistan, 45) Panama, 46) Papua New Guinea, 48) Paraguay, 49) Philippines, 50) Qatar, 51) Saudi Arabia, 52) Singapore, 53) Somalia, 54) Sudan, 55) Suriname, 56) Swaziland, 57) Chinese Taipei, 58) Thailand, 59) Togo, 60) Togo, 61) Tunisia, 62) Turkey, 63) United Arab Emirate, 64) United States, 65) Uruguay, 66) Virgin Islands, 67) West Germany, and 68) Zaire. Dimadick (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There was very little video or film footage of the 1980 Olympics shown in America. It was as if it never happened. Then the USSR returned the favor, as it were, by boycotting the 1984 Games. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There was hardly any print media coverage either in the U.S. It was as if the games were happening on another planet. I was actually surprised to see that the World Almanac and Book of Facts (which was an important reference source on current events in those pre-internet days) had all the event results in its 1981 edition, given how everyone else in the mainstream U.S. media were treating the games as if they never existed. --Xuxl (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Mrs Thatcher wanted a GB boycott, but in fine bulldog spirit the British Olympic Association told her that they were going anyway. [6] Alansplodge (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The Prime Ministers of Australia and France were similarly rebuffed by their NOCs. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• I find the question inscrutable. A flat fee is a flat fee, rather hard to dispute in court. Percentages of ad revenues? What if the advertisers claim to have lost revenue? What if the Olympics are banned at the last moment by political fiat 1980 Olympic Boycott? That just invites litigation. Either study economics or keep your eyes open for six decades. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

February 23

Difference of Female succession of medieval Germany and France

Hello. I may use the wrong wording in my question, but here goes:

When I examine the lists of the Counties, Duchies and others smaller states in France and Germany during the middle ages, I noticed there where much more women rulers in France than Germany. Why the great difference of numbers?

In France, women often inherited counties, baronies and lordships, and governed them in their own right. I am not speaking of the royal throne (I know women could not inherit that because of Salic Law) but rather of women rulers such as Ermengarde, Viscountess of Narbonne and Ida, Countess of Boulogne.

In the equivalent German counties and duchies, however, I can find extremely few such women rulers - Uta of Schauenburg are one of the few, but otherwise, most women rulers in Germany seem only to have ruled in the name of a son or husband, not ruling in their own right.

Why was there almost no women rulers and title holders in their own right in "Germany", compared to "France"? Was there perhaps some rule in effect in Germany which banned female succession to such titles and lands? Thank you--Aciram (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Women could inherit titles, when there was no son - but very few actually ruled. Have a look at Jure uxoris Wymspen (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but my question was: there are many such women in France, but extremely few in Germany, so I wonder why there was such a difference between France and Germany?--Aciram (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Because France was not France until later than you think. Salic Law in France really only applied to titles derived from (or later absorbed by and reissued by) the King of France, and more specifically, the royal demesne of France, which for a large part of history consisted of Île-de-France and not much else (these lands were those which specifically were under the direct rule of the Count of Paris/Duke of France, i.e. the lands of the House of Capet at the time Hugh Capet was elected King of the Franks). The rest of what we think of as France were nominally vassals of the French King, but were basically independent, and local laws held sway there. This includes places like Auvergne, Burgundy, Provence, Normandy, Brittany, Aquitaine, Flanders, Bearn/Navarre, which you'll notice accounts for most of France. Many of these places had no local laws forbidding women from inheriting when, say, a man had only daughters. Thus, you'll find women who were ruling countesses, duchesses, and queens in all of those places. --Jayron32 03:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, there's serious doubt that even in the case of the Crown of France itself that Salic inheritance law applied except when it became politically expedient for the House of Valois to enforce its claims to the throne of France over the House of Plantagenet after the extinction of the Direct Capetians. The Valois dug up the inheritance laws as justification for their rightful claims, but I'm not sure there's much evidence for their application before the Hundred Years War. --Jayron32 03:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Maria Theresa was Archduchess of Austria, Queen of Hungary and Queen of Bohemia by inheritance. Maria Theresa controlled at least four electoral votes to have her husband elected Holy Roman Emperor (King of the Romans).
Sleigh (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You'll notice, however, that Austria, Hungary, and Bohemia aren't in Germany, however. Also, Maria Theresa had only one vote in the Imperial election, 1745, that of Queen of Bohemia. The other votes were pledged to her husband under the terms of the Treaty of Füssen, but they were not, strictly speaking, her votes. --Jayron32 05:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Both Austria and Bohemia were in the Holy Roman Empire in 1740, and Hungary was outside it.
Sleigh (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but they were still not Germany. The Holy Roman Empire and Germany were not coterminous entities. The Kingdom of Germany excluded both Austria and Bohemia, though both were in the Holy Roman Empire. --Jayron32 05:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Jayron, are you sure about that? I'm finding it difficult to find a clear statement on the matter, but History of Austria says that Austria was a margravate of Bavaria, and Bavaria was one of the stem duchies. I thought the exclusion of Austria only came about much later, with the rivalry with Prussia and the North German Federation. Rojomoke (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting replies so far, thank you very much - but I still wonder: why was there so few women rulers in the various counties, duchies, margraviates and so fort in present Germany? Was there some kind of Imperial law banning female succession to these small counties and so fort? Because, still - the difference between the great amount of such women rulers within present days France, and present day Germany, are simply so big, that there seem to have to be some kind of rule in then "Germany" that made the women rulers so few compared to present day "France"? I am aware of the fact that France where not really France and Germany not really Germany, but again - why the enormous difference in the amount of such women rulers within present days France, and present day Germany? Was there no reason for this other than random coincidence? (I altered my phrasing so as to make it clear what I meant, hope that's okay!) --Aciram (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... I have to question the premise here... Remember that “Germany” was made up of hundreds of very tiny little states, and it could be that women DID inherit (more often than you think)... however, chroniclers and historians might not have paid much attention to them, because the amount of land involved was small. Contrast this with France, where the various counties and dukedoms were large and compact. The succession of a woman to a French county or duchy was rare, but extremely noteworthy because the amount of land involved was significant (and thus her succession would be mentioned by more historians and chroniclers). Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, Blueboar, it is after all my question, so the premise is mine, haha! ^^ Even if you are correct, it still leaves the question: why where the rulers fewer in all the little small German states, than in all the small French states? Because they where large and small states in both "Germany" and "France", and although the neither country was united as they are now, there where still loosely a Kingdom and an Empire, at least officially. There are lists of the rulers of several of those states both here in Wikipedia as well as otherwise, and several of those French states have two or more female rulers, while almost no German equivalent has any woman ruler at all. There are categories such as "Category: 13th-century Women rulers" where they are many French women rulers of both small and larger lands, but almost no German at all. Also the French women rulers of small states are described, and they where several large lands in Germany as well, such as Saxony and Bavaria. So even if you are correct, it still leaves the question: why is the differences so great?--Aciram (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you miss my point... What I am trying to say is that the differences you see may not be accurate... I am not sure that there actually WERE more women rulers in French history than in German history. There may have been MORE German heiresses than French heiresses... but because of the disparity in the size of their inheritance, the French ones simply MATTERED more in the grand scheme of history, and so they get highlighted by historians (While the German ones remain relatively obscure, and are only discussed by genealogists). Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"Maria Theresa was Archduchess of Austria, Queen of Hungary and Queen of Bohemia by inheritance. "

Largely irrelevant here. The Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 opened the way for the Habsburg Monarchy to be inherited by a woman of the house, because by that time the House of Habsburg had few surviving male members. The succession laws of the House had to be changed. The intended heiress was Maria Josepha of Austria (the senior daughter of Joseph I, Holy Roman Emperor), but Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor eventually reneged on the deal and had his own senior daughter Maria Theresa proclaimed as the new heiress. The disputed succession led to the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748), as several European countries refused to recognize Maria Theresa as a legitimate ruler. Dimadick (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

the Hapsburgs, however, became powerful as a family by finding eligible heiresses and marrying them. ("Leave the waging of wars to others! But you, happy Austria, marry; for the realms which Mars awards to others, Venus transfers to you".). The most notable example of such an heiresse was Mary of Burgundy. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I am glad that you can find so much to discuss from my question, but, If I my say so, it is perhaps not so relevant here. Can either of you see an answer to the question I posted? Why such an enormous difference between the amount of women rulers of lands in France and Germany? --Aciram (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think there was such an “enormous difference”. In both regions, the laws gave precidence to male heirs, but women occasionally inherited when no male heirs were available. Mary of Burgundy is a good example of it happening in a German state. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hildegard of Bingen was pretty powerful for her time. But not a worldly ruler. Anyway, befor 1815 there was no "Germany" so its a bit unfair to compare it to France that has a history all back to 486. However Catherine the Great was actually German and so is the whole english House of Windsor which was (and informally still is) House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha until World War I. Also the famous Empress Elisabeth of Austria was German. The last named probably cant be counter under "medieval" anymore but then again, there was no Germany in the medieval. It was likely much harder to be the ruler of one of the small Kingdoms that existed in the area now called Germany. Medieval was anarchy. A very vicious, deadly time even for warproven Kings. A Woman had to be extra powerful to keep her throne and that simply could not work in all these little kingdoms in medieval "Germany". Catherine the Great and the many english Queens are indisputable prove that Women could rule big, powerful Kingdoms very long and successful. --Kharon (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"Can either of you see an answer to the question I posted? Why such an enormous difference between the amount of women rulers of lands in France and Germany?" Prior to the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, the succession rules of the Habsburgs explicitly excluded potential heirs. Which was why Maria Theresa's succession was disputed in the first place. Several other German houses apparently had similar rules, and some of them still do. Per the Line of succession to the former Bavarian throne, the female members of the House of Wittelsbach are excluded from the succession:

• "The succession is determined by Article 2 of Title 2 of the 1818 Constitution of the Kingdom of Bavaria, which states "The crown is hereditary among the male descendants of the royal house according to the law of primogeniture and the agnatic lineal succession."
• You know the drill by now: agnatic primogeniture and its rules: "Females and female-line descendants are excluded from succession." Dimadick (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Until they take over and change the rules. --Kharon (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

February 25

Jim Bakker

Just curious for you guys, with the improvements I’ve been doing on Jim Bakker (including a successful copy edit request), how would you rate the article assessment wise (GA nominee ready, B, or C)? —LovelyGirl7 talk 00:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the usual venue for that kind of assessment. It's well-referenced, which is top priority for a BLP article, though I think you'll get resistance for GA-status due to lack of picture and general brevity of the article. It's obvious that the article is in much better shape than where you found it, though, so kudos for the improvement! Matt Deres (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Matt Deres: Sorry if I did add it here though. However, I do have some pictures in the article though, like the Heritage Hotel, Tammy Bakker, Jerry Falwell, and Heritage USA. I finally added a picture of Jim Bakker when he was on the PTL show in 1986. --LovelyGirl7 talk 17:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

February 26

Hours of employment in the United states

I understand that the (un)employment rate is disputed because many have stopped looking and many work part time. I'm looking for data that shows total hours the whole country works over the years and maybe some money figures associated.

It might be here https://www.bls.gov/ces/ but I cannot find it.

Many thanks if anyone can help.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That would be pretty much impossible to determine, because the U.S. government keeps no records of the work hours of exempt (supervisory) employees, or self employed people such as independent contractors. I have been self employed for 25 years, and report only my income and expenses, not how many hours I actually work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I know a (now retired) lawyer who once billed for 25 hours in 1 day... legitimately (it involved a flight on the old Concord). Blueboar (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, since many law firms (in the UK) both round up their billed durations on given tasks to the nearest quarter hour (or similar division), and because many standard legal tasks are billed for a set period whether or not it takes longer – or shorter! – billing clients for more than the hours in a given day is neither unknown nor untoward. This doesn't have tax implications since most solicitors doing so are partners in their firms and thus not paid by the hour. [My father, who used to be a Soliciters' Accountant, told me about this once.]

On the topic that Anna Frodesiak specifically raises, I concur with Cullen328: the US (or UK) government can only directly count the people actually registered as unemployed/looking for work; the numbers of those desiring work but not so registered for whatever reasons, and those of employment age but not currently seeking paid work, can only be estimated, and since all governments wish to be able to announce as low an unemployment rate as possible, such estimates are usually not made public or added to the "headline" unemployment rate. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Your premises are incorrect. The unemployment rate is not disputed and part-time work counts as employed. In my country, the statistical method to calculate the unemployment rate is copied from the United States. In my country, the government conducts one thousand recently unemployed phone interviews each month about their employment status. If they're employed full-time or at least one hour per week part-time they're employed and the unemployment rate goes down. If they're in full-time education then they're not looking for work then they've left the workforce. If they're unemployed and not looking for work then they're left the workforce. If their partner is employed and they're unemployed and looking for work then they're left the workforce. If they're unemployed and looking for work then they're unemployed and the unemployment rate goes up. The government doesn't bother counting the real number unemployed.
Sleigh (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You've left off agricultural workers, imprisoned workers, military, etc... It is a lot more complicated. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• People are getting lost in the weeds here. Anna asked a very direct question regarding hours worked per year. this I believe has the data she is looking for. It is hours worked per worker per year. I hope that helps. --Jayron32 17:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!! Very interesting. I'm hopelessly confused now while looking at what Jayron32 provided and what Sleigh wrote. I'm not even sure what I'm trying to find out any more. :) I guess what I'm looking for is: Is the population in the US more idle now that manufacturing has mostly gone? Is all this stuff about in or out of the workforce, and part or full time, better replaced with looking at how many able-bodied adults there are compared with how many hours of work are being done in the country? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Its much more complicated today because even the empiric data about work, gdp, national debt etc. can and will be manipulated with tricks, for political reasons, because of course these numbers are used as a central benchmark to judge the ruling party/President and their policies. If a government for example cuts all social benefits connected to a status of unemployment most unemployed will stop reporting/claim their status and if the government subsidize the creation of new jobs some market entities will try to create virtual fake employment to get a little extra money or taxcredits. In such cases the ruling government will play along and use the "evidence" to show everyone how well they rule the country. --Kharon (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You could do worse than to take the number of employed persons in the US and multiply by 2080, which is 40 X 52. Not everyone works 2080 hours in a year. Part-time workers would work less, while many salaried employees would work more. But it could put you in the ballpark. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the way that stats are collected in the US, but I do know for UK and Europe. Unemployment is measured by a sample survey which certainly collects whether people are employed full time or part time. In the UK it is called the Quarterly Labour Force Survey. Earnings are in the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, which is a good source for how many hours people work per week. You might be able to find out what the nearest equivalents are in the US. OECD is an excellent source for international comparisons and may well have methodological studies available for download to guide you towards good sources for the US. There has been a lot of discussion in economics journals of underemployment as opposed to unemployment. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The original statement that the US unemployment rate is disputed is incorrect. Some people question whether it is a proper measure, mainly for partisan political reasons. For example, the extensive use of U-6 (see: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE, as opposed to actual unemployment date, here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE ) to criticize President Obama has not been repeated under President Trump. It should also be noted that use of such data when discussing unemployment (which it does not measure) is an effort to deceive, rather than inform. It can be quite embarrassing when people using such data are shown that it has actually improved far faster – in fact, faster than at any time in history – during the period when they are attempting to show the opposite. Lots of fun!

Average hourly earnings are here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003; multiply by average weekly hours worked (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHAETP) and number of employees (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CE16OV) and you’ll end up with something that approximates the cost of labor in the economy. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You may have heard the related classic verdict from F. K. Otto Dibelius (which many sources wrongly claim to be from Winston Churchill): 'Do not trust any statistics you did not fake yourself.' --Kharon (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

As echoed by Dilbert.[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

See Lies, damned lies, and statistics for some theories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Germanic areas in northern Italy

I was looking at this old ethnolinguistic map http://uurl.kbr.be/1009932. Does anybody know what are the little germanic areas just north of Como and south of Vicenza? They don't figure on this modern map of German dialects in Italy: http://www.isolelinguistiche.it/files/Sprachinseln/MAPPA_JPG_web_XS.jpg. Thanks! --2.34.183.183 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Those seem to be speakers of the Cimbrian language. --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The "Map of Countries and Ethnic Groups of Europe" as its title says is by no means an ethnolinguistic map. The dotted areas south and east of Vicenza depict ethnic Germans (speaking Italian). It was discussed here or elsewhere in Wikipedia a couple of years ago, see also a book of 1905 on this subject. The dotted areas in Lombardia may have a similar background. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

February 27

German to English translation

Can you please translate the following:

[a]ngesichts der in vielen zentralen Fragen letztlich dann doch dürftigen Quellenlage

Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Roughly: "... in view of the sourcing, which for many central issues turned out to be slim after all". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a partial quote from an academic paper. If that is the case, it means that the questions raised in the research paper were not answered in the source material. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. This is the article Hans Globke scope_creep (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

In the future, if you need translations and google translate doesn't suffice, questions of this sort probably belong on the languages refdesk rather than here. Eliyohub (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This is less a question on de>en translation but a (speculative / loaded) interpretation relating to the 3rd Reich / H Globke / denazification / chancellor K Adenauer. As such, the humanities desk seems more appropriate. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Also I dont get decent translations there. The best translation I receive are on this desk. scope_creep (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

MPs - often threatened. But seldom actually attacked

I gather that it is not uncommon for MPs, in many democratic countries, to receive threatening communications (email, phone calls, whatever) from people who have a bone to chew with something they've done, or are simply mentally ill.

Taking that into account, it strikes me how exceptionally rare actual acts of violence on parliamentarians are.

Yes, we had Gabrielle Giffords shot; but I remember it being quoted then that in all the history of the U.S. since its founding in 1776, I think a grand total of seven(?) Senators or Congresswomen had ever been shot, including non-fatal shootings (and two of those were shot in a duel with each other!) - and this, in a country awash with guns.

In Britain likewise, there was the Murder of Jo Cox, and the stabbing of Stephen Timms. Aside from these two, once again, I am hard-pressed to remember reading of any serious attempts on the life of an MP, despite the exhortations of ISIS to follow Roshonara Choudhrys example. (I'm putting aside attacks by organized Irish Republican paramilitary groups, since they're of a totally different nature from the aggrieved or disturbed individuals I'm thinking of).

In my own country, there has been a grand total of ONE political assassination since the arrival of Europeans - that of John Newman (Australian politician). (The other MPs who were killed were for reasons unrelated to their political offices).

So, in a nutshell, my question boils down to this: given how many enemies politicians make (and perhaps given how disturbed some of these enemies are), how come serious actual attempts to harm them are so exceedingly rare? Eliyohub (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Questions that begin with the prompt "why" or "how come" are not really answerable in this forum. We can provide you with references to published data or accounts of political assassinations. However, it looks like you've found much of that already. Questions that begin with "how come", as you have done here, are basically a prompt for speculation. We shouldn't engage in that here. You're bound to mostly get answers that involve people giving their personal opinions, which are worthless. But they will still do so. --Jayron32 15:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

By the way, your premise is demonstratedly wrong for the U.S. at least. In U.S. history, 14 U.S. Congressmen and Senators have been killed in office; there have been 12,244 people who have served in Congress in either house. 14/12244 is a murder rate of 112 per 100,000. According to Crime in the United States, the murder rate in the U.S. is 5.3 per 100,000 as of 2016. While that number may go up and down over time, that still means as a rough approximation you are 20 times more likely to be murdered as a member of Congress than someone who isn't. So, your perception that legislators are somehow less likely to be victims of violence is demonstratedly wrong. They are far more likely to be victims of violence than the average person; at least in the U.S. --Jayron32 15:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible apples and oranges? If the 5.3 murders per 100 000 people is per year (which seems more probable than over an entire lifetime), the the correct comparator would be numbers of elected representatives murdered in any given year. Each one serves for more than a year but less than a lifetime. In order to gain a larger data set, one might consider all the state-level politicians as well as the federal ones. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec)I remember both Airey Neave and Ian Gow being murdered by Irish terrorists. I also remember Louis Mountbatten's murder by the IRA (not an MP, but his career included political roles). We have Category:Assassinated politicians. DuncanHill (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why you would exclude Irish terrorists but include far-right terrorists, like the murderer of Jo Cox. DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Loads of people get threats, not just politicians. Managers quite often get threats and at the other end it is practically part of life in some poor areas. I think xkcd: Self-Driving Issues explains why there aren't many actual murders. Most people just aren't murderers. Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

One British Prime Minister was assassinated - Spencer Perceval in 1812. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"By the way, your premise is demonstratedly wrong for the U.S. at least. In U.S. history, 14 U.S. Congressmen and Senators have been killed in office; there have been 12,244 people who have served in Congress in either house. 14/12244 is a murder rate of 112 per 100,000. According to Crime in the United States, the murder rate in the U.S. is 5.3 per 100,000 as of 2016. While that number may go up and down over time, that still means as a rough approximation you are 20 times more likely to be murdered as a member of Congress than someone who isn't. "

Some of the 14 killed Congressmen were not actually murdered:

• John Gallagher Montgomery and John A. Quitman were victims of the so-called "National Hotel disease", apparently a mass poisoning event that affected customers of the National Hotel. It was never determined whether the poisoning was accidental or intentional.
• Edward Dickinson Baker was killed in action, while leading troops in the Battle of Ball's Bluff (1861). He is "the only sitting U.S. senator ever to be killed in a military engagement."
• John M. Pinckney was killed in a riot in Hempstead, Texas, when the riot turned into a confused gunfight.
• Larry McDonald was a passenger in Korean Air Lines Flight 007, which violated Soviet airspace and was shot down by Soviet Air Forces. The Soviets reportedly thought that the Korean airliner was an U.S. spy plane.

In Greece, threats of violence or assassination attempts on politicians are far from rare, but successful assassinations are indeed rare. Our Category:Assassinated Greek politicians covers 7 of the most famous assassinations. The most recent case was Pavlos Bakoyannis (d. 1989) who was assassinated by Revolutionary Organization 17 November (an urban guerrilla organization). Dimadick (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

February 28

SAM Serve America Movement

I found a full page ad in the Kansas City Star today and I am curious about SAM but I am unable to find any reference to this organization on Wikipedia. SAM Serve America Movement seem to be an attempt to create a New Political Party. If that is true I would like to learn more about the organization and it's supporters, contributors, and founders. With all the current new about computer hacking, misleading internet content, and inferred subversion by the Russians I am hoping that Wikipedia can do some research about this subject and if viable perhaps create a place for it in the scope, breath, range, and purview of subject matter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipfoto (talk • contribs)

Here is an editorial written by the organization's founder, which isn't really a neutral source. Here is an interview with the Washington Examiner by a high-ranking member of the group. This Associated Press article has a few sentences on the group. Regarding starting a new article about them at Wikipedia, I think this is right on the line of the minimum threshold for creating an article. There's lots of stuff out there on the web; they have a website of their own that they publish with lots of information, and they have lots of paid press releases out there; but actual independent coverage is superficial and scanty. It would be hard to build an enitre article if we didn't use their own self-written material. It's close, but I'm not sure its there yet. Give it some time to see if more gets written about them; or see if you can find more genuinely independent sources, before setting off to create the article. --Jayron32 15:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Translation from German to English

Hi can you please translate the following:

Versuch einer Verallgemeinerung der stetigen nirgend differenzierbaren Funktion Bolzanos

Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's an incomplete sentence fragment (maybe the title of a paper or thesis?). "Attempt to generalise the continuous (but) nowhere differentiable function of Bolzano". Or more idiomatically: "A generalisation of Bolzano's continuous but non-differentiable function" (assuming the author succeeded, which is the normal case in a paper). People on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics might have even smoother suggestions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Stephan Schulz, it is a thesis title by Wilhelm Vauck. That is perhaps why it is considered incomplete. I think the idiomatic version is decent. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Are infants and puppies and kittens always more expensive to adopt than older children and pets?

140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Older children and animals are always more expensive to maintain. 92.31.136.24 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

But infants and puppies eventually grow older. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

What's the basis of your question? Where did you get that idea from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, there is a local cat adoption center. Kittens are placed at a higher price than older cats and cats with disabilities. I presume they have higher demand. Also, Google can provide short excerpts from webpages that answer specific questions, and I notice that babies actually cost more to adopt than older children. I’m aware that there is some sort of stigma with adopting older children and older pets. With pets, I suspect that older pets look less cute than younger pets. For older children . . . some other reason, I suppose. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No comment on children, but regarding animals:

A cat's average lifespan is like 10 or 15 years. If you get a kitten that's not even a year old, you'll probably get at least 10 years with a cat who at least gets that you're not gonna eat him. If you get a cat that's 9 years old, you might get up to 6 years with a cat who might absolutely hate you. (But adult cats who are used to to the shelter are generally awesome and used to people).

TL;DR: Adult cats probably get marked down for the same reason canned goods near their sale-by date do. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Developments in the 1920's question

Homework question, already closed down once, on Misc desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What developments in the 1920's reflected the clash between traditional and newly emerging social values? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higginsal (talk • contribs) 22:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)