Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:33, 4 March 2018

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Jayron 32 17:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As echoed by Dilbert.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Jayron 32 15:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Jayron 32 15:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

Interesting Dimadick, that you don't count probable poisonings, actual and possible acts of war, rioting, and so forth as acts of criminal violence. In any case, the conclusion that serving as a politician is risky stands. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also List of serving British MPs who were assassinated which lists eight MPs, six of whom were dispatched by Irish terrorists (or freedom fighters, depending on your viewpoint). Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where Dimadick said anything about those not being act of criminal violence. They only said they were not murders. This was relevant because Jayron32 was comparing the 14/12244 killings to the 5.3 per 100,000 murder rate in the US. If any of these killings wouldn't have shown up in the murder rate, then you aren't comparing like for like. If you want to include other acts of criminal violence that resulted in a death, you should also include the rate for these in the US as well for a fair comparison. Of course if Jayron32 only wanted to set an upper bound, the fact that the actual rate appears to be lower wouldn't matter. There are also other complexities (beyond those already raised in other posts) like whether it's fair to compare the current murder rate to the murder rate for members of Congress of all time considering that the various things that have changed (like what counts as a murder). Nil Einne (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another "see also": Category:Assassinated politicians by nationality. It does seem to be a riskier business than minding one's own business, but difficult to quantify in any meaningful way. Alansplodge (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check also Category:Assassinated heads of government and Category:Assassinated heads of state. The old tale of the Sword of Damocles warns of "imminent and ever-present peril faced by those in positions of power." Some things do not seem to change as the millennia pass. Dimadick (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Jayron 32 15:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The issue with adopting older children isn't so much "stigma"; rather, if an older child is put into foster care, or up for adoption, they often have a traumatic past (physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, neglect), and resulting behavioural difficulties, of the whole spectrum of severity. Ergo, adoption agencies are more "desperate", so to speak, to place them, as opposed to healthy babies, where there are large numbers of potential adopters per baby. I don't know how to source this, so can anyone either confirm or refute? Eliyohub (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I heard the same. Plus, only babies and puppies can be expected to have no "baggage" so to speak. Older children will always know that they are adopted and older pets will always remember their previous life. My girlfriend adopted an adult cat (2 year old) last year and it was reacting extremely to harmless attempts to cuddle because she waas likely abused by her former owner. Only now she slowly adapted to her new life. Most people don't want to deal with that, so the demand is higher for pets (and kids) who are young enough not to have experienced any trauma. Regards So Why 11:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the answer for the OP would be supply and demand. Kind of like this: Would the OP rather spend more for a brand new car? Or spend less on a similar-model used car with a questionable history? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a fair comparison. A used car may be old, but it can be fixable or already in working condition. I’ll probably ask the dealer to give me a test run. Also, cars deprecate in value over time, but if it’s still functional, then it’ll serve the purpose. Some used cars can look and behave exactly like new cars, because they have been well managed and polished. It’s like an old cat at the adoption center who has received all the shots and is spayed/neutered. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A useful comparison is between articles which are designed to fail (planned obsolescence) and those designed to last a lifetime, which cost slightly more. See [2]. 92.19.174.150 (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expenses and abuse aside, babies (and kittens and puppies) are also desirable to many because they are distinctly different than their older counterparts. Adopting a cat can be very rewarding, but only a kitten does that adorable stiff-legged bounce thing where they seem to be composed of flubber. Adopting a child can be very rewarding, but only an infant exercises some of those base parental instincts and needs (their first word, their first step, etc.) Matt Deres (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expenses, abuse, and cuteness aside, kittens and puppies are priced higher to dissuade adopters who intend to abandon the animal the moment it grows up, a serious issue in animal welfare. Nobody who adopts a nine-year-old cat is going to give it up in six months because it’s no longer cute; probably 3/4 of people looking for free kittens do exactly that. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"With pets, I suspect that older pets look less cute than younger pets. "

I doubt that. Me and my brother co-own two elderly dogs, which we have raised since they were puppies. They are now 12-years-old and 10-years-old respectively, and we have been told that they are approaching the end of their lives. They still look cute, still love to play and cuddle. But they can get exhausted much more easily.

The main issue with owning elderly pets is that medical expenses for the pet may keep increasing as more health problems appear. Every pet will need a couple of vaccinations per year, plus pills for various conditions. Add conditions like inner ear infections, osteoarthritis (both long-term problems for my male dog), various injuries, surgeries for various conditions, and you might be finding yourself paying a small fortune to your veterinarian. Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo IP24's point. When my unpedigreed blonde shepherd had pups, my dad advertised them for sale for $50 each. I asked why he didn't just give them away, and he said that people who would be willing to buy them for $50 would be responsible owners. My sister ran into the obverse when she was moving between graduate schools, and trying to sell unwanted items. She had a really crappy dresser which she marked "FREE!" No one would take it. At the end of the day, she marked it $50, and someone quickly talked her down to a more reasonable $40! μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

Foreign exchange student vs international student

So, international students are essentially college students who study abroad. Meanwhile, foreign exchange students are high school or college students who study abroad through an exchange program. So, what is a student who studies abroad in a private high school, not through an exchange program, because the parents are wealthy enough to send him/her overseas? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still an International student, though the article fails to allow for secondary level education. Here's a link to my jurisdiction showing that it's still the same name. Mingmingla (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the international secondary/high school students is a growing market nowadays, I think particularly in the developed English native world (i.e. NZ, Australia, UK, Ireland, Canada, US) as it is for the tertiary sector. E.g. [3] has some statistics for NZ suggesting 15k in 2015. [4] has some statistics from various countries. Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Often the implication is that an exchange student will only be studying for one year, and will be staying with a host family one of whose children is studying abroad for a year; while an international student is intending to pursue a full course of study leading to a degree (or other credential/qualification). AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What AnonMoos said. BTW, we do have a not that great article Student exchange program. Note that this will often also affect fees and costs. Depending on how the local education system (of where they're studing) is structured, an international student may find themselves paying significant fees because their education receives minimal or no funding from the government, unless they have some sort of scholarship. A foreign exchange student may only pay the fees, if any, of their local system perhaps along with some contribution to living costs (unless there are subsidised by someone, perhaps a scholarship) and travel other miscellaneous expenses. The exchange programme may also include various 'cultural enrichment' or other stuff intended to help the student gain stuff outside the curriculum of whatever they are studying. There will probably be some level of this for international students, but it may not be such an important component and may also be more focused on helping the student fit in since they may be there for quite a few years, sometimes even workign there. (Often the wealthy parents may not be so interested in the cultural exchange stuff anyway but would prefer their child to focus on what they are studying.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the term is a furriner. μηδείς (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

What is a "browning shot"? Submarine warfare in the First World War

Reading Lloyd George's War Memoirs, he mentions a "browning shot" a couple of times, in the context of submarine attacks on shipping. Chapter XL, The Peril of the Submarines. "A submarine could not count on firing more than a single "browning shot" as it was at once attacked by the escort..." and later in the same chapter, quoting a report from the Shipping Department, "... a tanker, the Wabasha in the fourth convoy from Hampton Roads, was hit by a "browning shot"." DuncanHill (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The usual meaning is a shot fired at a convoy from a long distance in hopes of hitting something, rather than a shot aimed at a specific target. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This book by Norman Friedman discusses it in some detail, e.g. results (1 of 10) at this link :

Friedman, Norman (2011). Naval Weapons of World War One. Seaforth Publishing. ISBN 9781848321007.

—2606:A000:4C0C:E200:7CD4:F70E:645:39E2 (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of Jargon (Routledge Revivals) by Jonathon Green says:

browning shot n [Navy] a term from the shooting use of into the brown: a shot fired with no specific target into the middle of a group of ships with the hope of hitting one of them.
brown, into the, adv [Shooting] to fire into the brown implies an indiscriminate blast into the heart of a covey of passing birds.
brown 2. v [Shooting] to shoot into the centre of a covey of birds, rather than take a specific target; this usually kills nothing but wounds or harms several birds.

I also found The Encyclopaedia of Sport, Volume 1 (1897), Henry Charles Howard Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire, which says (p. 165): 'Occasionally, without any apparent cause, they will, like Golden Plover, fly past within easy reach, and, keeping very close together, offer a good "browning" shot'. Alansplodge (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you all. DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technical problem in ultimate solution?

Kindly look at the cartoon and final solution below [5].As we can see two squares are still vacant, though only these letters are "circled" in the above preliminary solved solutions (and hence only they should appear in the final answer), but then why are more rectangular spaces here where final answer ought to fit ? Is leaving them empty a part of some deeper sense of humor.If so, can someone kindly explain it's meaning ? 124.253.0.50 (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be not mainstream enough to make its object obvious. Any way any thing in Art that is not easily identifiable can be difficult to discuss. I would begin with some reflexion starting with Visual rhetoric#Visual rhetoric of text perhaps. --Askedonty (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This comic is the Jumble. From the looks of it, there was some kind of error when writing this one - they originally planned the answer "HIGH-TECH", then changed it to "HI-TECH" (to make the pun more obvious - it's translating greetings, so it's "hi" technology), I assume. Smurrayinchester 16:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is going on here, as on my screen I see four boxes, then a dash, then four more boxes. The letters in the left-hand boxes read HITE and in the right-hand boxes CH, with the two end boxes empty. I see no circles or "preliminary solved solutions". This is a standard arrangement, and one would not necessarily expect all the boxes to be filled. For example, postcodes are entered on a form in this manner (although there may only be three boxes on the right). The outgoing code (post town followed by postal district) is on the left and the incoming code (single digit indicating sub-district followed by two letters which pinpoint a block of up to fifty houses) is on the right. One box may well be empty, because the outgoing code may be four characters (e.g. SW1A 1AA) or three, e.g. CR9 2TA (which was the very first postcode, discounting the trial system used in Norwich). 92.19.174.150 (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a puzzle with rules not stated in the image. I don't know whether HITE-CH followed by two blanks field is the stated solution by the puzzler author or an attempted solution by a solver but I think either HIGH-TECH or "HI"-TECH (with quotation marks counting as characters) would be a better solution. I don't know whether they break any unstated rules. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Jumble, as stated, or more precisely, it's part of one. Jumbles are a daily feature in some newspapers. Here's a sample of one. Solving the anagrams at left gives the first-stage answers BLEND, AVOID, CHEESY, and CAMERA. The circled letters are BDAIDHYARA, which is the anagram that must be solved for the final answer. Often this involves a pun, but in this example it's more a reinterpretation of the answer phrase: BAD HAIR DAY.
But in the newspaper where I see them, when the answer is given the next day, they just print the words–as you see at the bottom of the one I linked to. The format shown at the original poster's link does not occur. The answer "HI-TECH" certainly makes sense as Smurray explains, so it appears there was some sort of error. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Can you be please kind enough to let me know from which newspaper this is from ? If possible please give me web address that leads to this paper's Jumble (daily/weekly) : OP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.3.22 (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found that one using Google Images; it was linked from the web site of the Peninsula Daily News. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there was any humor intended I guess the target would be the user trying to get the text moving to the side without any possible result whatsoever. --Askedonty (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of "Jumbles" before yesterday, though I'm familiar with crosswords and anagrams. What we need is for someone to look at the Denver Post for 19 February and tell us which were the jumbled words and which boxes were circled. 92.19.174.150 (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Smurray is onto it. It's a joke, parodying the Jumble puzzle (which has been around for decades, though maybe not that widely syndicated). There was a question a couple or three months ago about a Jumble puzzle, which as I recall was also from the Denver Post. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as suggested by a couple of other users, "HI"-TECH is indeed the answer.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The discussion was Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 October 23#Jumble, which in turn leads on to this: [7]. 92.19.174.150 (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

Anglo-Norman marriage alliances

Were there any instances of Normans marrying surviving Anglo-Saxon nobles after the conquest of 1066? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7CF0:3070:54D1:9CE3:EDB3:E387 (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judith of Lens, niece of William the Conqueror, was married to Waltheof, Earl of Northumbria, "last of the Anglo-Saxon earls", in 1070. Rmhermen (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry I's queen, Matilda of Scotland, was a descendant of the Saxon kings on her mother's side. Rojomoke (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite common, especially among lower-level Norman noble families who had risen through their part in the Conquest and who could consolidate their position by marrying Anglo-Saxon heiresses. One example is the D'Oyly family: Robert D'Oyly I married Ealdgyth of Wallingford, and his nephew Robert D'Oyly II married Edith Forne, another Anglo-Saxon (or Anglo-Danish) heiress. --Antiquary (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David the composer

This image is supposed to be the biblical David composing the psalms. My question is, what is the pillar with a golden bucket on top and red ribbon on the right? Bigger image at [8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A torah scroll, cf. File:Dan Shapiro hold a Torah scroll (30340442674) (cropped).jpg or [9]. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced of that. While I can see some resemblance, the squared bottom of that pillar does look very architectural, and I think it is actually a pillar. The inscription at the bottom (rather faint) appears to read, in Greek, Eros Bathsheba - rather suggesting that David may have had less holy thoughts in his mind than writing psalms. Though I can't work out the significance of the "bucket" Wymspen (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the inscription at the bottom is "Ορος Βηθλεεμ", 'Mount Bethlehem'. No opinion on what the pillar signifies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Rachel's Tomb, thought to have been a pillar at the wayside situated at Bethlehem? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The inscriptions read (from left to right): Βηθλεέμ (town of Bethlehem), Μελωδία (Melodia), όρος Βηθλεέμ (Mount Bethlehem). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here it says: Personification of Echo (?) behind a loving cup given as a prize for best singer. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Hello everyone. I'm not a megaloman people and i haven't any political ambition, is only curiosity. I'm italian, i was born and i live in Italy, my parents and my ancestor are italian: is possible that i became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? Because in America to be President you have to born in the territory of USA, if i in the future went to live in Britain, take the british citizenship is possible (ok, unprobabilly but possible) for me to became Prime Minister? I read in the italian wikipedian page about british Premier that he Queen can nominee Prime Minister every person of the world that she think is good (and after, need the approvation of the House of Commons).

Another question: a foreign people (not british) that live in United Kingdom can sign up to Conservative Party?

Thank you very much for the patiente, sorry for my bad english, if you want correct the errors. Don't worry i don't want to be premier.--87.9.133.144 (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, theoretically anyone can be appointed to that office, provided they're a citizen and an adult. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the second point, there doesn't seem to be any restriction on foreign citizens joining the UK Conservative Party but "Under the Political Party Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) you must be on the electoral register in the UK (excluding the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) in order to make a donation of more than £500" should you wish to do such a thing. [10] Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To become an MP you do not need to be a British citizen, as Commonwealth and Irish citizens are also qualified. See Who can stand as an MP. I am not aware of any restriction on the nationality of ministers. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to become a member of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom before becoming a senior Minister/Prime Minister, It may have a more restricted citizenship requirement (although I cant find any mention of it on a quick search). MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Various Commonwealth citizens are PCs, as can be seen in Category:Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom. DuncanHill (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is convention rather than law that Prime Ministers have to be UK Members of Parliament, but any party leader who wasn't one but whose party held a majority could be found a seat in double-quick time; Sir Alec Douglas-Home is the only recent example I think; in previous centuries it was common for the prime minister to sit in the House of Lords. According to Can you stand for election? "Citizens of other countries (including EU member states other than the UK, Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta) are not eligible to become a Member of the UK Parliament. There is no requirement in law for you to be a registered elector in the UK". Also excluded are civil servants, policemen, members of the Armed Services, judges etc. as are peers or bishops who are entitled to sit in the House of Lords. Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The British Constitution runs on pragmatics and precedence rather than written laws; AFAIK, there is no legal hurdle to any human on earth becoming Prime Minister of the UK, provided they first go through the few hurdles necessary, such as establishing Commonwealth citizenship. --Jayron 32 19:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant precedents, not precedence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word is "presidents" Jack. Do we really need to beat you Hanoverians in yet another war? μηδείς (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Smuts was a member of the British Cabinet from 1917 to 1919 despite being a citizen of the Union of South Africa and, so far as I'm aware, of nothing else, so perhaps he came closer to becoming PM than any other non-UK citizen. Bonar Law was British, of course, though Canadian-born. --Antiquary (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smuts and Law were both British subjects by birth. DuncanHill (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R.B. Bennett, former prime minister of Canada, accepted a peerage and sat in the House of Lords. And he was born in post-Confederation Canada, though no such thing as a Canadian citizenship had evolved yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also, Conrad Moffat Black, Baron Black of Crossharbour. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"For children, use first names on second reference. For adults, use last names on second reference."

Does Wikipedia have any article related to this popular rule in any way?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this arbitrary declaration? I tend to alternate to avoid repetition. I know the sycophants of the ARI require her to be referred to as Ayn Rand whenever she is mentioned, even though her name was Mrs. Alice O'Connor, née Alysa Rozenbaum. μηδείς (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 270: / Line 270: @@
 ::::::::::[[R.B. Bennett]], former prime minister of Canada, accepted a peerage and sat in the House of Lords. And he was born in post-Confederation Canada, though no such thing as a Canadian citizenship had evolved yet.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 20:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
-*See also, [[Conrad Black]]. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 00:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
+*See also, [[Conrad Black|Conrad Moffat Black, Baron Black of Crossharbour]]. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 00:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 == "For children, use first names on second reference. For adults, use last names on second reference." ==