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

March 17

Did the Romans invade Britain for tin?

I am trying to find out if the Roman Empire wanted to conquer Britain because of the tin metal deposits or for some other reason, or a combination of such reasons. Help? 71.218.15.84 (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Caesar's invasions of Britain were undertaken not for economics, but for military reasons. Julius Caesar was trying to shore up recent victories in Gaul and invaded Britain to prevent a back door invasion. Caesar didn't actually conquer they island, though, it would be over a century later that the Roman conquest of Britain was completed. The article Roman Britain notes several metals as major exports, but tin is not among them.--Jayron32 04:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Tin sources and trade in ancient times#Ancient trade has some more information (Britain was always a major source of tin and production continued after the Roman conquest). Whether the Romans conquered Britain specifically for the tin, the answer seems to be a resounding "maybe". Adam Bishop (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Mining in Roman Britain: "Britain was rich in resources such as copper, gold, iron, lead, salt, silver, and tin, materials in high demand in the Roman Empire. The abundance of mineral resources in the British Isles was probably one of the reasons for the Roman conquest of Britain". Can't see a source for that though.

"Tin in the Roman Empire". www.unrv.com. United Nations of Roma Victrix (UNRV). "By the invasions of Caesar in the mid first century BC, the British source of tin was certainly known to the Romans. His invasions, though with several other motives, may have been partially inspired by the thought of controlling the valuable mines of Britannia. While securing trading partners among local tribes, conquest and Roman control of the British mining industry would take another century, coming with the invasion of Claudius".

Metals, Culture and Capitalism: An Essay on the Origins of the Modern World by Jack Goody (p. 113): "Metal was one of the main attractions of making the crossing. It has been said that the Roman invasion 'was no doubt mainly designed to tap the island's mineral wealth', though it may also have been to stop refugees from Gaul from having harbourage there as well as of course as enhancing the prestige of the Emperor".

The footnote for that statement reads: "See Davies 1935: 150. Agricola speaks of the gold and silver (and other metals). This opinion is also shared by Aitchison who writes that before Caesar's invasion Britain was known as a source of metals, though the copper probably came from Ireland. So 'one powerful motive for the Roman visit was to obtain a share in Britain's export trade and, generally, to acquire metals' (Aitchison 1960: 133)".

Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You can read what Julius Caesar has to say about the invasion here. Alansplodge (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Though what he wrote about his motives (in the third person, as was his habit) might not be the whole truth, but only what he wanted his future readers to think when he published those memoirs to justify his actions.

Beyond what he says and implies (to discourage support from Britain for his opponents in Gaul; to reconnoitre the country; and to build local support for a future Roman alliance or takeover), it has been suggested (I forget by whom) that he also wanted to practice seabourne landings in a relatively safe environment, because it was the one military operation in which he was least experienced, and he knew he would likely need to use it in future, as he was already secretly planning to take over Rome, and anticipated a civil war on several fronts.

In the event he learned a lot, not least the effects of tides, which are barely noticeable in the Mediterranean but which destroyed or damaged many of his ships in the first of his two British expeditions, and significant numbers in his second. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, but Caesar's work is an astonishing survival and the only detailed description of the Iron Age Britons and their culture. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I had a quick leaf through Sheppard Frere's Britannia: A History of Roman Britain (1967) to see what he has to say. To summarise, he thinks Caesar attempted the conquest of Britain because

• His conquest of Gaul couldn't be secure while Britain was still a haven for Gallic malcontents and a base for military assistance to the Gauls.
• Britain's mineral and other wealth – iron, lead, copper, gold, tin (Frere puts no particular stress on the tin), coal (though this wasn't exploited much), corn, leather and woollen products – could be economically profitable. Also Britain's huge manpower would be useful for army recruitment.
• The prestige to be gained from conquering this mysterious island on the very edge of the world was considerable. [This point is made by many other writers. I've more than once heard the conquest of Britain compared to the moon landings.]

Claudius conquered Britain, or much of it, because

• Having had no previous military career he needed a conquest to gain the respect of the army.
• World-rule had become part of the philosophical underpinning of the empire. Conquests needed no justification.
• Much of the necessary staff-preparation must have been completed before Caligula's abortive attempt at a conquest of Britain in AD40. Pity to waste it.
• The expulsion of the British client-king Verica by the sons of Cunobelinus, and a cheeky demand by them for his extradition from the Roman Empire, were damaging to prestige and needed a strong response.
• Caligula's addition of two new legions to the Rhine defence force made a dangerous new centre of power [I presume he means they could have been used for a military coup] which could be dissipated by sending them to Britain.
• The Romans now had a more accurate idea of Britain's mineral wealth.
• The Druids were a force behind resistance to Roman rule in Gaul. Gallic Druidry couldn't be stamped out while they were being backed by British Druids.

Of course some of these points have already been made here. --Antiquary (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

They came for the fine cuisine. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Some confusion there between Gaels and Celtic Britons I would suggest. Alansplodge (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No, no, the the Romans may well have brought it with them. Confusion on confusion! --Antiquary (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The History of Mining: The events, technology and people involved in the industry that forged the modern world by Michael Coulson (p. 32): "Roman records regarding their occupation of Britain do not have much to say on the subject of tin mining, probably due to the fact that the Romans had established mines in Spain and these provided them with the bulk of the tin they needed. Cornish mines, however, continued to operate and by the 3rd century AD production expanded as rising prosperity led to increasing use of pewter for household plate and drinking vessels".

"Roman Mining". www.romanobritain.org. Romans in Britain. "It was not just iron and lead the Romans wanted to mine, there was also gold, copper and tin. Lead was the actually main prize, as it could be used for water pipes, guttering and, once liquefied in a furnace, mixed with tin to make pewter. But the Romans had an even more important use for lead -- they would extract the silver from the lead ore to make much needed coins and tableware".

Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sunday Bloody Sunday Film Title

What does the title of the film "Sunday Bloody Sunday" refer to?207.237.115.224 (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• See:

In Londonderry, Northern Ireland, 13 unarmed civil rights demonstrators are shot dead by British Army paratroopers in an event that becomes known as "Bloody Sunday."

—"Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland - Jan 30, 1972". HISTORY.com. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F92C:4A34:221B:2434 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC) ... however, this film (Sunday Bloody Sunday (film), 1971) predates the incident (Bloody Sunday (1972)). 22:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The massacre happened on a Sunday (30 Jan 1972) and many people died, see the article here [1]. It is a common name for massacres, see this list [2]. Other massacres in Ireland by this name happened in 1920 and 1921. 143.159.126.174 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sunday Bloody Sunday (film) was released in 1971 - before the events in Derry. Wherever the title came from, it had nothing to do with Bloody Sunday (1972). There is another film, from 2002 (Bloody Sunday (film)) which is about the events in Derry. Wymspen (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, there is an answer on Reddit: [3] —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F92C:4A34:221B:2434 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Well at least the Reddit answer makes sense. That's how I interpreted the title when the film came out. No massacres were in the news at the time. Our article Bloody explains the usage. Dbfirs 22:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sundays in post-war Britain were notoriously boring. Pubs had to be shut between 2 pm and 7 pm (or all day in many parts of Wales). Only newsagents' shops were allowed to open; supermarkets, cinemas, theatres and even fish and chip shops had to stay closed. A famous episode of Hancock's Half Hour called Sunday Afternoon at Home summed-up the melancholy of a wet British Sunday in 1958. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please dont forget that "Bloody" is a commonly used expletive attributive (intensifier) in todays British English: Now please stop these bloody history lessons all you bloody wannabe historions! --Kharon (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Not Bernard Shaw likely. Alansplodge (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Beihai State

During the latter part of the Han dynasty, Kong Rong was the chancellor of the Beihai State (北海國) in Qing Province, modern day Shandong. Was the Beihai State a feudal fief of the Han emperor ruled by a Han imperial prince (wang)? Why was it called a state (guo)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Critics of the New Deal.

Obviously there were many, (see List of critics of the New Deal), but did any organizations grow to be larger than the American Liberty League, at 125,000 people, as ascertained on the talk page? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

March 18

Meaning of this line of numerals

What's the meaning of these [4] ( marked by OP ) numbers, please ? Which can be often seen on the pages depicting their copyright notice etc. ( though not in all books, why ?)150.129.196.80 (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• is it a Printers key? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Also knows as a number line or a publisher's code [5]. That article includes examples with alternating numbers similar to the OP's example. Wymspen (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Abdication in Catholic vs Protestant monarchies

Is it a coincidence that modern Protestant monarchs assume lesser titles following their abdications, while Catholic monarchs retain theirs? For example, the British king Edward VIII became Prince Edward upon his abdication, while the Spanish king Juan Carlos has remained King Juan Carlos. The precedent was set by previous Spanish monarchs who abdicated. Dutch monarchs routinely abdicate and revert to their princely titles (with the exception of William I), but their peers in the neighbouring Catholic monarchies of Belgium and Luxembourg remain kings and grand dukes respectively. Thus the living former monarchs in Europe are Princess Beatrix, King Albert II, King Juan Carlos, and Grand Duke Jean. We might even throw in Pope Benedict XVI. Similarly, when Protestant princes (as has happened in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands) renounce their succession rights, they also lose their titles. Catholic princes (e.g. in Luxembourg, Austria-Hungary and Spain) retain their titles even if they renounce their succession rights. Is there an explanation for this? A remnant of the divine right of kings? Surtsicna (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Albert II did have a change of title upon abdication: from The King of the Belgians to King Albert II of Belgium. Admittedly, "King" featured in both titles. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Juan Carlos also went from "The King of Spain" to "King Juan Carlos of Spain". The point is they remained kings and Majesties, unlike Beatrix. What I wonder is why Catholic monarchs retain their rank while the Protestant ones revert to a lesser rank. Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This is just a random thing, for some reasons in certain places people thought it would be confusing to have 2 people alive that are Kings, but it is not confusing to have 2 people alive that are Queens. Language evolves randomly that way, I am not sure that protestantism has much to do with it. In the opposite direction, the US introduce their ex-presidents as "President" e.g. "President Obama", whereas the French would not introduce their ex-president as "President Hollande". --Lgriot (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I reckon it's only coincidental, as the governments decide on the post-reign titles of former monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is Magnus Carlsen's FIDE blitz rating so high?

It's 2965 and has reached 2986. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I looked him up to see what this post is about. He is the chess champion, for the benefit of anyone else who doesn’t follow the sport/game. Edison (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

A player's FIDE rating is simply an indication of how good a chess player someone is: the more games someone wins, the higher their rating. Carlsen is the world champion, and very good at playing rapid chess. As to why he is so much better than others at that form of chess - well, that's a mystery. No-one really knows why anyone is particularly good at chess - though it must be something to do with having the right sort of mind. Wymspen (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec)The link is, of course, at Magnus Carlsen. The other relevant link is at Elo rating system (which is the system used by FIDE). In short, Carlsen has has such a high rating, because he has won a lot of Blitz games against other strong players. In particular, the FIDE Blitz rating is a relative ranking of ability in this particular category - you cannot reasonably compare the absolute value in the Blitz category with the one in the plain category, and deduce that Carlsen under Blitz constraints would beat Carlsen with more time because the Elo score is better (you can, on the other hand, correctly infer that Carlsen, left-handed, blinded, under Blitz conditions, and with Hellraiser on a set of headphones with an irregular intermittent short circuit, would win all games of a simultaneous chess game against 48 clones of myself ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course Carlsen isn't weaker when he has dozens of times more time to think but since Carlsen has never been above 2882 regular one wonders if that gives any information about whether he's more likely to score higher in a double round robin tournament if its blitz (with the conditions as similar as possible: same players, player order, black/white order, average tournament importance compared to the games that affect his elos, representative distribution of opponent elos compared to the games affecting his elo, same opponent elo percentile distribution as far as possible with the opponents being the same for both blitz and regular (most players good enough to enter the same FIDE tournaments as him probably have both a FIDE blitz and FIDE regular elo so that might not cause much of a too loosely connected Venn diagram problem)..). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The US has 50 states and the Republic of Ireland has 26 counties

Everybody in those countries knows the fact about their own country. Are there any other countries where it is universal to know how many top level administrative divisions there are? Muzzleflash (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

In Canada, yes - especially since there are only 13. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Ulster - even more so than the Republic. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Though Northern Ireland now has 11 districts, while the six historic counties have no administrative role. Wymspen (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Ulster wasn't "six counties" either. But it's still a literal article of faith to talk about it as such. The idea of anyone saying they live in one of "11 districts" is used about as much as people in South Wales thinking they're in some "Torfaen" rather than Gwent or Monmouthshire. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

US states are not "administrative divisions". --Trovatore (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

How about "maladministrative multiplications" then? Wymspen (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The United States is based on a form of federalism that considers states as partial sovereigns (divided sovereignty). The states do not owe their existence to the United States. It's the other way around. --Trovatore (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Eh, I'd say that's not 100% accurate. Yes, the states are sovereign individuals that cannot be unilaterally changed, but for the vast majority of them, they were explicitly created by the federal congress. Land was acquired; it divided into civil territories, which were sometimes created, destroyed, or modified; then after a certain threshold of population had been reached, Congress might vote to admit them as a state. To say that the state of Wyoming, for example, doesn't owe its existence to the federal government, despite being admitted as a state after being formed as a federal territory after the land was acquired from various local and foreign powers... is way over-simplifying the matter. --Golbez (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, that's a fair point. Still, once Wyoming was admitted to the community of states, it became a sovereign state equal to the others (in the appropriate sense of the word "equal").

To me, "administrative subdivision" implies that policy comes from the top, but that for convenience or other reasons the administration of that policy is divided into smaller units. That isn't the way the US works, in spite of repeated efforts to make it work that way from both left and right. --Trovatore (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Everyone keeps returning the letters when I affix the Federative Republic of Rhode Island. Official languages English, Spanish, and posh English. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Try "State of Rhode Island". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No such state exists. The official name is "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations", as defined in the local constitution. "We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution of government."Dimadick (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

People do not always hew to strict formal definitions. Referring to U.S. states as "top-level" or "first-level divisions" is commonplace, including on this very wiki. The U.S. is not the only federal state. --47.146.60.177 (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Only the ignorant or non-Americans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. The County of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles are properly called first- and second-level divisions of the State of California. If California wished, it could slice and dice the counties. It could revoke the City's charter. I think it could do all this without a constitutional amendment, without a vote of the people, without even a supermajority in the legislature. It would just be the same as any other legislation. I could be wrong about that (I would be interested to find out), but in any case at most it might require a constitutional amendment.

The United States cannot do any such thing to the State of California. Indeed, California's equal representation in the Senate is guaranteed by the Constitution, in a way that cannot even be amended. --Trovatore (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Cannot even be amended without the state's consent. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess you are right. But why bother make such a pedantic point and sidetrack the question? Muzzleflash (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Figure out why it's so irritating to hear states described as "administrative divisions", and you might get insight into why Americans generally know how many there are. --Trovatore (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

As a U.S. citizen, I'm sorry, but this sounds to me rather like American exceptionalism of the sort that tends to engender dislike for the U.S. "The U.S.'s political structure is so different from the rest of the world that you can't use the customary political science terminology employed when talking about every other country." The United Arab Emirates is a federation of emirates, which each retain all powers not granted to the federal government. Are you similarly insistent about terminology when discussing them? --47.146.60.177 (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd suggest that the states were agreeing to become administrative subdivisions at the time they ratified the Constitution (the original 13, which were sovereign states under the Treaty of Paris) or applied to join the union. The phrase does not really have the implications that Trovatore finds annoying. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, if you think the 13 original states were "agreeing to become administrative subdivisions", you should sue your high school history teacher for a refund, because he obviously failed you.

As for the UAE, I can't say; I don't know enough about them. I'm not claiming there are no other similar structures in the world. I am saying that "administrative subdivisions" is inaccurate (and offensive) when applied to US states. -Trovatore (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's an analogy: Try going to Scotland and telling them they're an "administrative subdivision" of the UK. See how that goes over. American states have more political autonomy than Scotland does (though admittedly they're not as culturally distinct). --Trovatore (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes? The states of Germany or Mexico, the prefectures of Japan, the regions of France. You seem to be implying that people in other countries don't know civic facts about their own countries. Is this based on something specific? --47.146.60.177 (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure in those countries you've listed it's as universally known as the 50 states? As in every school kid knows. In some countries not too many people know how many provinces there are. I suspect only in a few countries is this knowledge absolutely universal. Muzzleflash (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the UK. I know how many states the US has. I don't know how many counties Wales or the UK has. On a good day I might be able to list most of them, but I've certainly never counted them, or talked about "the glorious 23 counties of England" as any sort of cultural touchstone. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

France is another case for which I have serious doubts. French regions are a relatively recent creation, and they have been reorganized under François Hollande not five years ago. I doubt most French citizens today know how many there are or their current official names, given how fluid they have been and how little relative power they hold. --Xuxl (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In the UK, there are four Home Nations which is quite simple. At school in the 1960s, we had to learn the whereabouts of the Historic counties of England and be able to write them in an outline map; I had in mind that there were 32 of them, but looking at our article (which doesn't mention a number in the text), it seems there were 39. Several counties were subdivided into the Administrative counties of England in the 19th century to make about 50, but I'm pretty sure we learned the traditional ones. The whole system was changed by the Local Government Act 1972 to produce the Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England which has been tinkered about with since; Rutland has made a reappearance for example. Therefore, I'd be astonished if anybody in England could tell you exactly how many counties there are today, especially as the traditional counties are still being used by cricket teams and in some postal addresses. We also have Regions of England, a recent invention to keep the EU happy. The Met Office uses these for weather forcasts. Alansplodge (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

While the existence of 50 states is widely regarded as common knowledge in the U.S., it would not in the least be surprising if a past Jay Leno's Jaywalking segment or any similar man in the street type of interview sketch revealed considerable ignorance of the details. older ≠ wiser 14:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

But you could make the same argument for the Earth being flat, or the dinosaurs all having drowned overnight within the last 6,000 years. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"the dinosaurs all having drowned". The Dinosaurs are no longer considered extinct to begin with. "The fossil record indicates that birds are modern feathered dinosaurs, having evolved from earlier theropods during the late Jurassic Period. As such, birds were the only dinosaur lineage to survive the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago. Dinosaurs can therefore be divided into avian dinosaurs, or birds; and non-avian dinosaurs, which are all dinosaurs other than birds." Dimadick (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Good for people to know, but the reference to "6,000 years" indicates Andy was referencing young Earth creationists, who tend to believe fossils were put there by Satan to lead us astray from God, or that they were all deposited there overnight when God flooded the world and killed everything except Noah and friends. I doubt they care what a bunch of "evilutionists" say about birds. --47.146.60.177 (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Do YEC believe that mythological characters like Yahweh and Satan are real? And people question why I have no faith in humanity's capacity for reason. Dimadick (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Australians probably all know there are six states and three territories. It's easier when the numbers are low. Jack, can you confirm? Rojomoke (talk)

No, I am unaware of 3 territories. I know of 2.
Sleigh (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently Jervis Bay Territory is the third in mainland Australia, no longer being considered part of the ACT. Of course, there are then another half a dozen island or overseas territories which should be counted to get the full picture. Wymspen (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, smaller number = more likely to be widely known. It's a subnational entity of course, but the issue is similar...if you asked people from Delaware and Texas how many counties their states had, the percentage of Delawarians (sp.?) correctly answering "three" would likely be higher than the percentage of Texans correctly answering "two hundred fifty-four". And bear in mind that a few tiny countries have no subnational divisions; see Subdivisions of Kiribati for example. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

States and territories of Australia has the full details: 6 states, 3 internal territories, 7 external territories. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Why isn't Northern Territory a state? It's got similar population (211,945 vs. 224,000) and percent of the average state population as Alaska Territory when it was made a state, would cause the difference between the biggest and smallest state populations to be half what it was when Alaska joined, would have almost 1% of its country's population when Alaska had only 0.1% and it's 106 years after the US stopped having internal territories (Canada's current territories by comparison have never exceeded 64,402 people besides the 1891 Census (98,967)) I also wonder why the Australian Capital Territory's an internal territory just like past and current "pre-states" instead of a different entity like a federal/national/capital/national capital district. Interestingly, the US capital "territory" only has 1.75 times the residents of Australia's despite 13.5 times the national population and I was growled at by a stray dog near the DC Naval Base. It's unexpectedly rundown within walking distance of the famous places. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

See Proposed Northern Territory statehood. (What's with the random irrelevant tourism reminiscences?) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In Germany it would be considered part of general knowledge to know that there are 16 states and to name them (which is not to claim that everyone would be able to do so). I think Xuxl is right about the regions of France, but I wouldn't be surprised if many French people know that there are 96 Departments of France, and perhaps even know the name of quite a few of them (in part because they are on the car plates). Another one would be the 26 Cantons of Switzerland, which I think most Swiss can probably name. --Terfili (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• The US has more than 50 "top-level administrative divisions", however defined. There are also territories (e.g., Puerto Rico) and other oddities such as the District of Columbia. These must be considered "top-level" since they are not part of any other "administrative division." Therefore, your premise that the top-level administrative divisions are universally known in the US is not correct. This is not a picky detail, since the reason people in other countries are less aware of their country's divisions is that those divisions are historically complicated and not easily stated in a single sentence, and this is the same for the US. -Arch dude (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"and they have been reorganized under François Hollande not five years ago." Per article Regions of France, the 2016 reforms reduced the regions from 27 to 18, mostly through a series of mergers.:

• Burgundy and Franche-Comté were merged into Bourgogne-Franche-Comté. As a curiosity, this reunites the areas of the Duchy of Burgundy and the County of Burgundy, which had separate administrations since 1477.
• Aquitaine, Limousin, and Poitou-Charentes were merged into Nouvelle-Aquitaine. As a curiosity, this reunites most of the former Duchy of Aquitaine, which had lost its autonomy in 1453.
• Lower Normandy and Upper Normandy were merged into Normandy. This reunited two regions that had separate administrations since 1956, and as a curiosity reunites most of the areas controlled by the former Duchy of Normandy, which de facto lost its autonomy in 1259 and de jure in 1469.
• Alsace, Champagne-Ardenne, and Lorraine were merged into Grand Est. Much of this area consists of remnants from the defunct states of Austrasia, Lotharingia, the Duchy of Lorraine, the Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, and Nazi Germany.
• Languedoc-Roussillon and Midi-Pyrénées were merged into Occitanie. This reunited most areas of old Occitania which are currently under French control, and curiously reunites most of the areas of the former County of Toulouse, which had lost its autonomy in 1271.
• Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Picardy were merged into Hauts-de-France. Most of this region consists of the former Burgundian Netherlands, a personal union of states which went defunct in 1482.
• Auvergne and Rhône-Alpes were merged into Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. This mostly consists of the area formerly controlled by the Arverni, a Celtic tribal state that was annexed into the Roman Republic in 52 BC. Dimadick (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"Therefore, I'd be astonished if anybody in England could tell you exactly how many counties there are today"

Based on the 2009 reforms, England currently has 83 counties (or unitary authorities):

1. Northumberland.
2. Tyne and Wear.
3. County Durham.
4. Cumbria.
5. Lancashire.
6. Blackpool.
7. Blackburn with Darwen.
8. West Yorkshire.
9. North Yorkshire.
10. Borough of Darlington.
11. Borough of Stockton-on-Tees
12. Middlesbrough
13. Borough of Hartlepool
14. Redcar and Cleveland
15. York
16. East Riding of Yorkshire
17. Kingston upon Hull
18. North Lincolnshire
19. North East Lincolnshire
20. Lincolnshire
21. Nottinghamshire
22. Nottingham
23. South Yorkshire
24. Derbyshire
25. Derby
26. Greater Manchester
27. Merseyside
28. Borough of Halton
29. Warrington
30. Cheshire West and Chester
31. Cheshire East
32. Shropshire.
33. Telford and Wrekin
34. Staffordshire
35. Stoke-on-Trent
36. West Midlands (county)
37. Warwickshire
38. Leicestershire
39. Leicester
40. Rutland
41. Northamptonshire
42. Peterborough
43. Cambridgeshire
44. Norfolk
45. Suffolk
46. Essex
47. Southend-on-Sea
48. Thurrock
49. Hertfordshire
50. Borough of Bedford
51. Central Bedfordshire
52. Luton
53. Borough of Milton Keynes
54. Buckinghamshire
55. Oxfordshire
56. Gloucestershire
57. Worcestershire
58. Herefordshire
59. South Gloucestershire
60. Bristol
61. North Somerset
62. Bath and North East Somerset
63. Wiltshire
64. Borough of Swindon
65. Berkshire
66. Medway.
67. Kent
68. East Sussex
69. Brighton and Hove
70. West Sussex
71. Surrey.
72. Hampshire
73. Southampton.
74. Portsmouth.
75. Isle of Wight
76. Dorset.
77. Poole.
78. Bournemouth.
79. Somerset.
80. Devon.
81. Torbay.
82. Plymouth.
83. Cornwall.

• Excluded as a special case is Greater London, as it considered an administrative region in its own right since 1965. Also excluded are the Isles of Scilly, which have a county council, but are not formally a county. Dimadick (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Formatted as columns, to save scrolling; hope you don't mind. —Tamfang (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I had to learn the 12 provinces of the Netherlands at school when I was 8 or so. So that's pretty universal knowledge around here. The next year I also had to learn the provinces/states of Belgium and Germany. This kind of knowledge must be pretty standard in Europe, at least in the countries where the number of provinces is in the low tens. It should be noted that the provinces in Belgium are no longer the top-level subdivision, as the régions were inserted between the country and the provinces in 1995, similar to how the régions were inserted between the country and the départements in France. As the provinces/départements are older and more stable than the régions (and in some countries may be more relevant to the people, because of other authorities), they, as second level subdivisions, are not necessarily less known than the first level subdivisions. Unless one considers the provinces/départements first level and the régions halfth level. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Sagittarian Milky Way, there may not be long to wait: [6] 92.19.172.90 (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Considering that's from 2015 and it's now 2018 and there's been almost no talk about it since then, can't say I would agree. This from last month also supports that view [7]. See also [8] and [9] and especially [10] Of course Tony Abbott isn't even the prime minister anymore, even if the same political party is in power. (Not that I'm suggesting Labor is less likely to support NT statehood.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think we have answered the question that was asked. How many States/Provinces/administrative divisions are in “our” country is the sort of thing taught in school, So most people will be familiar with their own nation. A trickier question is how universal this knowledge will be with non-natives. I suspect that a lot of non-Americans know that the US has 50 states... but few non-French would be able to say how many departments France has. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I've seen occasional accounts of encounters with Americans who insist that there were fifty States before the addition of Alaska and Hawaii, so the knowledge isn't universal. —Tamfang (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I once heard a fellow exchange student telling someone there were 52 states, but my guess is he was mixing it up with the number of cards in a standard deck. Obama once claimed he had visited 57 states on his campaign tour, though this seems to have been the verbal equivalent of a typo. --Trovatore (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, there is debate about which one is the 51st state. "It can also be used in a pejorative sense, meaning an area or region is perceived to be under excessive American cultural or military influence or control. In various countries around the world, people who believe their local or national culture has become too Americanized sometimes use the term "51st state" in reference to their own countries." Dimadick (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

References

March 19

Historic postal address for Bristol

I have looked at the article but I'm just as confused as ever. If someone were to send a letter to someone living in Bristol between, say, 1880 and 1960, and they didn't themselves live in Bristol, what would the full postal address be? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Surname,

House name or number, Street

District

BRISTOL

There are variations. Prominent landmarks (inns, churches, big houses) were used as much as road names. "Dr Days" was a bridge needed to cross the new railway, near the eponymous doctor's large house. It still gives its name to a railway junction.[11] There was no door-to-door delivery in poorer parts of town for a long time. The notion of "post towns" in the UK is an old one, as is the idea of writing them in an address as uppercase, and for a well known city like Bristol these would be used more than a county. By the 1880s though, everywhere in Britain has a post office and a simple recognised name (Sudbrook grew from nothing but a field beyond Southbrook Farm about this time, as a building worker's encampment for the Severn Tunnel, but couldn't have a post office until it was designated with a proper name.) There was also much use of poste restante addresses, especially in a commercial city such as Bristol. Amelia Dyer, the infamous baby farmer [12], made much use of such addresses and pseudonyms, including one at the 'Ship's Letter Exchange', Stokes Croft, Bristol. The Ship's Letter Exchange by this time was used so much as a commercial mailbox service that it had moved away from the docks to bigger offices on the other side of town.

If you really want to know details, talk to the Postal Museum in nearby Bath. https://bathpostalmuseum.org.uk/ Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I found this image of an 1875 addressed envelope, although not for Bristol. Bristol straddled two counties, Gloucestershire and Somerset, and was effectively a county in its own right, so I doubt that a county name would have been used. This turn-of-the-century advertisement says "Matthew William Dunscombe, 5, St. Augustines Parade, Bristol". According to this article, house numbering in England started in England in the mid-18th century, but was somewhat chaotic before the Metropolitan Management Act 1855. Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is a 1932 letter from Gambia to Bristol. I don't recall the postal town being written in capitals until the introduction of postcodes; Andy Dingley may well be right, but if so, it seems to have been a rule widely ignored on handwritten envelopes. Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Bristol was always (certainly in 1880) a major city, and the only place of that name in England, so there would have been no confusion if a letter was simply sent to Bristol. And it wasn't (and isn't) only "effectively" a county in its own right, it is in all senses a county in its own right. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

But doesn't appear in Historic counties of England#List of counties, neither do Lichfield or Poole etc. Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• House numbering in the UK begins with the building of streets (as unified streets) and deliberate town planning - a largely Georgian development. This was the result of commercial speculative builders, especially in the profitable new town expansions of Bath or Cheltenham, and similar areas in established towns like Bristol. Rather than houses being built one by one for their owners and acquiring names almost randomly from their owners, builders now built a whole row or more of houses and then sold them on - numbering them neatly from the outset as a means of managing them. This in turn required the developed banking of the 18th century, so that these many builders could finance such an outlay. The "Postal Act of 1765" seems to be one of those internet myths which has become recursively self-sourcing.

Uppercase generally begins with typewriters. Someone trained in the calligraphy of the period, using the pens of the period (either quill or steel), just doesn't do this naturally. However it is recorded in addressing. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What's your source for that first sentence? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Mostly OR for the unprovable negative of numbers not being much used beforehand. For the development of British housing as planned estates though, Suburban Style: The British Home 1840–1960. 1987. ISBN 0-356-14054-7. is a good start. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

According to Letter case, upper and lower case long precede the invention of the typewriter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well of course they do! However uppercase (as whole words) is very awkward to write for typical British penmanship of this period, owing to the English use of round hand scripts and the affectation of teaching a copperplate hand. Europe avoided this, with variations on Niccoli amd Arrighi italic across much of mainland Europe and Blackletter remaining in the Germanic north. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for this. I was enquiring to assist an American relative locate her relatives, and as ever Ancestry comes up with some very strange locations, in this case it was "Bristol, Staffordshire, England". Now I know Bristol is 70 - 100 miles from Staffordshire so that was quite obviously not right! But what was right? Hence the confusing search. The other source of my confusion was the reference that said Bristol became a County Borough. Now I used to live in a County Borough, which had a Staffordshire postal address. So I thought there must have been a shire suffixed to Bristol, just as Birmingham was in Warwickshire and Manchester in Lancashire. Obviously the northern half of Bristol was Gloucestershire, and the southern half was Somerset. So to accurately pin down the location, we would need to find the address on a map. I think my next step is to find the census records and get the definitive answer from there. Thank you all. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Bristol's location within counties is extremely convoluted!

It was never really that firmly in Somerset. Gloucestershire extended southwards to the Avon, Bristol developed mostly on the North bank of the Avon. St Mary Redcliffe was on the South bank, in Somerset, and came under a different diocese: Bath & Wells, rather than Worcester and the county of Gloucestershire. The major church in Bristol was St Augustine's Abbey, which still gives its name to the (now filled-in) main medieval dock area. St Mary Redcliffe grew in the 13th century, with the mercantile money from the developing port, and aiming to become the centre and cathedral of this growing and now important city. The Northern side were against this - they wanted to stay as the major bank of the river, so opposed this. The 1373 charter of Bristol makes it deliberately separate from both counties, an unusual matter for the time, and thus reduced the unwanted influences of the (Baby-eating) Bishop of Bath and Wells from the growing mercantile and secular, if not downright godless, Bristol merchants. Henry VIII later dissolved the monasteries, including St Augustines, leaving the building vacant. In turn this led to the more-compliant and secular suffragan bishops and the new dioceses of Gloucester and in 1542, Bristol - which included Dorset too.

Neither the county status, nor the diocese of Bristol lasted indefinitely, coming and going over the years. The diocese was part of 'Gloucester and Bristol' from 1836 to 1897. The counties are even more complicated. I used to live in Fishponds, a northern suburb, and the county boundary was a large signpost opposite the house, at the corner of one of the otherwise indistinguishable blocks of Staple Hill. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

See here for other examples Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 March 25#Dora, Alabama. 92.19.172.248 (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

galley proofs

Before the age of digital typography, publishers used to circulate galley proofs to reviewers before final publication, to allow for fixing errors and maybe making last-minute updates. I think the idea is they'd set the type (by hand?) on a letterpress, print a few copies to circulate as proofs, then make any needed corrections by moving the letterpress type around.

I'd think that printing equipment and re-usable type was quite expensive: did they really set up multiple presses to print the pages, then leave them sitting around for days or weeks while waiting for corrections to come back by post? What if it was for a book with 100s of pages? Was the galley itself (i.e. the tray that held the composing sticks) removable from the printer, so you could fully typeset a page and then store the loaded galley for later use? Or did they just remove the loaded sticks and reinstall them, or what? How much time did authors/reviewers usually get to make their corrections? I'm mostly asking in regard to the 1920s-1930s period, but if there's a general history that would be nice. The Wikipedia articles that I looked at don't say much about this topic. Thanks. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, from Strong Poison I do know that letting the typeset galleys stand was an option (that wasn't used for arty books with low sales expectations like Phillip Boyes's). It's only a half-sentence in the novel, butDorothy L. Sayers is usually decent for research. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Once the type was set, it was locked into a chase (printing), which could be stored - so you could keep using the press itself for other things. The alternative was to create a Stereotype (printing) which freed up the type for re-use. Wymspen (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! TIL where the word "stereotype" comes from. I'll try to connect up the relevant articles a little bit more. 2607:FCD0:100:8303:5D:0:0:B7D4 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that when using the Monotype System, you could just store some paper tape, rather than metal type... AnonMoos (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm thanks, and I guess there were ways to edit the tape, such as with scissors. But was that a huge expensive chunk of equipment used only at mass-circulation publishers such as newspapers? The situation I was originally wondering about involved math journals. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

For a large part of the 20th century (before the rise of Phototypesetting in the 1960s), newspapers usually used Linotype, book publishers in the UK used Monotype (considered to produce higher-quality output), while in the U.S. many book publishers used Linotype, but self-consciously high-end book publishers used Monotype. I have no idea about math journals (which obviously had some special requirements)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

March 20

survival exercise: would the rivers be frozen?

I read this survival/discussion activity, and used it in teaching esl classes, but one thing often comes up: It says "The 20 miles to the nearest town is a long walk under even ideal conditions, particularly if one is not used to walking such distances. In this situation, the walk is even more difficult due to shock, snow, dress, and water barriers." I'm not disputing the basic conclusion, but in northern Canada, wouldn't the rivers be frozen at this time of year? Perhaps a local can help. Thanks in advance. IBE (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It is the surface of the river that freezes. I'm not Canadian but it all depends on how fast the river is and how wide it is and how long it has been freezing whether you can walk over it or not. By the way I'd have thought the most important things were protection from the cold and wind and some signalling rather than making a fire. Though smoke from a fire can be seen from quite a distance. Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The reference is to "creeks", which sound like they would be smaller than "rivers". And "25 below" to "40 below" zero would likely freeze those creeks. Bus stop (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Even for northern Canada, those are winter temperatures; the ocean would largely be frozen (even these days), let alone creeks and rivers. I've never seen one of these things that wasn't ridiculous and this one is no exception. I recognize that the goal is to get people to learn how to form a consensus rather than to determine the actual answer, but the nonsense that gets used is frustrating. For one, what the hell kind of business meeting are you going to with a can of Crisco and a ball of steel wool? :-) Matt Deres (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

ok, that's pretty funny, but hardly the point. Suppose you were going to a meeting to learn how to channel wifi through your brain waves or something? Then you would need a metal tin and some makeshift wire, I suppose. Either way, it matters more whether the answers are still basically correct for the given setup, since the equipment is a given, and just the starting point for the discussion. IBE (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You could still fall through the ice depending on how big/deep/fast-moving the water is. But perhaps @CambridgeBayWeather: would have some insight here. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If we give them the benefit of the doubt, one could argue that the water itself isn't the barrier so much as the effect it has on the surrounding terrain. Even with a creek or river frozen solid, the steep, ice- and snow-covered river banks could be treacherous or outright unclimbable, forcing a long detour to find an accessible crossing. Deep snow could further conceal hazardous footing by filling in cracks and fissures. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You're giving the makers of these things far too much credit: they are a complete joke. The last one I saw prior to this was about being stranded on the moon and what priority you should give having a canoe. The goal is only to facilitate consensus forming; I just wish they wouldn't pretend to be based on something that sounds semi-plausible (the astronaut one was supposedly "developed by NASA"). Matt Deres (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think they are quite right in saying trying to trudge 20 miles over difficult ground in that sort of temperature would be extremely stupid. Without good clothing it would be dangerous enough even on a good highway. The plane would have put in a flight plan and people with proper equipment would come searching soon enough. The first imperatives would be to not die and staying beside the crash site would do as a signal to rescuers until a decent shelter was made.

And I did one of these things a while ago and it was very annoying. They had us do them individually and then together. I was second best overall amongst all the results in the whole company - but the group I was put in did badly. And worse than that I was asked afterwards to say how it showed that group decision were better, to which I agreed of course. Gnash grrr. Dmcq (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that the paper was written from a U.S. point of view so the temperature is not −25 °C (−13 °F) but −25 °F (−32 °C). Either way the rivers and creeks will be frozen by mid-January. By that time the ice roads would be open for use, even across the Mackenzie River (NWT Highway 1). It doesn't matter though as the paper clearly indicates that you are not going to walk to town, see the last page for items 11 and 12, but stay with the plane as that is where the search and rescue will begin.

We do get people dressed in business attire flying up here (lawyers, judges, politicians) but they usually have the typical winter gear of parka, gloves, boots and windpants. Without those they are going to die or at least loose some fingers and toes. And remember never leave the crash site. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

How long could a local survive without full protection? I've heard of locals in Canada (maybe not so far north) standing around in jeans and a t-shirt, because they are "used to it". This was when my friend couldn't walk 30 metres without being out of breath, like he'd been kicked in the chest. IBE (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well stupid people will do stupid things but I don't think I've ever seen anybody stand around too long. I've taken the garbage out in that kind of clothing at −35 °C (−31 °F) but wouldn't want to walk any further. Age seems to play into it. You see teenagers walking around all winter in spring (−15 °C (5 °F)) clothing. My granddaughter is 8 and she has no problems playing outside when the temperature is -40. If the temperature is -50 (with or without the wind chill) the school has indoor recess. This annoys her no end but some kids just don't have proper clothing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @CambridgeBayWeather: - What do people wear at −15 °C (5 °F)? That is still frightfully cold to me, and I do know a little about what it is like. I've experienced −10 °C (14 °F), and it is quite intense. For me, gloves and thermals are not enough. My hands were still freezing to the point of pain. IBE (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Did Germany ever bomb Germany

I have read Strategic bombing during World War II which makes no reference to it, and Scorched earth which says "Hitler also ordered the destruction of transport, bridges, industries, and other infrastructure—a scorched earth decree—but Armaments Minister Albert Speer was able to keep this order from being fully carried out" but I would still like to ask whether Germany ever bombed any part of Germany (during retreat?) in WWII. (Or WWI). Hayttom (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Bombed from the air (not AFAIK) or demolished by military engineers (many, many bridges etc.)?

The Luftwaffe was largely ineffective by this time, owing to bombing of its own operations, loss of aircraft, Allied air superiority, and (AFAIK) mostly a lack of fuel. They did carry out tactical bombing attacks on Allied military forces in German territory, but not this type of strategic destruction of infrastructure. The Me 262 was used as a fighter-bomber in this period, on Hitler's direct orders. This has been widely criticised as a 'waste' of such an effective fighter, however it may have been a better decision than is usually credited. It was one of the few aircraft capable of still operating against Allied superiority, and it also only needed a simpler kerosene fuel. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Andy Dingley. I have also just read our article on the V-2 rocket which says that 11 V-2s were fired at Remagen (which is in Germany, about 50 km from France). I would love to know more about this. Hayttom (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If anywhere was bombed like this, it would have been the Ludendorff Bridge, and its strategic crossing of the Rhine. I have a memory that the larger Ar 234 jet bomber was used. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

V-2 rocket#Tactical use mentions the target was the bridge. They didn't hit it. They actually bombed their own country from abroad since the rockets were in the Netherlands to be close to other targets. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The article states that the Leonidas Squadron made suicide attacks on the Oder River bridges, including the bridge at Kuestrin, then part of German East Prussia (now Poland). 164.107.80.170 (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

See also Battle of Remagen#Aircraft attack bridge for details. Alansplodge (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Most Bridges where destroyed by Pioneer (military) Soldiers. Bombs where not reliable enough during WW2 and the nazis wanted to prevent any possibility of fast improvised repairs by the Allied forces so they used the land based special forces to destroy the bridges beyond repair. --Kharon (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hence the need for swift assault to take them. Six moths earlier, the road bridge at Nijmegen was rushed by the Allies before the demolition charges could be blown. Again, the Germans tried to bomb the bridge but it was finally destroyed by frogmen. Alansplodge (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

SNAP and Food Banks

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program provides money (used to be literal food stamps/coupons) in the form of debit cards. While Wikipedia does mention qualifications and food permissions, I wonder how they differ from food banks and food pantries and soup kitchens run by charities. If the national government cuts spending on food stamps, then will the poor be more reliant on food charities? What kinds of things are offered by SNAP and not by charities? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC) :Linked to program article and corrected spelling. --47.146.60.177 (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Food pantries have limited number of locations and supply and choice of items. Food stamps etc can be used at ordinary supermarkets and other stores which have many more locations and food purchase choices. RudolfRed (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Vegetarians, kosher followers and diabetes and celiac sufferers would have even less choice. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

SNAP is a cash benefit that can be spent on any allowed items at any retailer that accepts it (which is basically anywhere that sells groceries). Food banks and the like are nonprofits that maintain inventories of food and give said food out to people. You get what they give you, although I'm sure some places give some leeway for requesting certain items if they have them in stock. --47.146.60.177 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

March 21

Italy general election results 2018

Is there a website that showed who were the people from Possible Party (Italian: Possibile) elected to the Chamber of Deputies and also is there a website that showed which comuni gave their most votes to which party or alliance? Please and thank you. Donmust90 (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

On the first question only, the Italian Wikipedia has a list: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibile#Camera_dei_deputati --Lgriot (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Equivalent to FBI serial killings

I heard that RCMP in Canada is like the FBI when it comes to serial killing cases. I thought that CSIS, which is the actual equivalent to FBI does this specialization. Also, which other organization around the world is considered to be like the FBI of their nation when it comes to serial killing? Donmust90 (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

A bit off-topic, but CSIS is equivalent (more or less) to the CIA, not the FBI, so unless the victims were spies, it wouldn't get involved. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that the FBI has jurisdiction over all serial killing cases in the US. I'm fairly sure that's not true. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, the FBI would only get involved if there was a fugitive that was hiding from federal charges related to such murders, i.e. RICO related crimes like Whitey Bulger. Ordinary multiple murders are handled by state police in the various states.--Jayron32 08:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The RCMP is the local police force in some parts of the country, so I suppose they would investigate serial killers in those areas, but otherwise they don't have any special jurisdiction. The alleged serial killer Bruce McArthur is being investigated by the Toronto police, not the RCMP. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

My impression is that the FBI is generally willing and able to get involved if there is a request from local law enforcement but it will still be the local law enforcement who are the lead [13] Serial killer#FBI: Issues and practices [14] [15]. Notable some or all of those sources mention the Protection of Children from Sexual Predator Act of 1998 [16] which defines

term `serial killings' means a series of three or more killings, not less than one of which was committed within the United States, having common characteristics such as to suggest the reasonable possibility that the crimes were committed by the same actor or actors.

(I believe the FBI themselves often use the definition of "two or more", it may get complicated if only two have been linked.) And also explicitly authorised the FBI to investigate if requested by the head of the local LEA or prosecution agency.

How likely it is that they will request help will I imagine depend on the apparent resources, complexity and size and experience of the local law enforcement. I imagine that most real LEA in the US aren't quite as opposed to the FBI getting involved as they seem to be in most TV shows. (In any case, I don't think there is any case where the FBI can just take over without the agreement of the local law enforcement agent as often happens. Of course occasional in such shows, it's the opposite and they're happy to throw the case to the FBI.)

Remembering of course that most or all? states will generally have a next level beyond the local enforcement e.g State bureau of investigation and probably more. Who will probably often get involved first, particularly if the killings occurred in multiple jurisdictions within the state e.g. California Bureau of Investigation (the real one, not the Mentalist one) and the Alaska Bureau of Investigation [17] (although see Alaska State Troopers and List of law enforcement agencies in Alaska). (There is the Hawaii Department of Public Safety#Sheriff Division although I'm not sure if this is something they deal with [18].) While the FBI could be a help in coordination of the serial killings seem to have been in more than one state, I doubt they are necessary there's no reason why the state and local agencies can't coordinate without them.

I also wonder what happens if the crime is believe to have occurred in DC or otherwise on federal property; and other exceptions like that. In DC. the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia would generally be the primary agency but I wonder if it's almost a given the FBI would get involved. And my understanding is there are places where the FBI is the primary agency at least for serious crimes, e.g. an Indian reservation [19].

And beyond that outlined by Jayron32 I think the FBI may also have jurisdiction in other cases, e.g. if the serial killing involved the victim being kidnapped across state lines I believe in some cases the kidnapping part at least could be investigated per the Federal Kidnapping Act [20] even without the local LEA requesting. I don't believe the victim being found dead would necessarily prevent the investigation since the kidnapping may still be a federal crime. That said, because it technically has to involve interstate commerce the general requirement is there is a ransom plan which rules out most serial killer kidnappings. Silencing a witness is another that has been found to be within federal jurisdiction although I'm not sure if it'll apply in most serial killers cases where it's likely at best only a minor part of the motive. [21]

You could also come up with other exceptions e.g. if at least one of the victims was a federal employee or diplomat they could investigate that Murder (United States law)#Jurisdiction. Or the serial killings appear to be hate crimes, aspects may fall under civil rights statutes and those could potentially be investigated. [22] Hate crime laws in the United States#Civil Rights Act of 1968

In any case, I'm not saying it's likely the FBI will get involved is there is no request even if they are able to.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Current status of proposed Russian political party Independent Democratic Party of Russia

Does anyone know what happened to Mikhail Gorbachevs attempt to launch political party 'Independent Democratic Party of Russia'? I saw a stub on Wikipedia about it, and it's only briefly mentioned in the article about Gorbachev. And is there a possibility to change the importance rating of the article?

Thanks in advance! 213.124.213.8 (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

March 22

Where's the busiest point of Interstate highway that's not in a metro or micropolitan area?

(of course the point is really a zone between access points which could be miles apart)

2. (a bit less restrictive) Is the least busy point of the main road route between Philly and New York busier than the same thing for any other pair of primary statistical areas? A lot of Boston-Philly, Boston-Baltimore, Boston-DC, NY-Philly, NY-Baltimore and NY-DC traffic passes that point so it seems like a good candidate. This point might be the New Jersey Turnpike east of Trenton but there's no gap between the NY and Philly metro areas so it's intermetropolitan but never leaves.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• At one point in the 1980's the stretch of Interstate west of Knoxville Tennessee was claimed to be the busiest non-urban interstate. This stretch carries I-75 together with I-40, and I-40 is carrying traffic that came in from I-81, so there is a lot of long-haul traffic in all directions on that stretch. (Sorry, I have no references, just a memory of news reports.) -Arch dude (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no direct route by interstate from Philly to New York anyway, Taking I-95 will likely not be the shortest route, so I'd suspect the traffic is spread out between routes. When I was in college, we generally got off at Turnpike exit 4, to 73, 38 and 30 and across the Ben Franklin Bridge, but it might depend on where in Philly you are going.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Qaddafi's 50 million Euro campaign contribution to Sarkozy presidential campaign

There are various figures but the original investigative media report put it at 50 million, which is over twice the legal limit for presidential campaigns in France. If the figure is true, how is it possible that so much money could be sloshing around in a presidential campaign without raising a huge question mark about the amount of money available to the campaign? Wouldn't it be apparent that the Sarkozy campaign was spending way more than the limit permitted like much television advertising (or whatever takes the lion's share of the budget in the French presidential campaign context). Muzzleflash (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Televised political ads are banned in France. So, he would have spent in something else. Probably something where accountability is more difficult like election posters. --Hofhof (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

They obviously asked some Bookkeeping specialists how Money laundering works. There are hundreds of similar examples or scandals around the world and the press will likely shed a light on the way this one did when the investigations are done. --Kharon (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm more curious about the spending rather than concealing the source. How do you manage to spend way over the limit in a political campaign without raising questions about having way more funds than his campaigned should have had? Was he bribing other French politicians for endorsements/to lend him on the ground volunteer muscle or some other kind of spending that isn't visible like spending on campaign advertising? Muzzleflash (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

According to The Guardian: "campaign overspend, mainly on the lavish rallies and US-style stadium gigs that cemented Sarkozy’s reputation as a political showman." It was about 23 million euro over the legal limit of 22.5 million, which is easily spent renting stadiums for some hundred thousand, and maybe driving people there in buses. That's much less than what is common in the US according to Investopedia: " Hillary Clinton's campaign spent a total of $768 million, vastly more than the $398 million Donald Trump's campaign spent," He allegedly was "using false billing from a public relations firm called Bygmalion." according to Strait's Time. Anyway, whatever trick he tried to pull to hide the spending did not went well. He's being questioned by the police and had failed re-election. Hofhof (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting article with a lot of clues about what the surplus money could have been spent on during the 2007 campaign even though the article describes campaign events of the 2012 campaign. Sarkozy did get elected in 2007 by spending Qaddafi's money so that much at least worked out for Sarkozy. I wonder if the Qaddafi regime had any decisive role in Sarkozy being exposed. Immediately after Sarkozy ordered the bombing of Libya, Qaddafi's son publicly denounced Sarkozy as duplicitous for taking Libya's money and then bombing the country, but no one believed the Qaddafi regime because of obvious credibility issues. There was an investigative media report in 2012 detailing the money trail. I wonder if the documents were supplied by the Qaddafi regime as revenge? Muzzleflash (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, completely OR, but I am guessing one way to spend the money without any visibility at all is to hire think thanks and marketing firms who will study which specific message pushes the right button across which demographics, and these are expensive if done in great detail. Then you can have a public marketing message that is the only visible part, which is finely tuned and much more effective, but the public part is within the allowed cost. As long as these people don't spill the beans, you would not know they were hired. Sorry no reference, just thinking aloud. --Lgriot (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as I remember from news reports, Nicolas Sarkozy won the French presidential election, 2007 because he was seen as an anti-immigration candidate. This seems to be reflected in our article:

"* Immigration – The issue of immigration in France has split France. The number of deportations more than doubled since 2002, with Sarkozy as Minister of the Interior from 2002 to 2004 and 2005 to 2007. Sarkozy declared in April 2006 that immigrants who did not "like France" should "leave it." Opponents have labelled Sarkozy's attitude as repressive, in particular towards illegal immigrants, materialised by numerous police raids against illegal aliens, strongly opposed by the left. The main problem concerns illegal immigrants (sans-papiers, "without documents") who cannot obtain work permits without proper immigration documents and are therefore mostly found in the informal economy – construction, restaurants, etc. Although the right of foreigners to vote was a classic claim of the left-wing, it has not been an important issue of the campaign. On the other hand, Sarkozy has declared himself in favour of affirmative action which has been widely contested both on the left and on the right, on grounds that it would favour communautarisme – separation of communities – along ethnic lines, and that it means taking into account ethnic alleged memberships in statistics, which is legally prohibited and not done by the INSEE. Left-wingers argued in favour of social actions not based on ethnic factors, but on geographical situation and equality of territory; however, the traditional Universalism of the French Republicans has also been criticised on the left-wing by some intellectuals supporting a middle-ground between Republican universalism and multiculturalism."

Opponents of Sarkozy (and his anti-immigration policies) like to point out that his father was a Hungarian emigrant, and that his maternal grandfather was a Greek-Jewish emigrant from the Ottoman Empire. Dimadick (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

(I've added a {{reflist-talk}} at the end of this item so that that footnotes group with it, and fixed the <ref name="SarkozyRFI"/> reference that was copied from the other article without including its definition. I'll do the same thing next with the similar copy in some other items, below.) --69.159.62.113 (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Translation of Chinese deity name

Zhu Bajie is known as Puji Shenghou (普濟聖侯) in Fujian. Would "Marquis Sage of Universal Salvation" be a correct translation? - 39.8.8.153 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I am very wary of topolectic "written Chinese". Aside from Mandarin, written Cantonese seems to be a legitimate standard written language. Other topolects don't seem to have a formalized, standardized writing system. In the past, Chinese people didn't need regional written languages. They just got Classical Chinese, which united everyone who knew how to read Classical Chinese. So, it's very likely that the above example in "written Fujianese" may be a transliteration of the Fujian topolect using Standard Pinyin phonetics and Han characters. I did some searching and found this, which led me to this, which suggests that it's a Daoist god? SSS (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Why the Romans persecuted Christians

Our article Pliny_the_Younger_on_Christians includes the following claim, with two citations:

"Neither Pliny nor Trajan mentions the crime that Christians had committed, except for being a Jew ; and other historical sources do not provide a simple answer to what that crime could be, but a likely element may be the stubborn refusal of Christians to worship Roman gods; making them appear as objecting to Roman rule."

This doesn't seem to stack up. The Romans didn't persecute the Jews (who in those days shared a lot of similarities with Christians) unless and until they caused political trouble. And the Jews for certain stubbornly refused to worship Roman gods. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Source amnesia (in part because I've heard it from so many places), but I've always heard/read that it was for any combination of these reasons:

• the Christians referred to Jesus using titles belonging to Caesar.
• the Romans weren't keen on any Messianic sect.
• the mainstream Jews were willing to acknowledge that Caesar was a divinely appointed ruler, but the Christians would only admit (at most) a secondary and regnal role for Caesar.
• Jews didn't proselytize and were cautious about conversion, while Christians proselytized.
• Jews stuck to themselves and didn't do much to overturn social order, Christians were rather openly against a lot of popular stuff.
• Jews didn't have "love feasts" with their "brothers and sisters" in catacombs. The Roman equivalent of Fox News loved implying that the Christians were having borderline-necrophiliac incestuous orgies, and the One Roman News Network just outright accused them of it.

I would assume that it'd be feasible to find sources for those claims (but I'm about to eat lunch, so I'm not doing that). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Also there may have been cannibalism-related propaganda. It's obviously just symbolic (Catholics are a bit too literal) and no flesh involved but most people couldn't just go to a library and see if any polytheist says they're crazy but not quite cannibal crazy. And life was cheaper than the modern 1st world and more of the population was willing to believe a one true religion that doesn't make much sense, where the God(s) don't care about morality much and just do these rituals and get heaven. (Roman religion was mostly burn animals = heaven after all) To an ignorant illiterate the implication that this sect of this religious minority has serial killers that harvest enough flesh for everyone to have a bite and sip of blood every Sunday wouldn't have been as far-fetched as today. They always drank the blood in secret till Constantine so that certainly doesn't help making it look like they're not hiding something to someone willing to unquestioningly believe when a bullshitting pro-polytheist says they eat flesh. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

So many being believing they had to be eaten themselves, crucified for days and other painful martyrdoms rather than just denying God and maybe even surviving to donate livestock like a good Roman citizen and get the heat off you might've made Christians look crazy too. Christians traded livestock sacrifice for having to worry about Earth torture and Hell torture all the time (of course because they thought it was the right thing to do but the polytheist fundamentalist might say cause they're crazy) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Dweller -- The basic reason is that ordinary everyday customs and rituals in Roman society (including the common method of pledging allegiance to the emperor) involved acknowledging pagan gods, so that a strict monotheist would be somewhat socially isolated from all except his fellow strict monotheists, and be considered disloyal to the community by some (this is why Jews and Christians were sometimes called "atheists"). The Romans were to some degree prepared to tolerate this from Jews, a somewhat geographically-confined single ethnic group which was following its old traditional religion (though there were in fact constant tensions between Jews and Romans in Judea, which led to eventual armed conflicts, and a tradition of bitter hatred between the Greek and Jewish communities in Alexandria). The Romans were somewhat suspicious of innovations in religion on general principles, and were especially suspicious of a new religion which seemed to encourage social (and perhaps political) disloyalty, and which was spreading among the urban lower classes of multiple ethnic groups. Insofar as Christianity was distinguished from Judaism, it lost the limited Roman official tolerance which had been granted to Judaism. AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No wonder today's New Testament is so Roman apologist.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire was overstated by later Christian authors. It did occur, but it was usually far from constant and universal. (I mean, it later became the state religion, so it's not like it was stamped out.) Though a matter of opinion, I'm not sure the Christians were persecuted more than the Jews, whom the Empire tried to straight-up eradicate after prolonged unrest. --47.146.60.177 (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

In part because Christians were widely seen as criminal and immoral, in part because they were convenient scapegoats for any disaster that befell the Roman Empire. And Christians were antisocial and shunned relations with their fellow Romans:

• "Christians moved their activities from the streets to the more secluded domains of houses, shops and women's apartments...severing the normal ties between religion, tradition and public institutions like cities and nations". This 'privatizing of religion' was another primary factor in persecution. They sometimes met at night, in secret, and this aroused suspicion among the pagan population accustomed to religion as a public event; rumors abounded that Christians committed flagitia, scelera, and maleficia— "outrageous crimes", "wickedness", and "evil deeds", specifically, cannibalism and incest (referred to as "Thyestian banquets" and "Oedipodean intercourse")— due to their rumored practices of eating the "blood and body" of Christ and referring to each other as "brothers" and "sisters"."
• "Much of the pagan populace maintained a sense that bad things would happen if the established pagan gods were not respected and worshiped properly."As the existence of the Christians became more widely known, it became increasingly clear that they were (a) antisocial, in that they did not participate in the normal social life of their communities; (b) sacrilegious, in that they refused to worship the gods; and (c) dangerous, in that the gods did not take kindly to communities that harbored those who failed to offer them cult. By the end of the second century, the Christian apologist Tertullian complained about the widespread perception that Christians were the source of all disasters brought against the human race by the gods. 'They think the Christians the cause of every public disaster, of every affliction with which the people are visited. If the Tiber rises as high as the city walls, if the Nile does not send its waters up over the fields, if the heavens give no rain, if there is an earthquake, if there is famine or pestilence, straightway the cry is, "Away with the Christians to the lions!"'" "Dimadick (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

References

naming perpetrators in the media

This is a pet peeve of mine. Whenever there is a shooting or a bombing or some similar horrible act, the news papers, news channels, etc. keep reporting ad nausium the perpetrators name and try to find out everything about him (or her . . . but mostly him). It seems to me that these perps want the publicity, their 15 minutes of fame, etc. I don't understand why the news people INSIST on giving the perps exactly what they want (usually to the exclusion of the victims). Any insight as to why the media does not make the perp personae non grata would be appreciated (other than the obvious greedy "sensationalism makes us tons of money, any ethics of re-victimization be damned"). 76.71.157.121 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Some people in ancient times felt the same way you did, but it doesn't seem to have worked even then; see Herostratus... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hiding the names of the (usually dead, and hence not around to enjoy it) perps would seem suspicious. Why would the government be hiding such information? What are they up to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

There is just one basic reason why the media publish anything - that is because they have a pretty good idea of what the public want to read! If everyone stopped buying or listening because of this, it would change. Wymspen (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

When I was younger, one of the major channels (there were only three at the time) refused to name Mark Chapman because they understood that all he wanted was to have his name all over the media. So, they referred to his as "the man who shot John Lennon." After a week or so, they went with everyone else and started referring to him by name. It turned out that most people cared more about hearing his name than refusing to let him get the popularity that he wanted. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Some European nations take it to the opposite extreme by allowing perps to eventually have their identity expunged. Either way, the perp wins and the public loses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Can't English defendants be tried under hoods and keep their identity secret if they want? After trial too if they win? Why doesn't America do that? Well if he doesn't win everything then obviously since it's a public trial everyone will know he was accused of the others but that's logically unavoidable. As is someone figuring out who a person found innocent of everything is from the evidence or being at the alleged crime and recognizing him or whatever. I wonder how far they go, if hooding certain trial participants like accusers and witnesses would make it harder to figure out who the accused is do they have to wear hoods too? If anyone knows or suspects who a hooded person is do they have to not tell anyone? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a movement called No Notoriety to this effect. Anderson Cooper of CNN is somewhat on board, sometimes. A silly policy, according to Michael McGough of The Los Angeles Times. People said it'd be careful to avoid it, whatever that means. It sure didn't hide Mark Anthony Conditt. It even mentions how it pestered the FBI for his name after police said they wouldn't release it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

How do we know that these perps want the publicity, their 15 minutes of fame, etc? I don't think we know the motivation in most cases. The shooting suspect at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting doesn't seem to be basking in notoriety. In court appearances he seems to me to hang his head in shame. Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Oddly enough, CNN pictures ol'-no-name hanging his head here, with zero mention, but speaks freely of the far-deadlier Call of Duty consumer Anders Breivik, who is likely quite thrilled about his recent feature film getting four of five stars from The Guardian, despite it not mentioning him. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:36, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

This Norwegian semi-automatic rifle ban story from The Independent is similarly OK with naming Breivik, while only picturing and describing what's-his-face. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

What might've that claim been talking about? (England to 13 colony immigration)

I saw an article about a book or something that said there's 4 main kinds of English emigration to Colonial America, each tending to settle in different colonies, be more likely to be from a certain part of England and possibly come for different reasons. I'd guess one was Puritans to New England from.. somewhere, planters to the South from.. somewhere, Catholics to Maryland from.. somewhere and Quakers to Pennsylvania? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America by David Hackett Fischer. AnonMoos (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Many of the original New England Puritans, per our article Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony), came from Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire, though they had spent some time in exile in Holland. Others of them may have come from East Anglia (which encompasses Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, and also Essex by some definitions) since their 'spiritual founder' Robert Browne had been most active in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk.

Subsequently, some 20,000 more like-minded colonists followed them (see for example Massachusetts Bay Colony), doubtless from various parts of England; "East Anglia" is the default assumption in England.

I'll leave others to enlarge on the Puritans and the other groups you mention. Of course, we do have an article on the book AnonMoos cites, Albion's Seed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It was in fact Albion's Seed. It's interesting how long you can trace the influence of 17th century British regions and denominations despite how much the religious beliefs of the Northeast and Midwest have evolved. Perhaps car mechanics' 17th century ancestors will have a statistically significant overaverage Quaker and North Midlands percent for centuries to come, lol. (at least if you could magically know the faith of the family tree of EVERY American) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"Many of the original New England Puritans, per our article Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony)"

Several of the people in the Plymouth Colony were not Puritans at all, and there was religious-influenced conflict within it.:

• "The English in Plymouth Colony fit broadly into three categories: Pilgrims, Strangers, and Particulars. The Pilgrims were a Protestant group that closely followed the teachings of John Calvin, like the Puritans who later founded Massachusetts Bay Colony to the north. (The Puritans wished to reform the Anglican church from within, whereas the Pilgrims saw it as a morally defunct organization, and sought to remove themselves from it.) The name "Pilgrims" was actually not used by the separatists themselves. William Bradford used the term "pilgrims" to describe the group, but he was using the term generically to define the group as travelers on a religious mission. The Pilgrims referred to themselves as the Saints, First Comers, Ancient Brethren, or Ancient Men. They used such terms to indicate their place as God's elect, as they subscribed to the Calvinist belief in predestination. "The First Comers" was a term more loosely used in their day to refer to any of the Mayflower passengers."
• "There were also a number of indentured servants among the colonists. Indentured servants were mostly poor children whose families were receiving church relief and "many homeless waifs from the streets of London sent as laborers"."
• "In addition to the Pilgrims, the Mayflower carried non-Pilgrim settlers ("Strangers"). This group included the non-Pilgrim settlers placed on the Mayflower by the Merchant Adventurers, and later settlers who came for other reasons throughout the history of the colony and who did not necessarily adhere to the Pilgrim religious ideals. A third group known as the "Particulars" consisted of later settlers who paid their own "particular" way to America, and thus were not obliged to pay the colony's debts."
• "The presence of outsiders such as the Strangers and the Particulars was a considerable annoyance to the Pilgrims. As early as 1623, a conflict broke out between the Pilgrims and the Strangers over the celebration of Christmas, a day of no particular significance to the Pilgrims. Furthermore, a group of Strangers founded the nearby settlement of Wessagussett and the Pilgrims were highly strained, both emotionally and in terms of resources, by their lack of discipline. They looked at the eventual failure of the Wessagussett settlement as Divine Providence against a sinful people."

Our List of Mayflower passengers includes people who had no affiliation to the Leiden, Holland Congregation, such as:

• John Billington (an irreligious troublemaker, who was eventually accused of murder and executed)
• Peter Browne (an acquaintance of the Mullins family who decided to join them in emigration. No known religious affiliation.)
• Francis Eaton (a professional carpenter, hired by the Merchant Adventurers for his skill).
• Stephen Hopkins (a veteran adventurer with experience from Bermuda and Jamestown, Virginia, hired for his experience. Went on to establish his own tavern, and got in trouble with the Pilgrims for serving alcoholic drinks on Sundays. ).
• Christopher Martin (a wealthy merchant and former churchwarden, who came to the attention of the authorities for various financial irregularities. He wanted to emigrate to escape scandal. He got trusted with part of the colonists' funds and was again accused of financial irregularities. Possibly an embezzler.)
• William Mullins (a relatively wealthy shoemaker, who bought stocks in the Merchant Adventurers company and decided to join the emigration movement. He had gotten in some trouble with the English authorities, but their cause is unclear.)
• Myles Standish. (An Englishman who served as a soldier or mercenary of the Dutch Republic during the Eighty Years' War. His military service had ended and he was apparently unemployed, when the Leiden congregation hired as a military advisor for their new colony. He reportedly asked for less money than other available mercenaries).
• Richard Warren. (A relatively wealthy merchant, who joined the emigration movement and eventually brought his entire family to the colony. A relatively shadowy figure in the history of the Colony, almost nothing is known of his past, or his reasons for emigrating.)
• Edward Doty. (An indentured servant in his early 20s, who went to become a wealthy land owner. One of the Colony's troublemakers, he was known for duels and quarrels with fellow Colonists, a fiery temper, and for shady business transactions. He got involved in 23 trials, variously accused of "fraud, slander, fighting, assault, debt, trespass, theft, etc."). Dimadick (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

References

March 23

How does Russia have 15 closed cities that nobody knows the location of

"There are currently 44 publicly acknowledged closed cities in Russia with a total population of about 1.5 million people. 75% are administered by the Russian Ministry of Defense, with the rest being administered by Rosatom.[4] Another 15 or so closed cities are believed to exist, but their names and locations have not been publicly disclosed by the Russian government.[5]"

How can they hide 15 cities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.187.23 (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Closed city. Matt Deres (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

They're not hidden in the sense that they've been covered in a tarp, they're just not publicly disclosed. Semi-educated guess is that most of them are support housing for secret research facilities (nuclear, military, biohazard, etc.). They exist, but would not be included on maps and their existence would be a state secret. Matt Deres (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems more likely to me that they're hidden in plain sight; out-of-the-way towns that are on the map, but you don't find out that there's anything secret about them until you try to go there. Omitting towns from maps would just draw attention to them; after all, any 12 year-old can see Google Earth on their i-phone. Alansplodge (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

A fair chunk of Google Earth is censored, including (but not limited to) places mentioned in that article's "National security" section and in Satellite map images with missing or unclear data. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

• There's also a big difference between the general Western public and governments with access to satellite recon. No doubt the United States government knows that Location X is an active city of around 75,000, where the news media doesn't. Ravenswing 22:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Why didn't North Vietnamese forces overwhelm American patrols in the jungle?

Watching this news report, it looks like a platoon sized isolated American patrols in the jungle were highly vulnerable. They were dropped in by helicopter and far away from friendly ground forces who could reach them. The jungle would make it hard to call in for air support when attacked because of the canopy. The North Vietnamese forces had countless soldiers on the ground who could travel to the same point without the assistance of helicopters. So what prevented the North Vietnamese from routinely positioning hundreds of soldiers to ambush small US patrols? Muzzleflash (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's all about logistics. A Long-range reconnaissance patrol needs transportation to its start point and it needs supply. This is a whole lot easier using helicopters than by walking. An infinite number of opposition troops require an infinite amount of food, so the "countless" NV troops could not in fact be everywhere, and would need to concentrate their forces after determining where the LRRP was actually located. The NV force being supplied without motorized transport cannot operate more than about 200 miles from its base of supply because the transport men or animals will consume all of the supplies. The Americans could disrupt any NV attempt at motorized transport within South Vietnam. -Arch dude (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense. So was the reporter incorrect at the beginning in claiming that the patrol could run into an entire NVA regiment? Muzzleflash (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I've read that armies always have a halo of scouts around them so large groups can't sneak up on them. Perhaps the patrol was too small for scouts and didn't notice a regiment patrol that had encountered them by accident and when they told the regiment its commander decided to ambush them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This looks like a myth in the making. The Viet Cong didn't need hundreds to intercept a US platoon. The platoons where mostly conscripts that did not want to be sent to 'Nam. They trumped through the jungle with their ghetto-blasters blearing etc. So the VC knew exactly where they were. The American rifles were more accurate than a AK-47 but due to being design for a perfect battle field, they kept jamming up. In the jungle one doesn't need a rifle that is accurate at 900 yards -too many trees in the way. One needs a 'reliable' short range rifle – which the VC had. The Australians (don't forget) also fought in 'Nam but fought guerrilla warfare and matched and bettered the VC guerrilla warfare, thus did suffer the horrendous US casualty rate. Had the US adopted this approach, Nixon would not had to pull out and let Pol Pot take over, leading to the deaths of millions. It must count as the most shameful retreat due to military incompetence and over reliance on technology in the latter half of the 20th Century. Oh, and as to answer the OP's question. The VC did end up overwhelming the US forces – in their own way. --Aspro (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Pull out and let Pol Pot take over"? Pol Pot took over alright — in Cambodia, where we were not (officially) at war. Who eventually ended his murderous reign? The, um, Vietnamese communists. I'm about as anti-communist as you get, but credit where it's due. --Trovatore (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

How could tens of men all be that stupid? Did not one guy want to live enough to say patrol stealthily or I'll frag you? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Was not tens of men. It was tens of thousands of men lost their lives in Nam. They were mostly forced 'conscripts' that just wanted to get their tour over with and go back home. When they got detailed to go out on patrol, they went out on patrol. To suggest to one's commanding officer that stealth was probably the best option was probable viewed as not having the right stuff i.e., un-American. Anyhow, where in their training were instructed about stealth? They were told they had better rifles, Huey helicopters and B 52's to rain down napalm. When Might is Right why be un- american and stealthily? Unless one wants to lose a war. --Aspro (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The tens of men in the platoon who didn't say "leave the boombox when we patrol, yo". I guess anyone cautious and/or smart and/or not susceptible to being called un-American peer pressure would've found a way to avoid combat and not been in this platoon anyway. And smart men anti-communist enough to want to fight would've volunteered for the benefits and not been in a conscript platoon right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Aspro Any source for the claim that Austrian troops performed better in Vietnam? Muzzleflash (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

A very fair question but as this war ended over 40 years ago I can not instantly find references to the accounts of Vietnamese translators and the like, that fled to Australia after the fall of Saigon. Yet, back then, they where critical of US platoons feeling insecure if thy couldn't keep in constant radio contact with HQ. The VC, with there Russian made DFX equipment, easily could and did, track the US ground troops via their radio transmissions. Also, the US ground troops left behind a trail of chewing gum, cigarette butts .and other other rubbish which made it so simple for the VC to close in. As the VC got closer they could even smell the after-shave lotion. The Australian ground troops did not commit any of these errors. Which was why (it has been suggested by themselves) that so many Vietnamese refugees chose Australia rather than America as their new home land. As they weren't at all impressed, by the efforts and conduct of the US in this war. --Aspro (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

March 24

Foot fetishism semiotics articles journals

Aren't there any articles or texts that deals with foot fetishism as a symbol or has symbolism? Please and thank you. Donmust90 (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

You already asked this. AnonMoos (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

How can an international company like Toys R Us go bankrupt?

How can an international company, a company that has multiple locations, go bankrupt? Is every location losing money? Is the decision based on the average income from all the stores combined? How do multiple-location stores work? By the way, is there an actual term for the type of business that has multiple locations but with the same brand name? In ancient times, people probably had one family business, and that's it. How did the idea of a multiple-location business evolve? SSS (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's a USA Today article explaining why. In short:

• the company itself was in enough debt that it didn't really matter how much any (or even all) of their stores were making.
• they filed for bankruptcy just before the holiday shopping season, causing suppliers to withdraw, making their holiday sales worse.
• Amazon, Walmart, and Target responded to Toys R Us's bankruptcy filing by poaching Toys R Us's suppliers and slashing prices well below what Toys R Us could afford, making holiday sales even worse.
• Toys R Us hoped that maybe they would be able to rely shafting selling at a higher profit margin to last minute shoppers who were afraid that online shipping would take too long. Those last-minute shoppers didn't show up.
• Toy sales have been getting lower anyway.

Also, not every location needs to be losing money, there just needs to be enough stores losing money that the remaining ones can't make enough money to keep the brand afloat.

There's a few similar models where a large brand has a bunch of stores all over the place. Chain store, Franchise, and Corporation are the most immediately relevant articles.

Also, as far back as the Roman empire, Guilds were a significant economic factor, holding roles that are now held by corporations and labor unions. IIRC, these were sometimes called "companies," Merchantilism and the Industrial Revolution gave rise to modern Capitalism, which loosened (but did not destroy) the power of the guilds, and made other types of companies profitable. This transition was extremely complex, and I'm not sure we have a really good article that lays it out plainly. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Leveraged buyouts often spell doom when business won't get much better, even if it's still very good (by pre-buyout standards). Here's a video. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

Yes, something that you'd think might get more attention, but the press seems to think people are dumb and easily bored (maybe they're right), so they usually boil it down to "the company had lots of debt". Toys R Us was purchased by a private equity firm in a leveraged buyout. What does this involve? The buyer buys the company with borrowed money. The collateral for the loan is the purchased company. In other words, they buy the company and then make the purchased company pay for itself being bought. Usually, the new owners also charge the company large management fees. For the buyers, it's mostly win-win: if the company improves, they can sell it off at a profit; if it fails, they still get paid their fees and they're not on the hook for anything. These types of transactions are sometimes criticized. --47.146.60.177 (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)