Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:14, 4 November 2018

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

October 28

Are U.S. citizens automatically authorized to work in the United States?

I have found this Wikipedia article: Employment authorization document. However, it exclusively talks about people who aren't U.S. citizens. Thus, are U.S. citizens automatically authorized to work in the United States?

Also, I apologize if this is an extremely stupid question. Futurist110 (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Social-Security Number and a driver's license are enough for most job applications (unless there are special stringent background checks for a particular job). AnonMoos (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: The question seems to be about what is required by federal law. Certainly a driver's license is not. It may be required by an employer, but that's another matter. As for social security numbers, I don't know the law, but I know a lot of falsehoods circulate, including the belief that everyone is required to have one. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All American citizens are theoretically authorized to be employed if they've reached the legal minimum age, but as a practical matter, they may find it very difficult to obtain above-board legitimate documented employment without a Social Security number and a driver's license (or a state ID card as a driver's-license equivalent). AnonMoos (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A non-American here. Obviously not everyone will have a driver's licence, and I don't know how one gets (and proves one has) a Social-Security Number. Are they issued at birth? HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Social Security number talks about the logistics. In principle, you're not required to have one, I think, but in practice it's extremely difficult to manage without. --Trovatore (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48 -- if you don't drive, you can get a state ID card, which is generally also issued by each state's DMV, and is equivalent to a driver's license for identification purposes, but doesn't legally allow you to drive cars on roads... AnonMoos (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is, if the state doesn't move the DMV to an area where pedestrian traffic is both discouraged and unsafe. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I live in a state capital, and there's a DMV attached to the State Trooper HQ (fairly centrally located within the city) which is very accessible by bus. Of course, the wait there may be significantly longer than other DMV locations which are in less public-transit friendly locations... AnonMoos (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In general, sure. But that doesn't mean an employer will hire a given individual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to fill out Form I-9. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the OP's question is still "Yes." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I started working at Behemart about five years ago, all I gave them was a drug test and the routing number for direct deposit to my credit union. Part of my paycheck still went to social security. I suspect the reason they didn't bother even checking ID was that:

-what, am I really going to work to help someone else's Social Security fund?

-the store was in a poor neighborhood where it takes three hours to get to the DMV by bus (assuming both of the transfers are timed right and you don't have to spend up to an hour waiting for the next bus), and an hour away from the two separate offices that provide the documentation you need to get an ID card (though you need an ID card to get that documentation and yet people wonder how voter ID laws could possibly result in voter suppression).

About a year and a half ago, I started working at a nearby grocery store in a neighborhood where you either have a car or you are housebound. There, I not only had to fill out the I-9 but I had to go and get them a copy of my Social Security card because corporate wanted it just in case immigration services ever stopped by with the assumption that only illegal immigrants would ever work as cashiers. For some reason, all my passport did was let corporate give me an extension in getting another Social Security card (family had lost mine while I was in China). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you still had to give WalMart your Social Security number, I assume (even if you didn't show them your physical Social Security card, which actually doesn't mean very much anyway). Where I live, it would be very difficult to have any kind of bank account without a DMV-issued ID (or some more esoteric forms of identification, such as a passport etc., that would be more difficult for most U.S. citizens to obtain than a DMV-issued ID). AnonMoos (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the OP's specific question, even if a SSN is required, every US citizen is automatically authorised to receive a SSN either at birth or later in life, therefore, yes, every US citizen is automatically authorised to work in the USA, if he finds an employer who wants to hire him and legally can hire him (with the obvious limitation that some people on certain registries can't do certain jobs). --Lgriot (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did Noah's son Ham have sex with Noah's wife, Ham's mother?

I heard a passage from Genesis quoted, saying Noah's son Ham sinned by uncovering his father's nakedness.

The same translation of the Bible had a passage in Leviticus saying any man who has sex with his mother has uncovered his father's nakedness.

The use of that same phrase makes one wonder if the passage from Genesis was intended to mean Ham had sex with his mother. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't there 8 people on the ark? 4 men and unnamed wives? In universe that is. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four named men and four unnamed women. Including Ham and Ham's wife. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of details in Curse of Ham. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incest is not mentioned in that article... AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. The OP is jumping to un unsupported conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well... "Ancient commentaries have also debated whether "seeing" someone's nakedness meant to have sex with that person (e.g. Leviticus 20:17).[15] The same idea was raised by 3rd-century rabbis, in the Babylonian Talmud (c. 500 AD), who argue that Ham either castrated his father, or sodomised him.[17]" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to maternal incest, which is what the original question asked about. Sex with a same-gender relative might not even be considered "incest" according to some traditional definitions. The Bible's incest prohibitions in Leviticus 18 are stated in terms of a man's female relatives... AnonMoos (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange that the article doesn't mention the crime of Judah, who uncovered his father's nakedness in a similar fashion.PiCo (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange that people feel it's so important to argue about the meaning of 400 year old translations of considerably older texts written in very different cultural times. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't it the truth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very good original research. And its not incest (cause she's not his mom) its cuckoldry, with a betrayal of family trust. Young new wives of old men will do the trick. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

Are any UK place names of U.S. or Commonwealth origin instead of the other way around?

Not necessarily aboriginal, Lake Itasca and Rego Park are not Native American (veritas caput and Real Good Construction Company) but anything in Britain named after these would still be names of American origin. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you mean just villages, towns, etc.? There are of course very many UK streets named after places which were the sites of battles in the Second Boer War. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No street names then. Are there neighborhoods or suburban subdivisions named after Boer War battle sites or is there nothing that big? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that the OP can find the answer to their own question using a reference such as The Dictionary of British Place Names from Oxford. --Jayron 32 14:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is Toronto, County Durham, which is named after Toronto, which is ultimately a native word. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moderately sure that Mohawk is not native to County Durham. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And not far away is Quebec, County Durham! Also ultimately a native word. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also fairly sure that Algonquin is not native to County Durham. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously I was referring to SMW's original question about aboriginal words. Toronto and Quebec are named after the places in Canada, and those names are from Mohawk and Algonquin, as you mention. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Adam Bishop was using the word "native" to mean Native American; which is common in North American English, in the same way that "aboriginal" is common shorthand for Aboriginal Australian. Of course, the terms are not native to the UK. They are Native American words. --Jayron 32 17:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We tend not to use "native" unadorned to refer to Indigenes nowadays in Britain, it smacks of colonial attitudes. ("The natives are revolting"). DuncanHill (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...it's not the best choice of words in Canada either. Sorry about that, I should have just used the actual names of the languages. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven Californias in England and Scotland. Rojomoke (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one is named after a brickworks, but the others seem to be named after the California Gold Rush. Not sure about Pennsylvania, South Gloucestershire and Pennsylvania, Exeter. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plus this California, just a couple of miles from Toronto. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Pennsylvania, Exeter article: "It was named after the US state by Joseph Sparkes, a Quaker banker who built the first terrace there in about 1820" Alansplodge (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Pennsylvania housing estate at Sedbury, Gloucestershire, is named after the pre-existing Pennsylvania Farm... which was probably also named by a Quaker who supported the ideals behind the US state's establishment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are some interesting examples here: [1] (the article also includes some places named after other world locations, and a few where the similarity of name is a coincidence. Another one is Philadelphia, Tyne and Wear. Warofdreams talk 15:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which mentions New York, Tyne and Wear, but not New York, North Yorkshire nor New York, Lincolnshire. Alansplodge (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting enough there is a Mandela, Lazio. The closest in the UK are streets and parks though [2]. Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several Spion Kops in England. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an area of Stratford, London called Maryland Point notable for Maryland railway station; it was named after Maryland Point on the Potomac River by a returning migrant, probably Richard Lee I.

There is also Botany Bay, London and Botany Bay, Derbyshire; the origin of both names is obscure, but the one in London is either a joke based on its supposed remoteness or was from a farm building commemorating the discovery of the place in Australia.

Alansplodge (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So a the Dakota-type joke? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of thing. It's right on the very northern border of Greater London and boasts a pub, a Rugby pitch a bus stop and an Evangelical chapel but not much else. Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Botany Bay farm in Dorset, where guards and prisoners would rest overnight on the route from Dorchester Assizes to the convict transports at Portsmouth. DuncanHill (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't the ship start from a closer port? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The transports would have carried convicts from all over England, not just Dorset. Portsmouth was the home of the Royal Navy. DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suspect for historical reasons. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and Botany Bay, Monmouthshire, near Tintern, which was an area settled by sea captains who may have sailed there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...close by Barbadoes Hill. The C18 landowners in the area had links with the W Indies (slaves, sugar). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pimlico is thought to be the oldest place-name imported to England from the New World, by way of Ben Pimlico, who apparently took his (nick)name from Pamlico Sound. (Memory of an article in the journal of the American Names Society.) —Tamfang (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

jack abramoff and lobbying

Hi, I was reading about Jack Abramoff here [3], and I've always been confused a bit. What does he mean by "the chairmen of the committees" and "members don't read the bills", from page 4 of that link? The chairmen of which committees? Members, meaning senators and representatives? Is there something simple I can read that will clear this up? Thanks, IBE (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Committees in the House and Senate. Search for the word "committee" and you will see several examples. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See United States congressional committee for the committees he's talking about. The standard protocol for passing a law in the United States is (see here for more details):

a Bill is written and submitted to one of the congressional committees (based usually on the content of the bill) where the bill is discussed, debated, and polished. Then
the committee holds a vote to send the bill to the full house (either House of Representatives or Senate)
The full house discusses, debates, and ammends the bill
There's a final vote in the house. If it passes, it goes to the OTHER house where the process repeats.
If the two bills are different because of amendments made in the other house, there is a special committee called a "conference committee" which contains members of both houses that work on creating a harmonized bill that will pass both houses.
If both houses pass the identical bill, it goes to the President to sign into law.

Now, Abramoff has noted is how he has used this process to sneak Pork barrel projects into bills. The problem with most legislation is that 1) The Committee Chair holds enormous power because the Chair is the one that sets the agenda for the committee. If he decides a bill is or is not coming to a vote, it does or it doesn't. So Abramoff got his pet projects into bills by focusing on the committee chairs. Since most members of congress do not read the bills they are voting on (they rely on staffers and/or lobbyists to do that and give them an executive summary of it), they rely on what the committees tell them the bill is about. And since the committee's business is largely controlled by the chairperson, if you can corrupt the chairperson, you can control the whole process. Simply get a Rider tacked on to a bill, buried in obfuscatory language, which people miss because a few lines of text in a 100 page bill can often get missed, and then voila, you have your pet project covered. That's what Abramoff's interview is talking about here. --Jayron 32 16:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

Defamation slope

I'm pulling rank and closing this down. It has long since past the point of appropriateness, it seems mainly to serve to give the OP a chance to air their political opinions and that's really not what we're doing here. Thanks to everyone that tried to provide references and evidence, which is what we are supposed to do, but the OP seems to be here to seek affirmation rather than information. --Jayron 32 13:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boldly moved from Village pump (policy) since this seems like the right place for it. zchrykng (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The law of defamation is seen as a "slippery slope" topic within the freedom-ist point of view, because it severely restricts the public's right of free speech in the area of what individuals in the general public can say about individuals in the "private" public. But putting that aside, this question deals with what treaties have direct influence on defamation law.

More to the point, what secrecy protocols are in place which affect such treaties, such that public law has aspects which are affected by the secrecy protocols attached to treaties? And in particular, what secrecy aggreements exist between the United States and Britain exist that restrict American free speech and have an influence on Wikipedia at the policy level? -Inowen (nlfte) 23:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This... seems like a WP:RD kind of question. --Izno (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So because of defamation law, is it de-facto illegal in the United States to say the British monarch has committed a crime? Even though there should be serious limitations on defamation law claims. And how would that "law" have come about, and how is Wikipedia affected? -Inowen (nlfte) 03:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like this is rather more than a hypothetical question. Would you care to provide context? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The protections to free speech provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, cannot be overridden by any law or treaty. Defamation is on the short-list of types of speech not entitled to first amendment protection, but the standards by which a statement would be declared defamatory in a US court do not change because a treaty is involved. The US does not have any Lèse-majesté laws shielding foreign heads of state from disparagement, as for example Germany did until earlier this year. In fact, it is even more difficult to prove defamation against a head of state than against an ordinary citizen, as the Sullivan standard must be met, though in fact such persons tend to have much better lawyers, so this could be easier in a way. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The secrecy thing is somewhat unclear. First I assume it's understood this is distinct from defamation, although first amendment issues still need to be considered. Secret treaties are generally considered rare in the modern era. Most negotiations are carried out at least in part in secret for a variety of reasons, this often includes draft documents. E.g. the Trans-Pacific Partnership which did involve the US (who later pulled out) but didn't involve the UK, and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and failed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership which involved the US and the UK as part of the EU, drew some controversy due to this. Anything which is Classified information in the United States would be restricted in the same way any such information is [4]. Note in particular that while there may be laws preventing the unauthorised disclosure of such information, this doesn't mean it's illegal for anyone to publish it. See e.g. the New York Times Co. v. United States case or this discussion [5]. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, about the weird story on your user page User:Inowen, as well as the articles you've created which have been deleted User talk:Inowen like Protection of women, Original programs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global policy, Cold living, Draft:Protection of children; do understand we have our own policies and guidelines which relate to what we want wikipedia to be. These will often reject stuff even if you're fully entitled to publish it in the US or UK without fear of legal action i.e. they often have nothing to do with defamation (as legally defined) and definitely not secrecy protocols in treaties or whatever. In fact, the foundation and community have often come out against any laws which they feel would unfairly impact what we may publish. Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to emphasise the classified information bit, consider the case of "Malaysian Official 1" [6]. As that source says, it was fairly obvious who it referred to. Even so, I assume any US federal government documents revealing the identity had some level of classification by the same US federal government. But I'm doubtful this had anything to do with treaties between Malaysia and US. It was simply that naming the person was seen as too politically sensitive. Nil Einne (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For those still confused by this, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Removal of talk page comments is particularly illustrative e.g. "is meaningful when its Queen can veto the popular Brexit vote without explanation or account to the people of England" and "it's certainly the case if the Queen of England has meddling in Wikipedia we should know about it". Also Talk:Restoration (England)#Introductione and Talk:Brexit#Internal politics and Talk:Brexit#Overview section and Talk:Anglicanism#Controversies and Talk:Socialism#Meanings of socialism. Don't worry, it isn't just monarchy/aristocracy Talk:Surveillance#Telly "before IPoverPower/PowerOverIP was disclosed it was developed and used to monitor regular TVs."

To Inowen, other than what I said above, please read WP:NOTFREESPEECH and the linked Wikipedia:Free speech. Maybe you're going to dismiss this since I'm from NZ, although I'm actually a republican and am free to say that I think the British monarchy should bugger off without fear of persecution, but I'll say again this has nothing to do with defamation or US-UK treaties or US-NZ treaties or any crap like that. I don't, as with many wikipedians, give a flying flip what the queen wants nor other members of the aristocracy and am definitely not under instruction to censor you. However editing wikipedia is ultimately about building an encyclopaedia, and we do that with reliable sources, not with the theories of random editors. Feel free to start your own website where you can ramble to your hearts content on the evils of the aristocracy and how the UK isn't a democracy etc. I would suggest you don't draw more attention to yourself since you've probably already well earned a WP:NOTHERE block.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)</p.[reply]

No US-UK treaty can override the first amendment to the US Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without regard for whether defamation has actually occurred in any specific case on Wikipedia, defamation is not protected speech. Under U.S. law, libel and slander, where the person writing or speaking the falsehoods, knowingly makes detrimental false statements about someone else, has committed defamation. That is not protected speech. It must be a statement of fact which is knowably false. If I said "John Doe kills kittens!" and he doesn't actually do that, the statement is NOT protected speech, because it is a statement of fact which I know to be false (or for which I have shown a reckless disregard for its truthfulness). --Jayron 32 14:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. But no treaty can override what is considered protected speech in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our lawyers can correct me if I have this wrong, but my understanding is that we are governed by US defamation laws (since WMF is a US based entity, and our servers are in the US). These laws are very similar, but not exactly the same as the laws in the UK. One does not need to be a US citizen to file a suit in a US court. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of my question is with regard to aristocratic ("rule of the best-born") group attacking Wikipedia's American base by using defamation as an argument. So the bizarro logic is that its always defacto-illegal to call a monarch a thief, because by their own law they are immune from prosecution and therefore 'never a thief.' In this context "defamation" is always a red-herring because there is no intent of pursuing legal action in open court under "defamation" law. But secretive ways allow for such bizarro arguments. Wikipedia may be US-based but its connection to US law may be hacked by both secrecy and aristocratic law, under which no act is a crime, and all criticism is "defamation." Does Wikipedia absorb some of this aristocratic law? -Inowen (nlfte) 22:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific examples of an "aristocratic group attacking Wikipedia's American base by using defamation as an argument"? It would be interesting to know exactly what you're referring to. Alssa1 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing is a fantasy formed within your own head, and betrays a profound lack of understanding of United States defamation law. See especially the concept of substantial truth. I agree with Alssa1 - you should show us examples of what you think is going on, and we can help you understand. Or alternatively, you should read about defamation law in general, perhaps starting from our own article on it and following the sources from there. Because it truly seems like you've just come up with a legal argument by yourself, and have decided it's an issue, and want us to discuss your idea. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In additions to the good points above, I would note that bringing up defamation on wikipedia is generally discouraged due to the risk it could be perceived as a legal threat and so result in a WP:NLT block. This is not to say we ignore defamation, Wikipedia:Libel and WP:BLP, but rather experienced editors generally find a better to talk why the material is a problem without having to talk about defamation. As I said above, our policies and guidelines intentionally go beyond defamation. In fact, we would generally be more tolerant of nonsense about the aristocracy and monarchy then we would about random relatively unknown individuals. Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think you would agree the monarchy would be a problem if it was meddling aristocratically with Wikipedia. -Inowen (nlfte) 08:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but Wikipedia has enough problems without worrying about fantasies. One example of a problem wikipedia does have is editors who misuse article talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying, I have no idea what 'meddling aristocratically' is. I would be worried about anyone editing inappropriately or in some way influencing other editors. I'm not worried about the monarchy, in that category for the stated reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I definitely think this discussion is tending towards Reptilians territory. Dmcq (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inowen: You first suggest that there is an "aristocratic group attacking Wikipedia's American base" and then on the slightest investigation of that claim you appear to change entirely and suggest that it might occur in the future. Which is it; are you referring to a specific issue effecting Wikipedia or have you concocted a scenario in your head and you just want to see whether it has some plausibility? Alssa1 (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not accurate. I suspect systematic bias coming from Britain, implemented by Britain's subjects including Canadians and Australians, and my evidence is scattered from a wide sampling of Wikipedia articles, for example the use of British government terms like "Her Majesty's government." The US where I am from is substantially different from the UK; the US citizen believes in freedom and in doing the right thing. The UK instead believes in the loyalism to the monarch and the perpetuation of its monarchy, not the freedom of the individual, and not in the idea 'that every person on Earth have free access to the sum of all knowledge.' The UK currently has no lèse-majesté laws, but it has by default the equivalent, and as another editor pointed out, absolute immunity for the monarch. There can be no promotion of monarchy on Wikipedia. It contributes to systemic bias (sic), not correcting it, and defeats Wikipedia's purpose. -Inowen (nlfte) 20:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the worst example you can find, then there's no crisis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The UK instead believes in the loyalism to the monarch and the perpetuation of its monarchy, not the freedom of the individual, and not in the idea 'that every person on Earth have free access to the sum of all knowledge.'" What utter horse shit. Are you going to try and troll all non-American parts of the world, or just the UK. After spouting off elsewhere that the UK isn't democratic, we now don't believe in freedom of the individual and therefore free access to knowledge? I've seen some idiotic logic in my time, but yours is probably the worst I've come across. You are either trolling, or just too dumb to realise just how wrong you are, and I don't know (or care) which it is. WP:NOT HERE and WP:DNFTT are probably best applied here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inowen: Do you have any evidence to justify your claims (particularly the existence of "aristocratic group attacking Wikipedia's American base") or do you intend to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your rather 'eccentric' opinions/conclusions? Alssa1 (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inowen appears to be engaging in an informal fallacy or cognitive bias known as jumping to conclusions of the "mind-reading" type. That is, Inowen believes he knows what motivates others without having access to information required to reach that conclusion. I was going to say he was engaging in faulty- or overgeneralization (which is actually JoC of the 'labeling' type), but this requires there actually being at least one example of what everyone in a group is being accused of. No evidence or arguments are like to sway him, because, as Swift put it, "Reasoning will never make a man correct an opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired." Someguy1221 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is there is systemic bias coming from the anti-democratic government of Britain, and that its routes need to be investigated. Using "Her Majesty's government" in article text is only one of them. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't be daft. There is probably less there even than there is in the pledge of allegiance to the flag in the US. I get the feeling you've been reading David Icke who says the royal family are inter-dimensional reptillians. Well he also says George W Bush is one. Dmcq (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And all everyone else is saying is that you are misguided and ignorant. Perhaps you'd like to look at the various indecies of democracy:

Democracy Ranking: UK in position 14; US in position 16
Polity IV: UK classed as Full Democracy; US in the lower class of Democracy
Human Development Index: US in position 13; UK in position 14
Democracy Index: UK in position 14 (full democracy); US in position 21 (flawed democracy)
Economic Freedom of the World: UK in position 11; US in position 16

Inowen, you've taken enough time and effort from the grown ups trying to explain just how immature and ignorant your hypotheses are. There is no systematic bias as you perceive it, and using "Her Majesty's government" isn't an example of bias: it's the formal title of the democratically elected government of the day. I suggest you try a proper book that explains just how British politics works, because what you think happens is a long way from reality. - SchroCat (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her Majesty's government is like a Congress where the President not rubber stamping everything would cause a constitutional crisis but he gets to have the Congress called His Majesty's Congress and the use of some palaces and stuff till he dies. Very old palaces. It is the result of a powerful king losing power over the centuries till he's only a figurehead. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inowen: And all I'm asking for is evidence to demonstrate that your claims have some basis in reality. Earlier on you spoke of an "aristocratic group attacking Wikipedia's American base by using defamation as an argument", do you have an example of this? You also said "The US...is substantially different from the UK; the US citizen believes in freedom and in doing the right thing." perhaps you're unaware of this, but many of us non-Americans don't view the USA as a barometer for measuring "freedom" or "doing the right thing". Alssa1 (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Churchill, something like this: "America can be counted on to do the right thing - after it's tried everything else." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: A couple of those indices you list are ranking monarchies with the label "full democracy." There's got to be something wrong there. Two of the indices you list are British, one of them is Austrian. The one by the UN ranks "development" and not "democracy." The UN is well-known for being hacked by the UK, particularly the Security Council. Naturally the CIA follows along, but not with serious data. So your point is that there are reliable sources which say that your country which is a monarchy is also a "full democracy?" How can this be? How can a nation state with a hereditary (unelected) leader who has absolute state immunity be called a "full democracy?" Your personal attacks are out of line.-Inowen (nlfte) 02:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to ignore the independent rankings and indices, let alone the hundreds of thousands of other sources that state the UK is a full democracy with a constitutional monarchy, then I guess there is no help for you. However, Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for your version of ill-informed redneck political theory. Get a blog and talk to yourself, not here: this is the place of reliable sources and reality. - SchroCat (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the sources above, the Varieties of Democracy Project, an international collaboration led by US and Scandinavian universities, in their Annual Democracy Report 2018 has the UK at 15 and the USA at 31 (p. 22/96) in their Liberal Democracy Index. Alansplodge (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

November 1

How often do Catholics have to go to confession?

If one is a Catholic, how often is one required by the Church to go to confession? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Confession (religion)#Catholicism, the answer would appear to be "at least once a year." A better answer might be, "whenever you need to." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that although 1 year is the absolute maximum (when someone is able to confess), as mentioned in Sacrament of Penance#Frequency of reception someone who has committed a mortal sin should not receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church until they have confessed it (if they are able). Also concern over dying with unconfessed mortal sins and the greater complexity surrounding forgiveness for Contrition of unconfessed mortal sins may be an additional motivator. They are those (few I think) who practice Frequent confession. In practice for many catholics, mortal sin concerns arise frequently e.g. masturbation, contraception, skipping mass see for example, this discussion [7]. Note however this doesn't mean that you do the sin, confess, do what acts of penance the priest tell you and it's all good even though you have no plans to stop, or maybe even believe it's a sin. Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also read Indulgence. It also has a history section! B.t.w. the excessive abuse of Indulgence led to the Protestant Reformation by Martin Luther. --Kharon (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 1828

In 1828, Andrew Jackson did extremely well in the Deep South, winning every county in which a vote was held, except for a few Georgia counties that voted for someone named Clarke. However, Adams won several Louisiana parishes, including several with more than 80% support if I'm reading the map rightly. Although Louisiana had just 8,687 popular votes among all candidates, versus 46,966 in the other Deep South states, Adams won almost as many popular votes in Louisiana (4,082) as in the others put together (4,371). Why did he have so much support in Louisiana? Also, who was Clarke? There's a Clarke County, Georgia, but the namesake Elijah Clarke died in 1799, and his article doesn't mention any relatives who used the same spelling. United States presidential election in Georgia, 1828 doesn't mention Clarke; United States presidential election in Louisiana, 1828 doesn't discuss Adams' comparative success; and there's nothing in the election's main article. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's something. The map was created by Tilden76 (talk · contribs). He may be inactive at present, but he might be reachable via email, and could maybe tell you his source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note for Tilden. But what about Louisiana? Unlike Mr Clarke, the data for Louisiana are backed up in the election results (that's where I got the exact numbers I quoted); they just have no explanation why he was more popular in Louisiana than elsewhere in the region. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility: Adams supported a national road from Washington to New Orleans and inland waterways improvements that would bring more business through Louisiana. Rmhermen (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana had a very restrictive franchise, and I suspect that many of the voters were of or beholden to the planter class, which may not have trusted Jackson due to his popular support among the common man.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something else to consider: New Orleans is a very un-Southlike city; historically and culturally, it more resembled New York and Boston than, say, Atlanta. You can see evidence of this in the local variety of English known as "Yat", an accent which closely resembles those of the Northeastern United States; largely because New Orleans was settled by the same sorts of people who settled the Northeastern cities. It isn't surprising that these people had similar political viewpoints. Louisiana is an unusual state, and it was even back then; like Florida, only parts of it are traditionally "southern". --Jayron 32 12:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to Clarke, I strongly suspect, but do not have proof, that this was John Clark (Georgia governor). His article says his name was sometimes spelled Clarke and that he lived in Milledgeville, which is in Baldwin County, Georgia; and, from the map, the county that voted most heavily for "Clarke" seems to have been Wilkinson, which is adjacent to Baldwin, though Baldwin itself voted for Jackson. The thing is that according to multiple sources I found in Google Books, John Clark and his rival George Troup both nominated slates of electors to vote for Jackson in 1828 (with different running mates for VP). If Clark was that active in the election then it doesn't seem surprising that he got some electoral votes himself. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting myself: I mean that some people voted for him to get some electoral votes himself. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend. In The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828, pp148-149, the author suggests “Among the French-speaking element in New Orleans there was still resentment against Jackson’s high-handedness in 1815, his treatment of his critics, and his suspension of habeas corpus even after it was known that the war was over.”…there’s more, but that is presented as the core reason for Louisiana leaning Adams. See Battle of New Orleans. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those details. I'll pull some of that into the election article. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

smoking in class

I started watching a video lecture by Harvard physicist Sidney Coleman from the external links in his biography. Someone asks a question, and while answering, Coleman lights a cigarette! This was in 1975 or 1976! Admittedly before my time, but not exactly ancient history. Was that kind of thing normal back then? I don't think I ever saw anyone smoke in class either in grade school/HS or in college. It just seemed incredibly weird in the video. I'm assuming it was a normal (i.e. not so well ventilated) college classroom. Thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember smoking in class during college, which would have been around the same time. We also served wine and cheese at the departmental seminar, which would be unheard of (or at least very unusual) nowadays. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's only the free wine that gets people to attend most faculty do's here :) ——SerialNumber54129 15:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was in High School from 1991-1994, and while there was no smoking in class, there were designated student smoking areas around the school which were only gotten rid of in the late 1980s; that is they weren't there when I was there, but there were students at the school who lamented their being shut down because it was only recently. Given that, I would NOT find it unusual for a college professor to smoke in class in the 1970s. Smoking was MUCH more widespread in public or in mixed company prior to the late 1980s; you can see people on TV in the 1970s smoking on talk shows, game shows, etc. --Jayron 32 15:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started university in 1983. The ban on smoking in class was only a couple of years old at that point, and a few professors still flaunted it openly. By the time I graduated four years later, it was strictly observed, though. I am not at all surprised a professor would be smoking in class in the mid 1970s. Smoking was really ubiquitous in those days.--Xuxl (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in grad school (way way back in the mid-2000s) smoking was not allowed in any buildings on campus, but there were a few professors who still smoked in their offices, just because they were ancient and what was anyone going to do about it? Adam Bishop (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was a University of Waterloo student in the mid-1970s and I remember the rule for classrooms changing in two stages: first that you could only smoke in the back rows (instead of anywhere in the room), then that you could not smoke there at all. There was a similar two-stage trajsition in movie theaters here about the same time (I remember joining in with a vigorous burst of applause from the audience when an on-screen notice announced "no smoking anywhere"). From memory, I think the first stage of change at the university was probably about 1973. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remember people smoking on planes? There used to be smoking and non-smoking sections, which accomplished very little, given that you're in a big metal tube where the air is all piped around. I remember just resigning myself to a half-hour of suffering after every meal, which was when people would light up. --Trovatore (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually non-smoking sections (which also existed in trains, restaurants, etc.) were distinctly better than no segregation, in that at least you could avoid close exposure to the smokers. This was obvious every time you had to walk through a smoking section to get to the dining car, washroom, etc. But today's all-non-smoking environment is a big improvement, of course. Well, unless you smoke. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the US still have smoking sections in restaurants? It's been a few years since I was down there, but that was one of the oddities that stood out for me (well, that and signs regarding open carry rules on restaurant doors). Matt Deres (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to each state, and possibly local laws in some states, but in my traveling experience the answer is no in most places I've been, except Nevada when I was there some years ago. Ah, here we are: see List of smoking bans in the United States. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was even way more common and widely spread to smoke a pipe. In fact it was like a Dress code for intellectuals for a long time. Even Albert Einstein smoked his pipe literary everywhere. So after cigarettes became more common it was nothing extraordinary if teachers smoked "in class". --Kharon (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The smell of cigarettes is far more revolting than that of pipes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the seventies I worked for a football pools promoter checking the coupons. We worked until 10 pm - at 9:15 the floor supervisor would announce in a loud voice "Last cigarettes, please". The thinking was, of course, that we couldn't have discarded cigarette ends amongst all that paper starting a fire after everyone had gone home. I believe there was a waste bin check at the end of the day. Later, smokers were confined to a tiny cubicle at the back of the canteen. Pools companies were some of the biggest beneficiaries of the computer revolution - as someone put it "there used to be great barns full of people - now there's nobody there". Although I wasn't there to see it, in 1974 the computer covered the whole of one floor of the building. How times have changed.

I thought that the pools were a thing of the past - I don't know if they even still read out the football results on radio and television at 5:00 on a Saturday evening - but yesterday I found out I was wrong. Nigerian pools - which always had the largest turnover after the British operations - still flourish. 2A00:23C1:CD83:1F01:5FF:ABBE:CD4D:76D (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of WPBs: When I was studying Russian at the University of Canberra (1980-82), our main lecturer occasionally smoked in class, although I have zero recollection of any student, or any other lecturer, ever doing so throughout my entire uni experience (1975-84). One night, he stubbed his cigarette out in a WPB and then continued on about verbs of motion or whatever. He must have failed to extinguish his vile vector, as smoke soon started appearing from the WPB. We could all see it, but he had his back to it, and for a while he was oblivious to our gestures of concern, until someone was forced to interrupt him, for all our sakes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A high school in my corner of Melbourne, Australia may have been the last in the country to openly allow smoking. This would have been in the 1980s. The shock jocks and others condemned this of course, but a friend who taught there told me that it had its benefits. The only students who could "legally" smoke at school were those whose parents gave permission in writing. At that time, several were happy to do that. Smoking was restricted to breaks between classes, recess, lunch, etc., and to certain locations. It meant the school knew who the smokers were, and where they were. Anyone else caught smoking was in big trouble. These days a handful of kids still smoke at almost every school, but they have to hide, creating a rule breaking culture for smokers, and a confrontational relationship with the school. An improvement? HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my high school days, students were not allowed to smoke anywhere on school grounds. The hypocrisy was in evidence, as teachers could smoke in the teachers' lounge. The kids who wanted to smoke would try to sneak a cigarette in the restroom. During the course of the day, the restroom smelled just like the teachers' lounge. In later years that evolved a bit, as the tobacco scent in the restroom was replaced by the smell of marijuana. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No smoking has, I believe, recently been introduced in prisons and there were moves to ban it in mental hospitals. See this response to one of Medeis' last posts:

In mental hospital wards you will find the doors are locked (although you are allowed in and out if you are not sectioned), matches and lighters are not allowed (so you have to go to the staff to light your cigarette if you are allowed to smoke on the veranda), the windows do not open more than a fraction of an inch, the doors of the patients' rooms do not have keyholes on the inside (although they can be locked from the inside) and the cutlery at mealtimes consists of plastic knives, spoons and forks with the food being eaten off cardboard plates. Plastic bags must be surrendered to staff after an excursion. Sometimes "mystery shoppers" are placed on wards. The staff are unable to see that there is nothing wrong with them but the other patients do.

- 92.19.174.150 10:56, 3 March 2018

People who hide to smoke may use the lavatories. The general section of our local hospital recently decided to dismantle the smoking shelter in the grounds. The mental health section has cameras (not immediately obvious) in the lavatories. This surely is (both literally and metaphorically) over the top. The male and female wards are separate, so hopefully the cameras are being monitored by individuals of the appropriate sex. 2.25.226.253 (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans questions - from Canada to South America.

I'm looking for some examples. Does anyone know of any examples where.

1. 2 Native American tribes didn't like each other, but when Europeans came, they were able to unite together against the Europeans? 2. 2 Native American tribes hated each other, and even when invaded by Europeans, they still weren't willing to unite. And cases were Europeans saw that they didn't like each other, and even gave both sides weapons just so they can further kill each other. 3. Cases where some tribes did human sacrificing - from other tribes rather than their own. Thanks. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I can't think of any examples offhand, but in general, it usually went the other way; Native American nations tended to retain old alliances and enmity even with European settlers in the lands. Thus, in the Pequot War, the Pequots and Mohegans, which occupied the same geography and tended to be historic enemies, retained that rivalry where the Mohegans allied with the English against the Pequots. So #2 seems very much more prevalent than #1. --Jayron 32 17:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aztecs. Human sacrifice. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. See Peach Tree War, Powhatan. 2. See Beaver Wars. 3. See Flower war. You may find further examples if you browse American Indian Wars, Mexican Indian Wars and Spanish colonization of the Americas (for 1 and 2) and Human_sacrifice#Pre-Columbian_Americas for 3. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Pawnee Scouts: "Because the Pawnee people were at times involved in territorial skirmishes with the Sioux and Cheyenne, some of them were amenable to serving with the army for pay". Alansplodge (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Native American tribes hated each other, and even when invaded by Europeans, they still weren't willing to unite."

In the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire, the Spanish had alliances with Tlaxcala, Cempoala, the Otomi, the San Andrés Mixquic, Iztapalapa, Xochimilco, and Texcoco. Most of them were traditional enemies of the Aztecs. Dimadick (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was usually more complicated than the OP suggests and the relationships were just as dynamic and evolving as those between European powers. It was often the case that a band or tribe would align with a European power, use that trade association to expand their territory against their rivals, then get pushed by some other band's expansion, fight with peoples they'd never met before who had also been pushed off their homelands, then repeat again and again. The 17th and 18th centuries contained huge upheavals of many native groups to the point where it's tough to say what exactly went on. For just a taste, see Iroquois Wars. Records are often spotty in comparison to purely European conflicts at the time, but it lasted longer than the Hundred Years' War and featured similar temporary alliances and infighting. Matt Deres (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

Identification of biogrpahical subject..

The figure in question

Anyone able to identify which Sir Hugh Hastings this is? the article on Baron Hastings lists 2, and I'm not sure which one this is.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I read everything rightly, there are six Hughs in that article, but the problem is that all of them were deemed to be barons only centuries after their deaths (or definitely weren't barons at all), so I don't see how any of them would stand out above the others. (The whole thing is rather confusing; twelve of the first fifteen barons were Hugh or John, including five of the first six barons being Johns). Here are the Hughs, as I understand them:

Hugh 1: Son of Baron I and not a baron himself, no dates. Father of John (baron VI) and great-uncle of Hugh 4
Hugh 2: Son of Baron II and not a baron himself, 1307-1347
Hugh 3: Son of Hugh 2 and not a baron himself, and father of Hugh 4, no dates
Hugh 4: Baron VII, 1377-1396
Hugh 5: Baron X, 1447-1488
Hugh 6: Baron XIV, 1515-1540

As you've maybe seen, the source image, File:Three knights.png, includes a depiction of Thomas de Beauchamp, 12th Earl of Warwick (1338-1401), whose active life was contemporaneous with that of Hugh 4 and potentially Hugh 3. Meanwhile, the image also includes Sir Robert de Septvans, of whom there appear to have been several; it's obviously connected to File:The original brass of Sir Robert de Septvans - geograph.org.uk - 783181.jpg, which according to the website of the church where it's located, depicts a Robert who died in 1304. So I guess this all means that these three weren't all contemporaries, and maybe none of them was contemporary to either of the others. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I got it. If you search for <kent brass "hugh hastyngs">, you get several references to a Hugh buried at Elsing, and our article on the church, St Mary's Church, Elsing, has a whole section entitled "Hastings brass". There can be no question that the replica of this brass is the same as the one in the picture you supplied. The church article reports that the subject died in 1347, so we're looking at Hugh 2. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now I found c:Category:Sir Hugh Hastings, d:Q18671482, and de:Hugh Hastings. Finding the first bit is hard, but once you do, it all falls into place :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional point which may prove useful in similar cases, on the shield depicted there is a "label of three points" superimposed on (differencing) the arms it bears: this is most often (though not always, especially not for royalty) the conventional indication, especially (though not always) when the label is argent/silver, that the person is the eldest son of the contemporary bearer of the undifferenced arms, and since it's a funeral brass, the subject must have died before succeeding his father. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.42 (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In early (and Continental) armory a label might only mean that the bearer (or her father) is someone other than the senior male of the line; I don't know when it came to mean "eldest son" more often than not. — I was puzzled that the shield here seems to show only a label! Took me a while to see the maunch behind it. —Tamfang (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. As we were already sure that the subject was English (and not really early, because of the armour style), my remarks related only to English heraldry. Other jurisdictions did/do things differently: for example, in Scots heraldry, cadency beyond the eldest son (where a label is also used) is indicated by a system of bordures rather than English heraldry's brisures. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.42 (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah here it is, Joseph Fowler's Some Feudal Coats of Arms (1902), which I couldn't find on the shelf earlier. Only one entry for a Hugh Hastings, showing the same brass. "Hastings, Sir Hugh, of Gressing, Norfolk, summoned to a council in 1342—bore, at the siege of Calais 1345, or a maunch gules a label (3) azure (F.) see Monumental Brass; borne also by Sir Nicholas at the first Dunstable tournament 1308; Cotgrave and Parliamentary Rolls, and by Sir William (E.i.) Harl. Roll. Another Sir William, banneret (E. ii. Roll), bore, a label (3) charged with the arms of Pembroke, chequy argent and azure three martlets gules; Parliamentary Roll." (I use italics here in place of the book's small caps.) "E.I" and "E.II" presumably mean during the reigns of Edward I (1272–1307) and Edward II (1307–1327); but I cannot guess what "F." means; the book has no obvious table of abbreviations. —Tamfang (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Golden arches

I was eating in a McDonald's restaurant a few minutes ago. Nothing unusual about that, but at the foot of the bill I noticed the words "Som Restaurants Ltd A franchisee of McDonald's Restaurants Limited". That was the first I knew that McDonald's is a franchise operation, quickly confirmed at McDonald's (I like the redirect from McDonalds). The first Kentucky Fried Chicken in Western Australia was opened nearly half a century ago in Melville, on the corner of the Stock Road and Canning Highway. I had an idea that some outlets were sold off after issues with Colonel Sanders and our article confirms this is also a franchise operation. How many of the big name brands are franchises? The article lead refers to KFC as having 20,000 locations and being second only to McDonald's in sales volume. Isn't that a bit misleading? Surely the sales accrue to the individual franchisees. 94.192.183.95 (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the majority of international chain fast food restaurants are at least franchised in part although Chipotle Mexican Grill evidently has none (according to our article, although it also has a franchise category) or very few [8] (that ref keeps opening some dumb survey thing but if you close it, you can see it makes the claim there are a few legacy ones). Note that stuff like [9] can be misleading. It seems to suggest Starbucks no longer franchises but I'm pretty sure this isn't true. I'm sure that Starbucks still has Master franchises in a number of areas [10] and I suspect they will continue to use that to expand into new countries if it makes sense. In addition, I'm fairly sure some of their master franchises also operate at least in part on a franchise basis in their regions. And this is a fairly common arrangement. In other words, even if a restaurant only has corporate stores in the US or wherever they started, probably some of their operations in other countries are on a master franchise basis, and these may or may not use franchises themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, KFC has an interesting arrangement in Australia. I believe Collins Foods owns most or all of the restaurants in Queensland and Western Australia and possibly NT. [11] In other areas, Yum! Brands either operates or franchises to other partners such as Restaurant Brands (not to be confused with Restaurant Brands International) [12]. There tends to be differences in KFCs operated by Collins and other one, e.g. I believe the Collins ones generally have Hot n' Spicy all year round. And they often also don't take part in promotions or have different prices. See e.g. the discussion here [13]. Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what purpose it would serve to break the numbers down by the individual franchisee as you suggest. Franchisees "own" their restaurants, but the concept is owned by the franchisor and they exert direct control over what goes on in the store. For example, they negotiate with and inspect vendors and DCs. It varies by franchise, but the franchisees are in many ways more like store managers with profit sharing than "owners" in the sense that you or I might choose to open our own restaurant and operate it. For example, the franchisee cannot usually make any decisions about menu items, meal preparation, suppliers, or hours of operation. Matt Deres (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I used to work at an Arby's that served unusual menu items (baked potatoes and waffle fries), unlike everyone else in the region, even other stores owned by the same franchisee, and it seems that every Arby's has different hours. Some have breakfast while many don't, and I know one Burger King in my area served no breakfast when I moved here. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franchises are everywhere and its only the small difference of ownership seperating them from 100% companyowned branch offices. Most Car-dealers and -repairshops are franchises in sense that they are "officially licensed" by some big company or even multiple to sell or repair specific brands. Amazons "Marketplace" is another example and everyone knows how successful this became or how many independent Bookshops it killed. Its strangely the juridical framework that enables and supports this, altho its obviously killing what economics describe as "free market". Independent commercial operations often find themselves in aggressive legal- or price-wares against franchise operations they cant win because they dont have the same resources or reserves for that and that may be the main reason why the franchises are so successful and widespread as a commercial concept. --Kharon (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

The Big Street's name

I had a guess that "The Big Street" is actually a slang for 'The Broadway'. Maybe Runyon made up this slang, maybe it was an exist slang of The Broadway criminals. Can anyone approve or disapprove my guess? Did Runyon call The Broadway "The Big Street" in other stories he wrote? Thank you, --אביתרג (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a variant of "broad street". Back then, Broadway was called Great White Way (or Gay White Way). --212.186.133.83 (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term shows up a few times here and it does seem to mean Broadway. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Largest geographic language

What are the three largest languages in sub-Saharan Africa in terms of having the predominant geographic distribution of native speakers Pls provude sources. Basri sheyhat (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking which languages are spoken over the widest areas, this will be closely related to total number of speakers. In Nigeria, Hausa has 44m, Yoruba 30m and Igbo 24m. In Ethiopia, Oromo has 40m speakers. The individual articles (Igbo language etc.), give an indication of where the speakers reside. 2.25.226.253 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the low-cost airline, intercity train and intercity bus market

How much profit does the cheapest seat that showed up make? Compared to not selling that seat but not having to buy the extra fuel and other costs for 1 extra passenger? Did those intermetro area busses that sold the first seat of each bus for $1 sell that seat at a loss? That's an order of magnitude cheaper than before they showed up! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some links:[14], [15]. 2.25.226.253 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 239: / Line 239: @@
 :::::::A high school in my corner of Melbourne, Australia may have been the last in the country to openly allow smoking. This would have been in the 1980s. The shock jocks and others condemned this of course, but a friend who taught there told me that it had its benefits. The only students who could "legally" smoke at school were those whose parents gave permission in writing. At that time, several were happy to do that. Smoking was restricted to breaks between classes, recess, lunch, etc., and to certain locations. It meant the school knew who the smokers were, and where they were. Anyone else caught smoking was in big trouble. These days a handful of kids still smoke at almost every school, but they have to hide, creating a rule breaking culture for smokers, and a confrontational relationship with the school. An improvement? [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 23:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 ::::::::In my high school days, students were not allowed to smoke anywhere on school grounds. The hypocrisy was in evidence, as teachers could smoke in the teachers' lounge. The kids who wanted to smoke would try to sneak a cigarette in the restroom. During the course of the day, the restroom smelled just like the teachers' lounge. In later years that evolved a bit, as the tobacco scent in the restroom was replaced by the smell of marijuana. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 02:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
+:::::::::No smoking has, I believe, recently been introduced in prisons and there were moves to ban it in mental hospitals.   See this response to one of Medeis' last posts:
+{{talkquote|In mental hospital wards you will find the doors are locked (although you are allowed in and out if you are not sectioned), matches and lighters are not allowed (so you have to go to the staff to light your cigarette if you are allowed to smoke on the veranda), the windows do not open more than a fraction of an inch, the doors of the patients' rooms do not have keyholes on the inside (although they can be locked from the inside) and the cutlery at mealtimes consists of plastic knives, spoons and forks with the food being eaten off cardboard plates.   Plastic bags must be surrendered to staff after an excursion.   Sometimes "mystery shoppers" are placed on wards.   The staff are unable to see that there is nothing wrong with them but the other patients do.}} - 92.19.174.150 10:56, 3 March 2018
+People who hide to smoke may use the lavatories.   The general section of our local hospital recently decided to dismantle the smoking shelter in the grounds.   The mental health section has cameras (not immediately obvious) in the lavatories.   This surely is (both literally and metaphorically) over the top.   The male and female wards are separate, so hopefully the cameras are being monitored by individuals of the appropriate sex. [[Special:Contributions/2.25.226.253|2.25.226.253]] ([[User talk:2.25.226.253|talk]]) 19:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 == Native Americans questions - from Canada to South America. ==