Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:47, 23 December 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.

December 15

Horizontal swastika symbol of nazis?

Got into an interesting discussion with someone who only considers the 45 degree angle swastika (point up like the Nazi flag) to be a symbol of the third reich. I always though orientation didn't matter. The page about swastika is unclear to me. (The person that I am discussing this with is a lapsed Jain.)Naraht (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While the 45-degrees version was certainly the more common, Nazis did also use other variants, including official instances such as File:Standarte Adolf Hitlers.svg or File:Reichsdienstflagge 1935.svg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, both of these examples also have a 45 degrees orientation version within the image. But at least this gives me examples that aren't just someone vandalizing a synagogue. I'm completely convinced that this person's use of the Swastika is *not* anti-semetic, most of them are similar to what is on the Jain Symbols page with either have three dots above or the hand below or both.Naraht (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Oddly enough, both of these examples also have a 45 degrees orientation version within the image." Only the second one contains a 45 degrees orientation. Bus stop (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That threw me at first too. In the first one, the birds are at 45 degree angles, hence their 45 degree swastikas look square. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A swastika can be oriented to the diagonal, and a swastika can be oriented to the vertical/horizontal. In the second image both of those orientations are found. In the first image only one of those orientations is found. Bus stop (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The birds are on diagonal swastikas. But since the birds themselves are on diagonals, the swastikas look square. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me but I totally disregard the birds when discussing the overall image. It contains 5 swastikas all of which are oriented to the horizontal/vertical. None of the 5 swastikas contained in this image are oriented to the diagonal. The birds can do their thing but in my opinion the orientation of the birds to the swastikas is an artistic stylization as opposed to an objective reality. Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Nazi artist getting cute with his design. There's an oxymoron! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd the Nazis make their flag diagonal? Did they think it looked cooler that way? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a reliable source (it has a conspiratorial air about it) but Police State USA: The Pledge of Allegiance Was the Origin of Hitler Salutes & Nazi Behavior (p. 110) by Ian Tinny, suggests that the diagonal cross represents a letter "S" for "Socialism". I haven't found a better source for that though. Alansplodge (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty certainly not a reliable source; it's some right-wing loon's self-published, raving fringe bullshit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler was about three years old when the Pledge of Allegiance was written. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the Nazis ruined an otherwise-beautiful, millenia-old symbol forever. Unicode U+5350 CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPH-5350 (卐)'s official description is "Definition in English: swastika, one of the auspicious signs recognized (e.g. in Chinese Tathagata Buddhism) as being on the chest of Buddha (and variously seen in statuary on the chest, soles of the feet, or palms of the hands)". If only. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Provinces of Japan

Apparently some of the traditional provinces of Japan were classified as superior countries (上国). Where can I find a complete list of them? --79.32.130.1 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese version of that article includes a chart in this section that has that term as the header for the second row. I don't read Japanese, but the Google Translation makes it seem like this row includes a list of the superior countries. The translation isn't really good enough for me to be certain though. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 16

Original War Aims of the 13 Colonies

What were the original war aims of the 13 Colonies in the American Revolutionary War?

I know that the colonists ultimately got independence and got territory up to the Mississippi River with the exception of Florida, southern Alabama, and southern Mississippi. However, were those their original war aims or were their original war aims something different? Also, if their original war aims were different, what exactly were their original war aims?

BTW, any reading on the topic of the colonists' original war aims would be greatly appreciated--especially if this reading can be found online for free. :) Futurist110 (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original grievance was that the colonies had "grown up", and were fairly densely-settled in places, and economically-established by the standards of the time. They were no longer scattered settlements needing British Army protection against Indian attacks (and the capture of French Canada by the British had removed another threat). Some among the colonials were rather tired of being the subject of experiments in mercantilism imposed from London, and being vulnerable to sudden shifts of policy that could occur with each revolving-door change in ministries in the British parliament, often devised by people with little knowledge of colonial conditions and enacted with little consultation with the colonials. From a political point of view, they wanted colonial MPs in the British Parliament ("No taxation without representation"), or perhaps some kind of entrenched guarantee for certain colonial rights and privileges, so that they couldn't be overturned by a simple majority vote in Parliament. British politicians refused to seriously consider even for a moment any such ideas, so what were originally limited economic grievances evolved into a series of sharp confrontations over the basic legitimacy of British rule, and eventually a war of independence.

On the purely military level, the British occupied most of the main port cities early in the war, and the Americans had little hope of dislodging them by frontal military attacks. The American strategy was to grind down the British by repeated attacks (sometimes guerilla warfare) when they ventured inland from the port cities, and to try to attract the support of another European power (such as France or Spain). The Americans wanted, and attained, independence for the 13 Atlantic colonies, including their westward claims which did not conflict with French or Spanish claims. The Americans also had dreams of driving the British out of Quebec, but had to give up the idea after the Battle of Quebec (1775)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Declaration of Independence lists the items that the colonists wanted changed. Even after the declaration was issued, much of the population would have found correcting most of these sufficient, even without independence. Rmhermen (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How likely would it have been that the King would say, "OK, sure, let's give the colonists what they want"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather unlikely, as the British crown to learn from its mistakes first, and there was no historical precedent for what the colonies were demanding. But what is interesting is that in the later case of other similar colonies like Canada and Australia, the UK largely acceded to reasonable demands from the populations and independence was a peaceful and gradual process. Lessons had been learned. --Xuxl (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was Parliament, not the king, that made the decisions. However, in those days, the king could personally appoint like-minded ministers regardless of whether they had Parliamentary support or not. :::"Did you know? On 5 March 1770 British troops in Boston fired into a crowd protesting against the Townshend Duties, killing five people – ironically on the very same day on which Lord North recommended to Parliament the repeal of the Duties" www.parliament.uk. Alansplodge (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Boston Massacre. I'm reminded of this item from a semi-scholarly history published in the 1980s: "In response to [the Boston Tea Party], the British Parliament voted the Intolerable Acts of 1773, followed by the Repressive Acts of 1774, and finally, Parliament being what it is, the Unnatural Acts of 1776." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xuxl -- one difference between the later Dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa) and the 18th-century Atlantic colonies of British North America is that by the mid-19th-century the prevailing British economic ideology had shifted from mercantilism to free trade (symbolized by the 1846 repeal of the Corn Laws), which gave less scope for economic conflicts between provincial elites and central London elites. The British never did reform the British/UK parliamentary system to give any special structural status to overseas domains -- so that until 1982, the Canadian constitution was still under the authority of the UK parliament, and the Canadians had to beg the UK to act to place the Canadian constitution under Canadian authority ("Patriation"). AnonMoos (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." I think that lays out the aims fairly well, especially the part that states "these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." --Jayron 32 16:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What did the colonists want the U.S.'s borders to be early on in the American Revolutionary War, though? Futurist110 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the war aims were not really about boarders and land... most colonists probably didn’t even think to ask the question of what the boarders of the new US should be. Those that did think about it would have said the boarders of the US should be the boarders of the colonies that formed the US (as mixed up and contradictory as those boarders were). Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 1776, there were a few conflicting territorial claims between the different colonies east of the 1763 settlement line, and a whole lot of theoretically-conflicting claims west of the 1763 settlement line. The various Continental/Confederation Congresses reconciled some of the claims, and persuaded colonies/states to give up some of the more theoretical ones (such as claims to land between two latitudes all the way to the Pacific Ocean), and ultimately assembled the old Northwest Territory. (This mostly happened after 1781, though...) AnonMoos (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although, to expand on this a bit, the British government's policy of barring colonial settlement west of the settlement line is an often underappreciated factor in leading to division and war. Many of the colonists viewed this as oppressive and unjust. All that land there for the taking (from the savages living there), but the King says we can't have it! Yes, exact territorial claims were certainly not widely agreed upon, but broadly, many colonists viewed westward expansion as their right. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean borders not boarders all 5 times. Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 17

A Personalty's Missing Date of Death?

I was informed by one fairly knowledgeable of many personalities biography that Sally Field has died this year (2018), or last year. If so, that is not indicated here in the Wikipedia. Where else can that be verified. or will it soon be input in her article? HENRY9504 (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That death report was a hoax, apparently [1]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Fake news and Paul is dead. And as FPAS' link indicates, if Sally had indeed died, it would have been all over the news. Her one-time partner Burt Reynolds died this past year. Maybe that's what put the idea in the hoaxster's head. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While Sally Field is alive and well, it should be noted that sometimes famous deaths do slip under the radar. Sondra Locke Died at the beginning of November, 2018 but reports of her death only made the press last week. However, Locke had all but disappeared from the public for the last several decades, so it's easier to understand how her death could be missed. Fields is currently working, as she appeared in the now-active Netflix series Maniac (miniseries), and AFAIK, she's never really left the spotlight. The world would, indeed, notice her death pretty quickly. --Jayron 32 16:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is that while famous deaths do slip under the radar, I'm not entirely convinced it's particularly likely even someone 'fairly knowledgeable of many personalities biography' will be aware it happened but there's no easily findable news reports. In other words, if a search on news.google.com or even news.bing.com for 'whoever death' or 'whoever died' finds nothing, probably the person is wrong. It's nominally possible it was published in some very obscure news source, or the person noticed in on an official Twitter/Facebook/website or the person obtained the death certificate or whatever independently of any significant news source noticing, in reality probably not. Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are native speakers of UN languages about proportionately represented in top UN positions?

Compared to the percent of humans or countries who speak a UN language natively or some number in between. Or are they overrepresented? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define top UN positions? And, the answer is an obvious no. The most spoken language among UN member nations is Mandarin Chinese, about 1/8 to 1/7 people in the world speak it, and yet 1/8 to 1/7 of "top positions" in the UN are not held by native Mandarin speakers, no matter how you define "top positions". Of the top 5 languages spoken in the world (natively) only 2 are spoken (natively) by the top 5 positions listed at United Nations: Amina J. Mohammed is a native English speaker and María Fernanda Espinosa is a native Spanish speaker. The other 3 top languages are not represented among those top 5 positions, though Portuguese (#6), Czech (#83) and Swedish (#91) are. --Jayron 32 19:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he's talking about the six official languages of the United Nations, which are English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian and Chinese. --Viennese Waltz 19:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The analysis of the top 5 leadership positions is unaffected by that. Spanish, English, Czech, Swedish, and Portuguese are still the native languages of those people.--Jayron 32 21:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no statistician but looking through the lists they seem somewhat overrepresented vs. population to me. With other languages like Arabic, English and Spanish more than taking up the slack for Mandarin's low presence of 1 Security Council presidency in 15 and nothing else. The Security Council is where they really rack up the presidencies, with 2 Latin American and/or Caribbean seats and an Arab, Chinese, French, Russian, UK and US seat at all times. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US Energy Subsidies Report

I'm confused by this report, Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2016 by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). The report says that "In FY 2016, nearly half (45%) of federal energy subsidies were associated with renewable energy". However, according to the numbers in Table 1, renewable energy (Biomass: $4,963,000,000, Hydroelectric: $2,482,000,000, Wind: $2,038,000,000, Solar: $533,000,000 and Geothermal: $209,000,000) totals $10,225,000,000. Meanwhile, non-renewable energy (Natural Gas: $32,652,000,000, Crude Oil: $18,797,000,000, Coal: $14,807,000,000, Nuclear: $8,352,000,000) totals $74,608,000,000. So, renewable energy subsidies ($10,225,000,000 / $84,833,000,000) are actually 12.5%, not 45%. What am I not understanding? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's production in trillions of BTU not $. Subsidies is $14,983,000,000.
Sleigh (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing majors - common sense?

Debate club.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Does anybody else think marketing majors are a common sense (and therefore useless) major, it seems to be the psychology equivalent for the College of Business/Management. I know marketing jobs pay a lot and a lot of companies are willing to pay to hire marketing majors, but it all seems like a bull major to me. As an example, I used to work for Driscoll's (strawberries) and in the clam shell logo, there used to be a cartoon image of berry fields. Well they removed the image. That was a decision from the marketing department. What does an 8 a.m.-4 p.m. job look like for a marketing major besides that, I dunno.

But in any event, I have some questions. Can marketing be used to market... 1. atheism, 2. reduce crime, and 3. reduce drug use. Atheism, but for example not generic atheism, atheism from an Islamic point of view. Using appealing arguments for Muslims on atheism. Who would hire such a PhD marketing? How bout the White House, I'm sure the Trump administration can want to hire PhD marketing on make atheism arguments appealing to Muslims... How bout drug use? Can't be use big billboards to use rhetorics against drug use, like cocaine? I.e., "All I do, is profit. All you do, is lose money to cocaine!"

So my last point is, if marketing can't do that, then marketing to me is pretty useless. I mean what is marketing useful for? If I started my own company, and someone comes to my door saying "Pay me $30/hour and I'll work as an employee for your company" what would I gain from that... I believe McDonald's pays a marketing team, probably spending millions, just for a simple rhetoric, no? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

There have certainly been marketing campaigns attempting to promote all three of your items... whether they were successful campaigns is a different question. Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims believe Apostasy in Islam is a crime that deserves the death penalty.
Sleigh (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Muslims believe up to the death penalty, but they don't have to carry the maximum. Other verses in that page don't imply death, even though most of them do. By the way, here's a real rhetoric that is indirectly offensive to Muslims. It's "Life begins in the uterus." I believe there's a verse in the Qur'an somewhere about human life beginning in the ribcage, like the same adaptation of God taking a rib from Adam or so. So what's suppose to offend Muslims, on the belief "Life begins in the uterus." But to the average person, that doesn't seem to offend anyone. Just image if you can find like 4 more quotes like that, which seem to have nothing to do with Islam, and later connect them that "they all contradict the Qur'an." Yikes! But like psychology, this is pure philosophy too, something you don't need to take marketing course in. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I recommend you read Marketing before jumping to conclusions about its value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought the elective courses in a marketing major (finance, accounting) are more useful than the major itself. Now, I looked through a marketing textbook before, and it all looked like common sense to me. 1 such page was an example of making a webpage. It said things like font size, font color, and a contact us button, are all appealing stuff to users viewing the website. Yeah, all common sense, huh? Can we take out all the non-common sense in a marketing course and put them in a 5-minute essay? If all the common sense is taken out, what's left? So we seem to have several majors that sprung off-of existing majors. Another example is Data Science (formerly called Predictive Analytics) and so a lot of companies like corporate hotel chains hire data scientists to predict which customers will be reoccurring. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

A well-designed website may be common sense, but there's a lot more to marketing than that. And you'd be amazed at how many poorly-designed websites are out there. Have you read the Marketing article yet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. And you know how Econ and Finance majors are roughly the same - the difference being political - 1 is for the College of Arts/Sciences and the other is in College of Business/Management. Well I feel Marketing is roughly the COBM equivalent of Psychology majors, and so I wonder if some marketing jobs could be offered to Psychology PhDs who have some experience in business management even (like an undergrad double major). 67.175.224.138 (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Buzz Aldrin's medal

What medal is Buzz Aldrin wearing in this photograph? Surtsicna (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a Presidential Medal of Freedom. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 19

An alligator in the East Room

I'm trying to establish the "real story" regarding said alligator. The best source that I could find (Margaret Truman)^[1] states that it was a gift to Lafayette, acquired prior to his visit to D.C. for two months in 1845, and his alligator resided in the (still unfinished) White House East Room. Semi-reliable sources claim that it was a gift from Lafayette to J.Q. Adams. Of course, both could be true -- one source suggests that it was "regifted".^[2] Surely, there must be some mention in the official record. What happened to the alligator when the Marquis left? Did he take it with him? Leave it with Adams as a "gift"? Or, ... (?) Most of what I'm finding seems like circular sourcing -- any reliably sourced references appreciated! --With thanks, 107.15.157.44 (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Lafayette visited in 1824 and 1825, and was in DC during the winter, as the roads were no good for travel. Our article reveals that he was in the DC area from early December to February 23, so Adams had not yet been inaugurated (he was Secretary of State). He also came back at the end of his visit in September. It's possible he was gifted an alligator during his travels in the South and did not seek to take it home.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Truman, Margaret (2016). White House Pets. New Word City. p. 5. ISBN 9781612309392.
^ "Alligators in the White House, Oh My!". Presidential Pet Museum. 5 September 2013.

Hi, here are two pre-Wikipedia sources. Haven't found one yet about what happened next, but you might search on the name of the ship. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2002: Real Life at the White House: Two Hundred Years of Daily Life at America's Most Famous Residence. Page 52. A gift to Lafayette among many received during his tour of the US: "He was showered with gifts--from Indian tomahawks to furniture to a live alligator--that amounted to several tons of cargo. Congress arranged for a warship, the USS Brandywine, to take his largesse back to France. Meanwhile everything was stored in the East Room of the White House--including the alligator."
1963: "The Creation of the President's House" in Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, D.C. Page 37. Again to Lafayette: "Abigail Adams arrived two weeks later [in 1800] and was horrified at the chilly vastness of the President's home. She wrote feelingly to her daughter of her dismay...'There is not a single apartment finished...We have not the least fence, yard, or other convenience, and the great unfinished audience chamber I make a drying room of, to hang up the clothes in.' This audience room...was, of course, today's East Room. This room was also used to quarter the pet alligator presented to Lafayette on the latter's triumphal tour of 1824."

P.S. Snopes also found some other preinternet sources, including a historian who searched in vain for primary sources. The earliest reference was in 1888, in a children's magazine. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the leads -- that'll keep me busy for awhile. —107.15.157.44 (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Re: "circular sourcing", check this out — More thorough research than I'm able to do, strongly suggests that the entire thing is an apocryphal myth. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@70.67.193.176: [does that 'ping' work?] – I don't have access to Jstor. Does that passage from the journal article (p. 37) have any attribution? The source certainly should be reliable. Is that from a contemporary account? —107.15.157.44 (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 107.15.157.44, unfortunately, the author of the journal article doesn't say where he got the info from, and doesn't even have a bibliography or reference list at the end of the article. He is clearly citing actual letters for the part about Abigail Adams, but he gives no hint about his alligator story source. If it was an actual letter, he probably would have said though - he refers to letters again and again in the rest of the piece and often also gives the dates they were written. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 107.15.157.44 (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

Help me identify this item

We found an odd piece of statuary at an antique store today. It's a tower of iconography I don't completely understand. Here are five pieces of it, from bottom to top:

Dragons?
Dogs?
but this is a bull
Elephants
Dancers

Between the pairs of dancers there's a big cat (leopard?), a stork perhaps, and a cobra. I'm sure someone here can tell me what this is! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To this non-expert on the subject, it looks like a modern interpretation of something old (note obvious staining). —107.15.157.44 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should clarify. I know it's a thing. I don't really care what thing it actually is physically, it just looks cool. But what is it representing? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptually, it resembles a Bi Xi stele, with perhaps a literal depiction of Four Pillars of Destiny. Many figures relate to the Chinese zodiac, especially when considering that the elephant replaces the pig in Thailand {and "bull" = "ox"). A "proper" Bi Xi should include a tortoise shell, however. Probably just a pastiche inspired by such or similar. Hopefully somebody who knows something about the subject will dismiss my humble ignorance. —107.15.157.44 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC) --P.s: presumably, you took the photos yourself; if so, why not go back and ask?[reply]

Ask who? The guy running the antique store had no idea; it had been sitting in the back of the shop for years. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, that leopard is a lynx. Those swirls seem more like fur than spots. What a lynx is doing where grapes grow, I can't even guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, December 21, 2018 (UTC)

You would need to discover the missing lynx. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, but lynx species and grapes overlap in a lot of places. Including my back yard. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Na-Dene Migration

Has any one given a date for the migration of the Na-Dene peoples into America? déhanchements (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the hypothesis mentioned in the lede of Na-Dene languages is correct – "that the Na-Dene languages of North America and the Yeniseian languages of Siberia had a common origin in a language spoken in Beringia, between the two continents" – and if the supposition mentioned in the lede of Beringia is correct – "It is believed that a small human population of at most a few thousand arrived in Beringia from eastern Siberia during the Last Glacial Maximum before expanding into the settlement of the Americas sometime after 16,500 years BP" – then that latter figure is your answer.

However, be aware that 'Na-Dene' is the name given to a family of languages, not to a people or peoples: languages can be transmitted from peoples to peoples (e.g. the various non-italic peoples in Europe who adopted the Latin language and evolved it into the many modern Romance languages; the Celtic peoples in Europe who adopted Germanic languages, including what is now English; and before all that the many peoples who adopted what had started out as Proto-Indo-European), so there is danger in assuming a one-to-one correspondence of one with the other. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After 16,500 years ago? I expected a much later date, not too long before the Eskimo migration. There doesn't seem to be that much divergence between Proto-Yeniseian and Na-Dene. déhanchements (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"After 16,500 years ago" gives only an upper limit, not an actual date. Further on in the Na-Dene languages article, there is:

"According to Joseph Greenberg's controversial classification of the languages of Native North America, Na-Dené (including Haida) is one of the three main groups of Native languages spoken in the Americas. Contemporary supporters of Greenberg's theory, such as Merritt Ruhlen, have suggested that the Na-Dené language family represents a distinct migration of people from Asia into the New World that occurred six to eight thousand years ago, placing it around four thousand years later than the previous migration into the Americas by Amerind speakers; this remains an unproven hypothesis.[5]"

The question depends partly on how you define "the Na-Dene peoples" and where you draw the line between the Na-Dene languages and their precursors. That there are contested theories around this topic suggests that, whatever definitions are adopted, we do not yet have sufficient evidence to come to a firm conclusion. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should've said Proto-Na-Dené peoples, and by that I don't mean any particular race. I was using it in a linguistic sense. déhanchements (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When did X in a box start meaning elevators?

Is there a meaning behind X or is it just a convenient convention? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't understand the question, can you provide an example of whatever it is you are talking about? --Viennese Waltz 16:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On floor maps. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious. It's "X, for eXcitement" (hierarchy: OK. You Forget about it now :) --Askedonty (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same, in black and red on white: Emergency (Exit) --Askedonty (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer: it doesn't. Show us an example of this. --Viennese Waltz 19:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangment_m.svg. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. It's not a "X" either. It's a cross intended meaning "forbidden in case of Emergency". See the diagram in link provided above. --Askedonty (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence in the diagram suggests that it means that. There is separate wording about what to do in case of fire. I think the symbol is indeed "just a convenient convention". They have to indicate in some way that the floor doesn't continue into the elevator shaft, and whereas stairs produce an obvious pictorial symbol that you see being used, a hole in the floor does not. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a X. The "box" is black. Green indicates safety. You wanted a skull drawn on the box ? --Askedonty (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK at least, a shape on a floor plan with a diagonal cross through it indicates a void. These are usually service ducts or elevator shafts. On a map it indicates a covered passageway.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This US webpage of Pre-drawn floor plan symbols shows a box with a diagonal cross marked "Elevator". Alansplodge (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 1911 floor plans shown here (page 8) use an X for the elevators. My search string was "fifth avenue" +"floor plan" site:archive.org and if you can identify an earlier building with elevators, you could adjust accordingly to perhaps find an even earlier usage. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the names of these court cases?

In a 1917 article about immigration and immigration restrictionism, I noticed this sentence on page 450:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1883384.pdf

"Various states made attempts to exclude the manifestly undesirable, but these were rendered largely ineffectual by the rivalry among the states for good immigrants, and the repeated decisions declaring all such measures unconstitutional."

Exactly which decisions (I'm assuming that the author is talking about court decisions--though please correct me if I am wrong in regards to this) is the author talking about here? As in, what exactly were the names of these decisions? Futurist110 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Chy Lung v. Freeman and Chae Chan Ping v. United States? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant decisions prior to the Page Act of 1875. Found only 2 on [2] "Subject: Immigration" "Date: 1800 to 1899":

* City of New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837)

* Passenger Cases --Smith v. Turner., 48 U.S. (7 How.) 283 (1849).

--212.186.133.83 (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this information. Futurist110 (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 22

Fort Laudersdale

Was "Laudersdale" ever a normal spelling of the fort or city now known as Fort Lauderdale, Florida? File:1874 Beers Map of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina - Geographicus - NCSCGAFL-beers-1874.jpg labels it "Ft. Laudersdale". A Google search returns a mix of recent typos and occasional pre-Internet-era books results, but I'm not clear if they're typos or a variant spelling. Nyttend (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a 1922 brochure spelling it so ( and, unaware, I certainly would spell it so myself ) but that's a grammatical mirage as it seems? This tells us that it was named after an Army officer. The name was Lauderdale. (to be rescued the one ref in the article, which was moved elsewhere by its provider) --Askedonty (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do companies that own themselves exist?

If you created a successful company, for which you hired a capable CEO and board of directors, and just for the fun of it, maybe because you'd have 5 more companies, sold all your shares to the company itself for $1, after which the company would own itself, what would happen?

Do companies that are not owned by anyone exist? Joepnl (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Truman, Margaret (2016). White House Pets. New Word City. p. 5. ISBN 9781612309392.

[2] "Alligators in the White House, Oh My!". Presidential Pet Museum. 5 September 2013.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 212: / Line 212: @@
 Was "Laudersdale" ever a normal spelling of the fort or city now known as [[Fort Lauderdale, Florida]]?  [[:File:1874 Beers Map of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina - Geographicus - NCSCGAFL-beers-1874.jpg]] labels it "Ft. Laudersdale".  A Google search returns a mix of recent typos and occasional pre-Internet-era books results, but I'm not clear if they're typos or a variant spelling.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 16:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 :I found a 1922 brochure [https://books.google.com/books?id=ph3g0dZJtFgC&pg=PA356&lpg=PA356&dq=Fort+Laudersdale&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwit_ueHjbTfAhUtxIUKHUfrAU8Q6AEwB3oECA8QAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false spelling it so] ( and, unaware, I certainly would spell it so myself ) but that's a grammatical mirage as it seems? [http://journals.fcla.edu/browardlegacy/article/view/79241/76586 This] tells us that it was named after an Army officer. The name was Lauderdale. (''to be rescued the one ref in the article, which was moved elsewhere by its provider'') --[[User:Askedonty|Askedonty]] ([[User talk:Askedonty|talk]]) 19:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
+== Do companies that own themselves exist? ==
+If you created a successful company, for which you hired a capable CEO and board of directors, and just for the fun of it, maybe because you'd have 5 more companies, sold all your shares to the company itself for $1, after which the company would own itself, what would happen?
+Do companies that are not owned by anyone exist?  [[User:Joepnl|Joepnl]] ([[User talk:Joepnl|talk]]) 02:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)