Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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.

November 19

Medical "norms" and the thought of inhering natural rights advocates?

Given the weight inhering natural rights advocates put upon the person, how have they responded to the complication of the "norm" and "normal" in medicine that have been put by historians of medicine or, separately, by Foucault? In particular, how do they view health as the antonym of "disorder" given that historians of medicine perceive medical health to have come about in the 19th century as the inversion of disorderliness? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In English? --Trovatore (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo only speak communism. You'll have to wait for an outside translator to English. --Jayron32 03:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foucault? Sokal. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a response I share particular to that scholar. But separate to Foucault, you suggested above that "health" appears unconstructed. Sensible historians tracing the history of things such as DSM or ICD see "normal" and "healthy" as constructed. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Sokal is a member of the Old Left anyone can respect. — Melab±1 ☎ 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that the question relates to natural rights, as defined in our article on natural and legal rights. But unless somebody believes that there is a natural right to health -- which would be an unusual belief -- I can't see how a contradiction with a relativistic definition of health would arise. Looie496 (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The natural-rights part I got. I didn't get the bit about norm and normal and disorder. --Trovatore (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he's talking about a natural right to health care. I also think he means "inherent" when he says "inhering". It seems as though he is dedicated to posing his question in as convoluted terminology as he can possibly manage. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of anyone believing in a natural right to health care. Natural rights are almost always negative; they don't need to be provided, just not infringed. --Trovatore (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this: [1]. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I've heard of it. But then I've heard of a lot of things that don't make sense. --Trovatore (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such as the proponents of a so-called "right to life" who won't lift a finger to help the child that they would force the mother to carry to full term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The positive/negative distinction between rights isn't always clear and there may be more distinctions to make. — Melab±1 ☎ 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about natural right's discourse, an ideology if you will that people possess natural rights that are inherent, that "inhere," in the person; would have a problem with the common historical approach to the discussion of how the idea of "normal" "health" in Western society came to be. I suggested this because Medeis used "health" above as an uncomplicated example of a thing that inheres or lives within the body; when elucidating a natural rights discourse. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normal in the sense FF intends and healthy are two separate and unlike concepts. Normal as he means it is a subjective societal fashion. Circumcision is normal for you, bound feet and lip plates normal for me. Health is an objective standard based on observation of nature. We find all the time that out notions about health (high blood pressure is a sign of potency) have turned out to be wrong, because they are contradicted by the needs of a well-functioning body. μηδείς (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that everyone eventually dies, even the ones who were in the best possible health, listing health as a "natural right" seems a tad idealistic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for this answer Medeis, it supplies what I sought to understand. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of an attempt to restate Fifelfoo's question than to answer it, but I believe the issue is - how do those thinkers who regard rights as being "natural" (nonsense on stilts), as being inherent in our nature rather than being imposed by society; for instance, to use Medeis' example above, who think that "a concept of guilt or innocence is prior to the concept of a justice system"; regard the idea of "health" as being a _correction_ of nature, of removing a "disease" from the body which has got there by natural means? There's also the point regarding the equivalence (or otherwise) of "healthy" with "normal" - is having a high blood pressure a "disease" in and of itself? If so, how do we determine what "high" means, other than by saying "high is what received medical opinion considers to be high"? If not, why does the medical profession treat people for high blood pressure? Tevildo (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If you take "endowed by their creator" either literally (as God) or metaphorically (as Nature), then good health fails the test. What we are endowed with is mortality. Regardless of the level of health care provided, some folks are inherently going to have better health than others. That's just the way it goes. We as a nation have chosen to provide widespread health care. Having that choice is arguably where the natural right comes into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if "good health" isn't a natural right - (a) why is "liberty" a natural right? Because Jefferson said so? (b) Is the definition of "good health" nevertheless something intrinsic to humanity, or is it an arbitrary standard determined by the medical profession? If the latter, why isn't "justice" an arbitrary standard determined by the State? (I suspect "because it's a natural right" may be a tempting answer...) Tevildo (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More directly to the point, why is life a natural right? Given that by nature we all die? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, which is why the "right to life" really means the right not to be killed. It doesn't require anyone to provide you with the wherewithal for life. --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and now we come to what may be some of Fifelfoo's point. You interpret the right to life as "the right not to be killed", but there are other "constructions" of this right. The German Basic Law currently is understood to indicate that indeed everyone has the right not only to the means of life, but even to sufficient means for "living with dignity", which includes health care and a degree of participation in public life. Just like different people have interpreted the same religious texts quite differently, so different societies have interpreted the same enlightenment ideas differently - including such seemingly simple things as "fundamental rights". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is so easy even a caveman can do it. A individual's right to X is a moral-political obligation on others not to take X from him without his consent. Even dogs and toddlers understand their own rights to concrete things, if they haven't yet mastered the art of not committing violence against others. A supposed right, to, say, healthcare, is not a right to keep the healthcare you've chosen to pay for. We see that in all it's naked glory. The supposed right to healthcare means the government pointing guns at some people to give money to other people at the directive of Kathleen Sebelius, subject to Obama's declaring insurers can continue offering now illegal plans to their customers for the near future without fear as of this moment they be sued for doing so. Which situation is by nature and which isn't is as obvious as a slap in the face. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This directly answers the question, which you can see in our article on the minarchist/libertarian non-aggression axiom and is not debating anyone's statement. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This does not begin to address the question. If we can derive the "right to property" from "nature", why can't we derive the definition of "good health" (not the "right to health") from nature? Tevildo (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis needs to strike his/her tea-party driven propaganda about Obamacare. If I'm not allowed to respond to such garbage, Medeis is not allowed to post it either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I didn't hat it is because the response was somewhat related to the question. Granted, it's mostly a soapbox political comment only marginally related to the question, and if you want to put it under the hat, go ahead. The Reference Desk is not the place for pissing contests. You cannot express opinions unrelated to the question no matter what, regardless of what any other person does or does not do. --Bowlhover (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and someone changed it. And my comments are every bit as relevant to the topic as those of Medeis. Medeis is using the topic as an excuse to spout tea-party pseudo-libertarian propaganda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case its unclear, this thread was created for the express expectation of my giving the classic liberal/minarchist/libertarian/anarcho-capitalist response: "I've asked a question aimed at elucidating the perspective you put below in a new section. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:03 pm, 18 November 2013, last Monday (3 days ago) (UTC−5)" I responded to that question less cryptically than "foucault sokal" in my above response and its adendum--"rights are those things no one is allowed to deprive you of against your consent." A bunch of responses were then posted asserting that was bunkum or asserting other definitions. I neither hatted nor unhatted those. (In fact, I believe the one who's complaining he's been hatted is the hatter--imagine that.) In any case, I gave the exact answer the OP was looking for. If he wants more he can have it. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your editorial against Obamacare had nothing to do with the OP's question, it was just an opportunity for you to make a political statement. If I can't make political statements, neither can you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political debate irrelevant to the question

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

- (a) "The bone is mine now, as I am a big dog and you are a small dog." Has the big dog stolen the bone? If not, how does this differ from taxation? If so, what is the source of the small dog's "right" to the bone after the appropriation? It's not physical possession, that has passed to the big dog. Can legal title, as distinct from possessory title, exist without a legal system? "Let your sister play with the dolly now." Has the parent stolen the doll from the child, especially considering that the parent paid for the doll originally? Does the parent have a right to decide which child can play with the doll? If so, how does this differ from taxation? (b) The question is not about the "right to healthcare", or even the "right to health". If the "right to property" can be obtained from nature, why can't "good health" (not "the right to health") be obtained from nature? Tevildo (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The guns are not being aimed at the citizens, they're being aimed at the slimy insurance companies that sell junk policies to those unsuspecting citizens. Unfortunately, Obama has put that issue off for a year, which plays right into the tea party's hands, as they can make it an election issue (which is why they wanted to defer it for a year in the first place). (The tea party is also actively involved in trying to discourage young people from buying health insurance, which is about as evil and immoral as anything I can think of.) As to "good health", that is not a "natural" right, unless you can figure out how to schlep God into a court of law when your health fails, as it always eventually will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the Obama care provisions were passed by the people (i.e. by their elected representatives) and the tea party's challenge to the law was upheld by the conservative-leaning court. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guns are being pointed. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, John Roberts notwithstanding. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guns are being pointed by the tea party - a small minority who are trying to impose their will on the nation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up, Bugs. What Tea Party member has seized anything at gunpoint? Compare that to the IRS. μηδείς (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They've seized the Republican Party is what. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "gunpoint" discussion is irrelevant. Approximately as long as there are humans, people have provided some level of mutual support. And approximately as long as we've had some basic kind of state, there have been taxes which have been collected under threat of some kind of sanctions. This in neither new nor surprising nor in any way outrageous. Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just brilliant. Taxes are necessary, so any level of punitive confiscation is good? Or do you have some more serious point? Neither you nor Bugs is making any serious point here. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taxes only become "punitive consfiscation" when the taxes are being spent on things you don't like it to be spent on. The whole "all taxation is theft" thing is a boring, trite, and facile argument that belies the fact that some money must be collected by the government to do some necessary things. That you disagree with others about what is necessary or not is no reason to use inflammatory and pejorative language. It is one thing to disagree over the role of government and what it should and shouldn't spend money on; it's quite another to dodge that argument entirely by falsely claiming that the government has no right to collect any money from anyone (and by extension, to then provide no services, pass no laws, and cease to exist entirely). --Jayron32 03:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man, though. People who want to sue in court for theft of fraud should be willing to pay a ten percent sales tax to cover the cost of protecting items from such crimes. Minarchists aren't expecting anything for free. Anarcho-capitalists have been mentioned above. The only time you see one of them in action is when a table of 12 church ladies are asked to put up money and tip for their brunch bill, and people start claiming back money out of the tip pile. μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC) μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I object to my tax dollars going to so much military spending. And I object to tea party elements and the like getting tax-exempt status. But I do support "limited" military spending. And I also support government spending to help those who would otherwise have nothing thanks to the blood-suckers at the top of the "free market" food chain. Hence I choose to pay my taxes. Not because of your metaphorical second amendment being aimed at me, but because it's my civic duty as an American. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are Stephen Schwarzschild and Henry Schwarzschild brothers?

The wikipedia articles for both are incomplete for family records. It's known that Steven Schwarzschild had a brother named Henry ^[1]. Both escaped from Germany in 1939. Both had education at the City College of New York ^[2]^[3], and it's known that Steven's brother, lived in White Plains, NY, which is the same location as Henry's death. I can't find any information other than that, but it's a mighty large coincidence if it's just that.

206.21.123.40 (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summer vacation of US Congress

In Germany, where I came from, the Bundestag has a summer vacation of approx. six weeks during July and August. Aren't Senators and Representatives on vacation in summer? As I look through the legislation, congress also passes laws during summer. Even decades ago, just remember the gulf of tonking resolution of august 1964. --84.160.174.68 (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have a regular schedule, but the President can request an emergency session of Congress, when something urgent comes up. Also, they may delay a recess themselves, if they have important unfinished business (perhaps some scoundrel has managed to remain untaxed). StuRat (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of accomplishments, the current US Congress has been on vacation for nearly three years now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the Senate can't get in any golf on their vacation, seems all the courses are booked by some guy in a big White House.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's been true since the Eisenhower days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually more like Woodrow Wilson, but interesting to see you let the disappointment in the Senate slide.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia

Do Saudi Arabian nationals get money from the state out of the oil profit? 194.144.231.142 (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no personal income tax in Saudi Arabia." [2] Otherwise, the answer seems to be "no". Alansplodge (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is, no direct money transfer. However, many things are done with the oil revenue which benefit the citizens, such as building the nation's infrastructure (roads and such). StuRat (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their auto gas prices are US$0.50 a gallon[3] whereas the U.S. gas prices are from $3 to $4 a gallon.[4] -- Jreferee (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, it's USD 7.92 per US gallon by my calculations (GBP 1.30 per litre if you're lucky). [5] Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article [6] could give an idea of how the kingdom goes around when it wants to "buy" the people off. In addition to no taxes and huge infrastructure investments, some of the other ways include large unemployment benefits and large bonuses to all public employees (which is kind of a direct payout but does not cover all the citizens and is not regular).129.178.88.84 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy

I vaguely remember reading something philosophical about just by suddenly spotting somebody on an otherwise lonely walk, a relation is instantly formed in which you are somebody being seen by another being and how just another person's perspective has the force to change us. Does anybody recognize this line of thought? 194.144.231.142 (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Sartre's regard (or "look") in Being and Nothingness? ---Sluzzelin talk 17:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds correct, although it's been a long time since I read Being an Nothingness. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might also want to check out writing around male gaze which deals with being changed by (in general) being seen. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certain homosexual males with mirrors have been know to spontaneously combust due to that phenomenon. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly going to be the case for the average mugging. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PD-USGov satellite images

Does anyone know of a website that provides {{PD-USGov}} satellite images of most or all of the USA? I recently visited and photographed the "Studebaker Clubhouse and Tree Sign" that's at National Register of Historic Places listings in St. Joseph County, Indiana, so I have a photo to upload, but at ground level it doesn't look anything like the unique aerial view, which is really the basis for its historic status. I'd love to get an aerial or satellite image for the St. Joseph County page, but I don't know where to look. Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your easiest bet is to install one of the implementations of NASA World Wind, which accesses a range of PD-USGov imagery. Most comprehensive cover is Landsat 7, but the spacial resolution is low (much lower than the commercial providers you'd get on say Google Earth). WorldWind also finds old black and white aerial images and newer Urban Area Ortho, which is stripy aerial coverage of some US urban areas. Beyond that what World Wind finds, there is patchy Skylab, STS, and ISS imagery, but I don't know of a good library for finding any of that. I think it's unlikely that you'll find a PD-USGov of that area which is sufficiently detailed, unless you luck out and find it in the Urban Area Ortho data. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Boundary Between Judaism and Christianity

Is a group of righteous gentiles which follows Jewish law and tradition and which teaches that Jesus was a human rabbi of the school of Hillel, that Jesus was not God or part of the Godhead, and that he was not the Messiah be considered a Jewish sect and not a "Christian sect." Thanks. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think anybody would call them Christian, but whether or not they would be "considered" Jewish depends entirely on who is doing the "considering". --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Christians" by definition believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. If they don't believe that then they wouldn't be a Christian sect. According to Who is a Jew and Conversion to Judaism, established Jewish traditions wouldn't consider them a Jewish sect either unless the individuals have each undergone an "official" conversion process. However, regardless of such "non-recognition" they may be described as a "Jewish sect" by outsiders and/or choose to self-identify as "Jewish" or even "Christian" for that matter.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 00:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of a story I heard on the M72 Bus one Friday afternoon a few years back. A rather well-dressed man boarded the bus going across town and joined two other conservatively attired men already seated. He was rather upset looking, and said, "Brothers, thank you for joining me to talk about this matter. You know my son has just graduated Yeshiva. This summer we sent him on sabbatical to Israel. To my great distress, when he returned this week he told me he had come back a Christian. And I had always thought he would take over the congregation after me!" One of the other men already seated on the bus began to rock back and forth. "Oy, I have not spoken of it for years, but I too have a son, and I too sent him to Israel, and he too came back a Christian!"

The third gentleman, obviously a man of great wisdom and restraint, said, "Brothers, you are aware my son has been travelling for the last three years. What you are not aware of is that after I had sent him for the first time to Israel as well, he too became a Christian. Let us not despair. We are three of the most learned scholars in New York City. Let us pray together to the Lord for guidance." As they prayed, a howl of wind arose and a dark storm suddenly fell. After a brief, flooding downpour, there was a single booming flash of lightning. The bus was struck, and the roof torn open. The rain stopped; not a drop fell inside. A shaft of light fell on the three rabbis. From the sky, a voice spoke, "My children, I too had a Son, and I too sent Him to Israel...." μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wich in turn reminds me of something a friend once said: "I'm definitely a Christian, I'm just not sure about all the whole God and Jesus thing". An interesting discussion on how morality and religion are separable followed, once we'd finished laughing MChesterMC (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Further to what User:WilliamThweatt wrote above, see Noahidism and Seven Laws of Noah. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

Historical Statistics of/for Various Large Countries

Other than for the United States (see Historical Statistics of the United States, as well as here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/past_years.html), Canada (see here: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=11-516-X&lang=eng), and Japan (see here: http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/chouki/), has any large country's (a country with a current population of 35 million people or above) government/official statistical agency ever (regardless of when) published a "Historical Statistics" book/report/et cetera for that specific country? Hopefully my question here is clear enough already and no one here misunderstands and/or is confused by what I am asking here. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a privately published one for the United Kingdom: British Historical Statistics[7] (working on the update here: [8]). Rmhermen (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a database of Historical Statistics for Germany. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much to both of you. Is the German one free? The British one doesn't appear to be free, but I am unsure about the German one. For the record, though, for/in this question, I was asking specifically about "Historical Statistics" published by the governments/official statistical agencies of specific large countries, rather than by private organizations/private agencies. Futurist110 (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INSEE in France has historical statistics on their website...although it takes some digging to find them. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen some historical statistics on their website as well. That said, is there some kind/sort of easy way(s) to successfully search for and find all of these statistics on their website? Futurist110 (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience with the INSEE wesbite, no, not at all :) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a huge amount of experience with the INSEE website? Futurist110 (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well, I suppose not, I'm exaggerating a bit. I find it as useful/useless as the StatCan website anyway...if you want all the good info, you need to buy it, they don't just give this stuff away for free. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are saying here is true, then unfortunately, it is a real disappointment. Anyway, is it okay if I do some additional searching on the INSEE website, show you what I found, and then ask you if you previously found any other historical statistics on this website other than what I found? Futurist110 (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric Europe article

Could you help in editing the article?

Prehistoric Europe article states: "Northern Europe, including Northern Russia, remained in the prehistoric period until as late as the Late Middle Ages, around AD 1400, with the Northern Crusades. Thus, much of Europe was in a stage of proto-history for a long period". However at the same time, viking travel between Northern Europe - Western Europe (I.E. Normandy), and across Russia in early Viking period, tied those regions with Southern Europe/Bizantium, Persia, and other western European countries. So to differentiate dramatically that NOrthern Europe and Northern Russia remained in prehistoric period until 1400 is absolutely false. How can they be separated as early Russian Princes were tied by marriage to emperors of Bizantium? And while vikings have created/ruled Normandy in France before they have invaded England in 1066? This events have happened much before 1400s. Please bring this to the attention of whoever wrote this article... and ask them to review their facts.

Certainly there were many parallel developments in Northern Europe, there were thriving cultures in Nordic Europe ... and it is well written and described already in Wikipedia other cultures. So writing in such terms is certainly sound utterly contrary to the facts.

Thanks, Eugene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.28.15 (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is not true for all of northern Europe, but it is somewhat true for northeastern Europe. The eastern Baltic lands (present-day Baltic states and Finland) did indeed enter the historical record as a result of the Northern Crusades, but in the 12th century, not the 15th. As for northern (European) Russia, the expansion of Russian settlement northward from Novgorod in the 11th and 12th centuries brought that region into the historical record. This was a separate development from the Northern Crusades. I will edit the article. Marco polo (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

corruption of boardmembers in a non-profit organization-SPCA

Request for legal advice removed

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

I need assistance & direction what to do & who to contact, where do i start trying to get corrupt board members off the board of directors for a non-profit animal rescue that carries the name SPCA. our animals & the shelter is suffering, and suspect that 1 member & the caretaker are abusing our animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.108.10 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name for a human position

It's not in human positions, but I think I've somewhere seen a name for the following position: you're standing, one of your hands is on your chest or high abdomen, and the other is out of the way. In Westsern culture, a speaker in this pose gives the sense of "I'm talking about myself right now". You can imagine someone starting akimbo and moving one hand up to the chest. What do we call this? 2001:18E8:2:28C9:F000:0:0:611E (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Napoleonic pose? Try Google Images for "Napoleonic pose" and see if it's what you're talking about. Looie496 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hill's manual of social and business forms: A guide to correct writing, page 454] describes a "Dignity" pose, but I do not think that is the pose you are asking about. I looked around for "oratory posturing", "theatrical gestures" and "body language" and there doesn't seem to be a place where there are formal names for specific poses. I also Google'd "Drawing poses", "action poses", etc. I found lots of drawings, but no names. Wikimedia Commons has Commons:Category:Hand on Chest and Commons:Category:Hand over heart and Commons:Category:Hand gestures in conversation. I hope this helps. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous Napoleonic pose is at Hand-in-waistcoat and commons:Category:Hand-in-waistcoat... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obamacare and job loss

All the sources on Obamacare - even the Obamacare site itself - refer people to the income calculator at the Kaiser foundation for estimation of benefits. [9] Now I know that Obamacare has an infamous lower cutoff for subsidy benefits at the poverty line - but additionally, the link above says that subsidies are offered according to expected 2014 income. People with variable income can adjust their subsidies over the course of the year. Now for the normal situation - if a person makes more money, they might have to pay back subsidies - this is a fairly small problem, because they have more money than they ever expected. But what happens when someone loses a source of income and is left high and dry at the end of the year?

For example, consider a person making $11,500 a year. Of course, they have no employer insurance option. [10] The yearly payment is only $230 - easily affordable, indeed - with a subsidy of $7,637 per year. Great!

Problem is, they get laid off around Thanksgiving, and their annual income turns out to be $10,000 a year. [11] The subsidy is now officially zero - same as if they were making $100,000. We'll assume they live in one of the nearly half the states that will not expand Medicaid - even if they did, the person has already been on the private insurance with subsidy.

Are they now on the hook for $7407 in back insurance subsidies? Wnt (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to get this answer is from a customer service representative at your insurance company. --Jayron32 00:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone anywhere gets Obamacare before January 1. Wnt (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It seems unlikely it's something that hasn't been discussed. Sure enough, a search for 'obamacare 2014 income changes' finds [12] which provides a clue, there appears to be a limit to how much you have to payback depending on your income level. A semi mistaken search for 'subsidy pay back' is actually fairly fruitful finding [13] which says for for individuals below 200% of the poverty line, the maximum they will have to payback is $300. I presume this is what your $10000 person will have to pay back.

Incidentally, I don't know that much about the US tax system except that it generally seems insanely complicated (although Pay-as-you-earn tax and Tax withholding in the United States suggests a form of PAYE or withholding tax is used), but is there a chance this person might have overpaid tax anyway, so they will be due a tax refund and the actual repayment will end up less than $300?

Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The limit on payback is very interesting. Does this mean that the very low income (unemployed, etc.) people ineligible for Obamacare can enjoy subsidies all year, then pay $300 penalty, plus the $230 for the insurance, by simply:

A) withdraw $1000 in retirement funds in January 2014 (plus something for penalty adjustment, I think)

B) get Obamacare with full subsidy

C) don't report the change in income (it doesn't sound like they're required to)

D) file their return with the penalty

Interesting social implications if true - it would largely undo the effect of Republicans banning poor from Medicaid, but rewarding their states by shifting the cost to the federal government. Wnt (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

Handgun handle angle

Is there any historical or engineering reason that handguns from centuries ago- the flintlock, matchlock, etc.,- had handles that were nearly in line with the barrel compared to 20th century handguns, in which the handle is nearly at 90 degrees to the barrel? Thedoorhinge (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The arquebus, matchlock, wheellock and flintlock have stocks. The handgun has a handle. You need to compare the handgun to a muzzle-loaded, smoothbore pistol.
Sleigh (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Stock (firearms)#Anatomy of a gunstock for some variations in shape. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also RefDesk Archives: What is the big ball on most wheellock pistols?. The answer is that in early pistols, the firing mechanism had to be forward of the trigger, so makers had to extend the "handle" in the opposite direction with a counter-weight at the end, to make it balance in the user's hand. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

logistically, what difficulties would moving Israel entail?

extended content

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

Note: please do not hat this question. this question is far smaller than a question 'what logistics would be involved in digging a canal through North and South America to connect the Atlantic and Pacific oceans', which was asked and answered in the 19th century, and involved moving as much Earth as it would take to tunnel clean through the Earth at a diameter of 6 feet. So please, if you do not have any knowledge, feel free not to provide references. This is a far smaller question than is typically asked on the Science desk, for example. If you have no civil engineering background, interests, or imagination, then feel free to ignore this questoin. Do not hat it. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm a zionist, I love all Jewish people and especially a Jewish state. In practice however Israel is located in an extremely contentious part of the world, and as a result it and the people in it are totally belligerent and extremely militant. I think this is a total waste of resources. So, I would like to know the logistics of moving Israel entirely, what difficulties this would entail. I'm only a kid, so I might want to become a billionaire first, but assuming I did and a bunch of other billionaires were on board...how might this process work? I realize that a few sites in Israel are "holy" and replicas of them would not really do the original justice. At the same time, I also think that 99% of Israelis would gladly replace true holy sites with shrines to the original, if it meant an end to the constnat fear, security, military, and general lock-down they have to live under, which includes mandatory military time under dangerous conditions. Israel has outstanding scholars, a venture capitalist presence by Israeli funds, great businesses, people, Universities, and could be a true Jewish Utopia if it didn't happen to be where it was. With this in mind I'd like to know what difficulties, specifically, would be encountered while moving it. Assume for a moment that the Israeli people themselves are on board. In tihs case how might it happen? Is it possible to disassemble and move houses, swiming pools, skyscrapers, roads,synagogues, telecom infrastructure, etc etc etc. I'd like to consider it from the point of view of not abandonment, but actually picking it up and moving it, after building modern, holy, reverent versions of the sites that are holy. I do believe for 99% of Israelis, the most important thing is the Zionist utopia that they and their kinsmen are building. Now I would like to know the logistics of my blue sky thinking. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Israel would be pointless. It's the land itself that's meaningful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's the land. Maybe it's the world's most brilliant, creative, industrious, constructive, fair, studious, sagacious people and the institutions and state they've created that is meaningful. Assume for a second that you're wrong and I'm right. Could you answer my question assuming this hypothesis? Logisticsnightmare (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the land were not meaningful, they wouldn't have fought so hard for it. A second Israel? Easy. It already exists. It's the USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This like saying, if he didn't believe in God's providence providing it to him, Columbus or the pilgrims wouldn't have fought to colonize the New World. Maybe this is true but for the purposes of this question we assume it's totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with the social and capital wealth that is there now, which for the purposes of my question consists of the Jewish people primarily and the infrastructure they have built secondarily. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we already been over this? Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_June_18#what.27s_to_stop_creation_of_a_second_Israel Rojomoke (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question is about the logistics (in particular, not any of the reasons) behind literally moving Israel itself. Not the creation of a second Israel. Also, please realize that I'm asking from a logistics standpoint, i.e. actually moving things, not political standpoint about why or whether anyone would want to do so. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Uganda Scheme (especially the part just above "See also") and Jewish Autonomous Oblast. We've "been over this" more than a century ago. Anyway, what's the point of moving your entire infrastructure for vast distances? It's ridiculously more expensive to dig up and move a motorway, telecom infrastructure, houses, etc. than it is to build a new one after you get to Uganda or wherever you're going. Virtually nobody's particularly attached to most of the built environment; either they'll stay with their current built environment, or they'll decide that the costs of staying are too great, and they'll leave without their built environment. The only things to which people are deeply attached are the holy sites and the concept of being in the land of the Bible, neither of which can be moved, and the society/culture of the country, which wouldn't need to be moved like this. 2001:18E8:2:1020:24F2:D21E:C1AE:2FA7 (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific on the point you mention "ridiculously more expensive". This "ridiculously more expensive" part is the entirety of my question. How ridiculous, how much more expensive, and how many billions or trillions of dollars would it take? What specific logistics problems would be entailed? Logisticsnightmare (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is the sheer logistics of moving 6 million Jewish citizens and all their possessions (assuming the other 2 million non-Jewish are happy to remain). That is 12,000 fully laden jumbo jets for the people, and thousands of ships/trucks to move their possessions. But as others have said, Jews choose to live in Israel because it is the land of the bible. Astronaut (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that seems like the easy part don't you think? I mean, it seems that hte fixed infrastructure (telecoms, houses with foundations, swimming pools, built synagogues, university campuses, etc) would be the harder part. Could you give me an estimate on that basis, and how expensive it would be (for a large group of billionaires, for example), and what specific infrastructural issues would be involved? I'd like you to answer the question as posed. Thanks. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no economic reason to move e.g. a swimming pool, as it's cheaper to simply build a new one. Hence we don't have off-the-shelf technology to do so. If you throw enough resources at it, you certainly can, but the amount you have to throw to have a good chance of success is astronomical. A couple of billionaires is not going to suffice. BTW, do you need to transport the water in the pool, too? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying "astronomical" but could you please be a bit more specific? What do you think 'enough resources' would be for this particular questoin. See, for example, the note I just added at the top of this page asking that this question not be hatted - the Panama project was certainly 'astronomical' but it could also be detailed for more precisely. I am pretty good at basic arithmetic, and although it might be less in vogue to know how to calculate civil engineering questions than it was for those educated in the 19th century, I am sure we can do better than 'astronomical'. Perhaps this should be moved to the Science desk? Yet I think Humanities is the right place for civil engineering questions. Thanks. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget transporting the water in the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. I'm thinking Mr. Logistics scenario is too complicated. What's really needed is a gigantic trowel, shaped like Israel, slid under it at some appropriate depth, then lifted by a gigantic forklift, and transfered to wherever they've decided to move it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like this solution, it seems exceedingly complicated solution. Could you share your calculations on how much it would cost in billions or trillions to have a trowel that is the size of exactly 6 city blocks that excavates, over a period of months, under a given area, then lifts and slowly transports what it has lifted? With a few such "trowels" your solution might work in city areas over a course of decades. I think your solution is not very practical - but let's at least quantify it. How much do you think one such system might cost? How long would it take to excavate and at what speed might it move after it has done so? To be very clear: I think this is a highly impractical proposal, but might set an upper bounds. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's as practical as moving swimming pools would be. And I bet your Islamic Republic neighbors would be willing to chip in, as they want Israel gone anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you asked 100 Israelis, I think you'd quickly find out that your assertion "I do believe for 99% of Israelis, the most important thing is the Zionist utopia that they and their kinsmen are building" is incorrect. The people of Israel have a deep and complex attachment to the land of Israel. Not any old land, but that particular patch of ground where their ancestors lived. For a poetic way into it, (not a bad way to understand emotion) I'd refer you to the words of Hatikvah. Outsiders often mistakenly assume this is something only relevant to religious Israelis. It's one of many misconceptions about Israel and Israelis. --86.12.139.34 (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I thank you for this additional context, it doesn't really concern my question, which is about the logistics assuming we and Israelis wanted to do so. In addition, I said only 'most important' not 'only important thing'. Naturally the holy land is quite important. This question concerns the theoretical logistics of moving infrastructure. I am sure if you asked Israelis whether they would prefer to be able to live with greater resources, peace, education, scholarship, and the greatest country - by far - that has existed in the last 6000 years in terms of research, social equity, infrastructure, achievements, genius, and art that far surpasses anything the Renaissance produced, literature that far surpasses that of any of the ancient or modern writers, philosophy that dwarfs what meager progress had been made in human understanding in the previous millennia, riches that make the United States seem like beggars -- but they would have to visit the holy land to do so, as their country would no longer contain it....then a good portion would strongly consider it. Nevertheless, whether they would do so is not really what the quesiton is about here. Rather I am merely interested in the logistics such a theoretical move might entail, were the people of Israel and many billionaires interested in effecting it. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question you seem to be insisting upon asking is unanswerable without major government studies. Since it would be cheaper to build new infrastructure than to dig up, salvage, transport, and reconstruct existing infrastructure (seriously? digging up roads? really?), no government has wasted the funding necessary to carry out such a study. Therefore we have no answers to give you. No sources are available for such a query, because no sources exist; and no sources exist because the action contemplated is such a ludicrous boondoggle that no group of people that even pretends to rationality would ever seriously contemplate it, let alone carry it out. The best we can offer is a few estimates of discrete pieces of the project, as others have responded with above, and maybe a reasoned series of fudge factors.

For example, let the cost of building an entire country with area A and population P, from the telephone and sewer lines on up, be $X billion (probably the easiest figure to arrive at in all of the following - that should scare you). Now subtract, optimistically, 85% of the cost of the raw materials (allowing for some unavoidable loss/waste) M; now add the labor cost of disassembly and salvage of the entire nation's infrastructure D. Now add the cost of transporting everything - the big stuff is all on trucks and then trains, but is your population riding, biking, or walking? It's a big discount if they're left to their own devices, but for a sea journey you'll have to hire ships to get them and their cars and bikes across. And there's such a godawfully massive variety of things to be moved that you can't just price it out at $Y per ton; moving the steel in your skyscrapers (say I = deadweight of infrastructure) is a whole different animal than moving everyone's great-grandmothers' good china (say H = deadweight of compensable personal shipments). Assume a pulled-out-of-my-ass fudge factor of 3.5 times the cost of moving gross infrastructure to move personal stuff that needs padding and care. We haven't talked about incidental/emergency health care (C) for all the people who fall sick along the journey or get attacked by bears and sharks along their ill-advised shortcuts. Then also you'd better have a slush fund, $100 billion optimistically, for when the inevitable problems crop up. So now we're up to (X - .85M) + D + IY + 3.5HY + C + $100 billion. What the hell are all those numbers? Well, economics experts could tell you OK estimates for X and M, civil engineers might be able to take a stab at I, and a dedicated survey of world shipping companies from Maersk to FedEx to CSX to U-Haul might give you something remotely resembling Y and a better fudge factor for HY. Then realize those costs will go up as you take over probably the world's entire long-range transportation capacity. But the unbelievable scope of all of this means that putting all these numbers together is not only original research, but the kind of original research that only enormous resources and a full-time dedicated study could even begin to undertake. I'm therefore marking this section as closed and the question unanswerable. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 16:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a totally inappropriate response. For the value of your response consider t*h*e ^ n*u*m*b*e*r + o*f + a*c*t*u*a*l * f*i*g*u*r*e*s + y*o*u + m*e*n*t*i*o*n plus a slush fund of $100B. Honestly, why would you even type all that out? If you have no estimate, then don't try for one. You are not really adding anything to my question of logistics other than saying that a precise number would require further study. Well, obviously. I can come up with meaningless variable names too. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I think your complaints to the other editors are inappropriate. You're dealing in fantasies here, and you're demanding an answer. Why do you think anyone here would be better at guesstimating this project's cost than you would be? In fact, you being a lover of all things Israeli would be in a better position to know the value of their stuff than we would. So here's a question to you: You keep asking how much it would cost. How much are you willing to spend? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that others might be better than me at guesstimating this project's "cost" (in fact I didn't ask for a cost estimate, but rather what logistical difficulties it would entail) is that I am just a kid, have not studied civil engineering, have not read about large construction or relocation projects, have no experience with urban planning or construction, don't know much about transportation, and in general have no experience in any of the engineering or civil disciplines that my question concerns. If you don't know any more than me, I suggest that you wait for responses from others who know a bit more than a kid. If you don't care, then perhaps you can read other questions you do care about. At any rate I have good reason to believe that others know more than I do about the above disciplines. Thank you for refraining from further editing this question. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad enough we have a single purpose account begging us not to hat the discussion--i.e., he's a sock who knows all about hatting. But we have no referenced material in answer so far, just a lot of heat. See talk.μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Try this... In the 1960's UNESCO came up with a plan to save the world heritage site of Abu Simbel from the rising waters of Lake Nasser. They moved this ancient temple just 200 m further up the hill and away from the water. It took four years and cost $40 million (in 1968 dollars - that's well over $250 million today). That was for an irreplaceable temple that they really wanted to save - and they still had to make some compromises. Quite why anyone would want to dig up someone's house, his garden, his garage, and the street outside; move it some vast distance and reconstruct it, is beyond belief. A very rough guess gives me "millions of dollars" per house. Then it is just the maths to multiply by the number of houses and then add more very rough guesses for all the other infrastructure.

Then there is the time involved - four years to move one temple 200 m, so moving a house ~2000 km (ie. far enough to be out of the Middle East) with the same level of care could take much longer. And there are resources like trucks, ships, etc. People would have to wait their turn - or build more trucks and ships while waiting. You would need a vast army of workers for the hard bit for which you don't have the expertise, consider the food the workers eat and the people to grow that food, the waste they produce, etc, etc, etc. How about the pay they all require to do the work. You are asking trillions upon trillions of dollars, per year, for multiple generations.

This is why when people have to leave due to war or disaster, they become refugees with only what they can carry. This is why it is vastly cheaper to abandon the old infrastructure and build anew. The planet Earth is littered with abandoned infrastructure because it is too much trouble to move it.

If you really wanted to move Jews to a new homeland, and could get round the "land of the bible" bit, move just the people and a minimum of their possessions. Oh, and move them somewhere where the sudden arrival of 6 million people won't upset the neighbours, or you'll just end up moving them all over again. Astronaut (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this answers my question. If anyone has anything to add to it feel free to reply. (The hatted portion above is a lot of people saying that nobody can write a response like this.) Incidentally I am shocked that it would cost $250 million to move a single temple some 200 meters. I would have thought it's at least 2 orders of magnitude cheaper if not 3. I guess I saw a house being moved on a special truck, and thought that relocating infratsructure or buildings like this is not that impossible. Thanks. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a factory-assembled home is easy: it's designed to come apart into portable pieces. Moving a wood-frame building isn't much harder, since it's reasonably flexible and all the pieces are nailed together. The expense comes when you try to move things like unreinforced masonry structures: you basically need to build a supporting framework around it, and then move the building very slowly and carefully so it doesn't crack. A wood-frame house can probably flex by several centimeters across the length of the building without damage; a similar-sized brick house can't survive more than a few millimeters of bending. --Carnildo (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't things (like even castles!) moved by disassembling them brick by brick and reassembling them somewhere else in the same order? Logisticsnightmare (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cost of moving the Cape Hatteras lighthouse 2,900 feet was 11.8 million dollars. And that was just for moving it intact, never mind disassembling it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verified cases of passenger landing commercial jet

It's a fairly common TV/movie trope, but are there any real cases in which both pilot and copilot were in some way incapacitated and a passenger took the controls and landed the plane with help from the control tower? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk down aircraft landing is the relevant article. According to it, "[t]here is no record of a talk down landing of a large commercial aircraft." Tevildo (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last month, in a small plane. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) : I'm not sure how "commercial" the flight was, and it was a "light aircraft", so presumably not a jet, but there was a case of this very recently. TVTropes has a "real life" section for this trope. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, though, especially if the jet is equipped with Autoland, so take along these pointers, just in case. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know, incidentally, that the Handley Page Victor could land itself without a pilot or autopilot? Once established on the approach, the aerodynamics of the wing and tail would perform the round-out and touchdown without any control inputs. One of my favourite aviation facts. Tevildo (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't make 'em like that any more. My dad was involved in the avionics suite of the Victor. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the first thing I worked on professionally was the triangle resolver for the Vulcan. It's a small world. :) Tevildo (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dad worked on a sort of rolling map that followed the terrain below, but I may have got the wrong end of the stick on that. I'll ask next time I'm in touch. He worked for Kelvin Hughes. Other readers, please excuse our digression. Alansplodge (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Such a connection almost makes you two cousins. Or something. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, although I never worked on that particular system - a similar/the same system was used in the Phantom, though. The triangle resolver was made by Sperry - which is now "commemorated by a 4.5 metre aluminium sculpture". "Thinking of his own Gods, a Greek / In pity and mournful awe might stand / Before some fallen Runic stone - / For both were faiths, and both are gone." (Arnold). Tevildo (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, I find the pessimistic attitude of the linked PopSci blog entry (the 'pointers') rather irritating. The emphasis is on the difficulty of a perfect landing, not on what it takes to get a jumbo jet on the ground in such a condition that the passengers survive. (Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing!) If I'm in the Airplane! scenario where all the flight crew are disabled by food poisoning, I don't care about pretty and I don't care if United has to write off the airframe after I'm done with it. I don't care if I don't have the flaps all the way down; I don't care if I blow a tire or two because I'm twitchy on the brakes. I don't care if I apply the thrust reversers or not. If I overrun the end of the runway at forty knots, I don't care; modern runways are designed with arresting areas. Hell, if I come in a little nose down and hot and crush the nose gear then slide off the runway, I still might be okay: [14]. And I'm not even going to attempt to taxi to the correct gate after I land. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Pilot certification in the United States#Number of active pilots, roughly 1 in 50 Americans is a pilot, so there is likely to be someone better qualified than Ted Striker to make the attempt. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed a zero there: 1/500. Rmhermen (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Cut me some slack, Jack! Clarityfiend (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Sir Quiller-Couch character in J.M. Barrie's book Peter and Wendy ?

Hello Learned Ones ! I see that JP Hogan has included a Sir (along with a Lady) Edward Quiller-Couch in his Peter Pan (2003 film). I don't recall if in the book (I read it so many years ago, & maybe it was a simplified version...) there existed such a character. Does it refer to Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch (Q and Barrie were friends) ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers Arapaima (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this character is original to the 2003 film. In the book, Mr Darling is a stockbroker, and we don't see him at work (only going to work in the dog kennel). Tevildo (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The official list of most interesting things

Is there a billboard chart like there are for songs, where people can vote for the 1000 topmost interesting facts, researches, phenomena, etc? A list that would probably include trees falling without a sound, the Milgram experiment, Schrödinger's cat, people getting quite old in the 17th century, deja-vu, the Moebius ring, dividing by zero, Epimedes, etc.

In short, not the "Best articles" on Wikipedia nor the articles a small encyclopedia would include, nor a daily top 10 list of funny facts on the internet, but a list that is compiled by simply voting. Joepnl (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GQ has a list, but they tend to be material things. "Interesting" depends on interests, of course, so it would be hard to compile a definitive "official" list for the world.

Anyway, you've piqued my interest. How old did 17th-century people get? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, the "official" record holder is one Ferdinand Ashmall, born in 1695 and died in 1798 at the age of 103. There are unofficial record holders such as Tom Parr (1483–1635), of course. Tevildo (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parr sounds official enough to me, just going by what's in our article. Pretty impressive, even if untrue. I like the way his death is relayed, as if being 152 isn't cause enough. And I love how it makes him sound like a transplanted sturgeon (definitely on my Top 100 North American Fish list).

Back on that topic, I found Discovery's Top 100 Discoveries here. They're about as globally mainstream as this kind of thing gets, so maybe the most official. It's not a thousand, but it's something. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. "Things you should have heard about when you reach 40, compiled and voted for by 300.000 Wikipedians", something like that, I'd love to read it and find out what I've missed (like today I found this about Tesla, making him even cooler than I already thought he was). About 17th century lifespans: it was a surprise to me to learn (I hope it was correct) that while the average age was a lot lower, this was mostly due to a large number of people dying at a very early age, while the eldest didn't die that much younger than currentday eldest. So science didn't change the age at which one dies of old age al lot, but it got the average up by inventing cures for actual diseases. Joepnl (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, things like averages, percentages and rates are often misleading. I wish we'd all stick to actual numbers, especially when teaching children. Fifty dead newborns and fifty dead 100-year-olds certainly doesn't mean anyone was more likely to die at 50. Probably my second-biggest historical assumption peeve, right behind "Ancient Greece was full of white ruins". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was? Reasons I can think of to demolish an old building are the need for its materials and its space. If both materials and space were abundant I can imaging buildings getting really old. I wonder what a graph would look like, X: history, Y: "average building age". Joepnl (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important figures buried in present-day Israel

Who was or were the companion(s) of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or other important figure of Islam died and buried in present-day Israel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.20.21 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very few of them have died in present day Israel. Did you mean to ask a slightly different question? Other important figure is too vague to address. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ubayda ibn as-Samit, a sahabi and an ancestor of the Nusaybah clan, seems to be buried in Jerusalem...apparently his grave was dug up by Israel to build a hotel, if we are to believe various anti-Israel blogs and such. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would they have preferred that the hotel be built over top of the grave? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which Pope worshipped Satan?

Historical Pope, I mean. I saw on a documentary once that one of the Popes hundreds of years ago was reported (by his enemies, maybe? not sure) to hail Satan from the Vatican. Anyone know who this was?

I tried to Google this myself, but all I found were pages and pages of modern-day conspiracy theories and anti-Catholic nonsense. --146.90.108.78 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have Pope John XII in mind. As you say, his biographer, Liudprand of Cremona, wrote that John toasted the devil with wine. But Liudprand was hardly a neutral observer. I think there may also be similar stories detailed with regard to some of those mentioned in The Bad Popes. Even if there aren't, it's an interesting book. - Nunh-huh 00:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

Products "shipped" vs "sold"

Many headlines of technology blogs feature stories when manufactures claim to have "shipped" a high volume of products. The common counter argument is that while these are sold to retailers, it should not count as "sold" until a consumer has purchased them from the retailer. So a company can manufacture 1,000,000 new gadgets and ship them to stores, they linger in warehouse shelves if consumer demand is low. So can someone explain the process of how retailers obtain products? Do they pay for the products upfront? Who is responsible for unsold products? Is the retailer responsible for the unsold products? Can they return them to the manufacturer for a refund? --209.203.125.162 (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it varies according to country/economic system, but since your IP address indicates you are in the US, I assume that is the market to which you are referring. As for the process of how retailers obtain products this google search would be a good start. And yes, most stores pay for their product up front. Unsold products most often end up in a "clearance bin"/"clearance rack" or are packed on a pallet and sold en masse to Outlet Stores or Discount Stores (e.g. Big Lots, etc.). FWIW, the same thing happens in the publishing world. Books on most "Best Seller" lists are there because Barnes & Noble, Amazon, etc. pre-ordered a huge amount, not because some certain amount of individual units have been sold to the end consumer.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends not only on the country, but also on the product. In many markets, mass print publications (newspapers, magazines, mass-market paperbacks) are reported "unsold, destroyed", and the retailer is reimbursed for them. For these products, the cost of handling and sending back unsold merchandise is usually higher than the residual value - what's the value of yesterdays Daily Mail? "Destroying" ranges from throwing away (for daily newspapers) to ripping off and sending back the title page to the publisher, to simply putting a black stripe on it and throwing it into the $1 bin. For perishable standard items like food, the retailers bear the risk - but then they should best be able to estimate how many cans of tomato soup move in a week. I don't know what the standard is for expensive high-tech gear like iPads or Surfaces, but I can very well imagine that the producers are willing to push things into the market on a commission basis (i.e. the producer bears most of the risk, the retailer "only" provides some of its real or virtual space). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if the King dies before the heir apparent is born?

Under the rules of the British monarchy, what happens if a king dies while his wife is pregnant with their first child? Since the child isn't born yet, presumably it doesn't become monarch instantly, but instead the crown passes to whoever's next in line (e.g. a younger brother of the king). But then once the baby's born, where does it go in the line of succession? Ahead of the new king's own children? Is it booted out of the line of succession for ever? Or what if a queen regnant dies while pregnant with her first child and the doctors are able to save the baby? There would probably a few minutes at least between the death of the queen and the birth of the child; is that enough for the crown to pass to someone else? Is there even a law already in effect for such a circumstance? Or would parliament have to convene and quickly decide what to do? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has never happened in England, although it has happened in other countries, as well as for noble titles in England. You can read about a number of cases at Posthumous birth#In monarchies. Note that although several English Kings are listed there, in all cases the posthumously born King only took that title long after birth (i.e. his father was not the King). There are Spanish and French kings who took the throne after a posthumous birth, and in these cases no other heir was seated during the intervening period. At least one English Duke was born after his father's death, Charles Edward - as with the kings, no other duke was declared until his birth. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a genealogy question. The point is that the next in line to the throne would be the one with the most direct line to the monarch. That is NEVER an easy question to answer, but, if the King was on the throne when his wife became pregnant, his son (lets face it...it's almost always about the son...until recently) would probably have to prove his line all over again to the satisfaction of those in charge of such decisions. This is common in royal circles. But this is still a very interesting question and one I would wonder if there is a legitimate answer for. Seems that it really depends on the period in question. Today, I believe, the answer is simply, yes, they still take the throne...in Great Britain. But heraldry and royal lines do have a slightly different take depending on the country of origin.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Angr has produced the most likely scenario; that the first person in the existing line of succession would accede immediately, and the parliaments of the Commonwealth Realms would have to decide jointly if the unborn infant should go to number one on the new list. If it happens, it's not going to be for a long time. Alansplodge (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on posthumous birth#In monarchies touches on this point, though without references. This question came up a while ago on this same desk; see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 8#Posthumous births in the Commonwealth Realms succession. The proclamation of Queen Victoria's accession included the proviso "...Saving the Rights of any Issue of His late Majesty King William the Fourth which may be born of His late Majesty's Consort..." (see Regency Act 1830) which indicates that the lawyers and lawmakers of the day were well aware of the potential problem. You may be able to locate more specific resources through Royal Succession Bills and Acts, but I make no promises. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the 19th century, it was decided that Victoria would become queen upon William IV's death but that her reign would end should a posthumous child be born to William IV's widow Adelaide. In such scenario, Victoria's reign would have ended as if she had died, and her newborn cousin would have ascended with Adelaide as regent. Since the British throne is never vacant (a new reign begins the moment the previous one ends), such a solution makes sense. For example, had Elizabeth II, Charles and William all died before Catherine gave birth to George, it is safe to assume that Henry would have reigned as monarch until the birth of his nephew. Anyway, this exact same question has been asked many, many times - try searching the archives for previous responses. Surtsicna (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To give a greater world view of the question, the "first emperor of all (unified) China" Qin Shi Huang is said to have been born after his father died, that and the account that he wasn't even his fathers child!^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this economic data on "Arabs" involve Chaldeans?

In this document http://econdev.cus.wayne.edu/Files/ArabAmericanStudy.pdf it states that some figures for "Arabs" do not include people who identify themselves as "Chaldeans" (often Chaldeans do not identify themselves as Arab) and that some of the figures do include Chaldeans.

But I am unclear how this data was used for the conclusions on p. 18 about the 47,924 to 58,515 jobs held by "Arab Americans" and the 99,494 and 141,541 jobs associted with economic activity from that group. Does this figure include Chaldeans or does it not? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to the people publishing the study to define their own terms. If it is not the pdf you already have, you should email the authors or the school itself if you cannot contact them directly. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The chart on p. 6 (Figure 1 Arabic Population Estimates for 2000 and 2004 for the Four-County Region) does not include Chaldeans.

p. 7 states "Using the conventional approach, reported ancestry, showed the Arabic population to be 96,363 in the four-county region in 2000 and 131,650 in 2004. The estimate for 2004 used data from the 2004 American Community Survey, also published by the U.S. Census Bureau. We then used an expanded definition of Arabic that considered reported birthplace and languages spoken."

The chart on p. 8 (Figure 2 Arab Americans Living in the Four-County Region, 2000, 2004, 2005 Estimated population based on reported ancestry Point estimate (in white text) and 90% confidence intervals) does include Chaldeans

p. 7 states "As a second preliminary step, we examined data illustrating population change among Arab Americans between 2000 and 2005 by comparing population estimates drawn from the 2000 Census and the 2004 and 2005 American Community Surveys. Again, we estimated the Arab American population using ancestry as the selection criteria. We included all persons reporting Arabic ancestry as their first or second ancestry; however, in this step, we also included persons reporting membership in the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac ancestry group. This conforms to the population estimation methods used by well-known researcher John Zogby, whose estimates include the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac group, however, Zogby’s estimates are also adjusted using a proprietary methodology (Zogby Worldwide, 2006)."
p. 9 states "The 2000 Census classifies individuals as Arabic whose ethnic origin is one of the 22 countries that are members of the Arab League."
p. 12 in the employment by industry it states "We used the American Factfinder database to query the 2000 Census for employment by industry counts for Arab Americans (as defined by reported ancestry and including the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac group). In all, employed Arab Americans accounted for a total of 47,924 jobs in 2000 in the four-county region. See Figure 6."

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Martel of Anjou

Why was Charles Martel of Anjou name Charles Martel? Was that his own personal nickname or to honor the earlier Charles Martel?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Whys" are hard to answer and I haven't found a reference. But it's possible "the Hammer" was not that uncommon a name to give a royal/leader? Other examples besides Charles Martel are Judas Maccabeus and your Charles' contemporary, Edward I of England. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

"marriage of adults to kids custom" modern USA

close bizarre question

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

I need information on this custom. Well, maybe not literally marriage, but forcing a strong bond to be created between adults and children. Children pretend to be former victims of the adult's past transgressions in the realm of combat sports, while other people torture the adult and suggest/promise him near paradise with these kids should he withstand the torture such as sleep deprivation and other nastiness. Relies on natural love for children existing in a normal person. Exists in 21st century USA, particularly San Diego, relies on sophisticated sureveillance equimpment and the whole town participates in the fun. Whatever you know about this weird, crazy custom, please. It's very real.

Close per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=582901570&oldid=582900106, question would need to refer to real world example. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Former sovereign citizens

I've been looking for testimonials (just stories about their experiences, why they left, &c.) from people who were formerly involved in "sovereign citizen" or "freeman on the land" movements but haven't been able to find any. Are there any such people? --superioridad ^(discusión) 09:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I googled "former sovereign citizens" and the only thing that seems to come up is the ones who have been incarcerated. Considering the nature of these characters, if I decided to stop calling myself a "sovereign citizen" I don't think I would advertise it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the search strings "why I am no longer" and "my life as a" and "memoirs of a" + various iterations of tax rebel, sovereign citizen, etc. I haven't read these results so I don't know if they are ex or not, but have a look at Memoirs of a tax resistor, Why I am no longer a libertarian, Autobiography of a Catholic Anarchist and this book: Confessions of a Radical Tax Protestor: An Inside Expose of the Tax Resistance Movement. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni Muslims into Shi'a Muslims

Are Persian Muslims the only Muslims who were formerly Sunni and became Shi'a due to a policy of an empire or dynasty like Safavids? What about Azeris, Lurs, Gilakis, Mazandarani, and Qashqais? Were they Sunni Muslims before Shi'a Muslims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.80 (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing in article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_College,_Colombo

Missing in article on Royal College http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_College,_Colombo

Wendell W Solomons Researcher in strategic geopolitical, economic and social forecasting

Number of websites using articles - 102,000 https://www.google.ca/#q=+-facebook+%22wendell+w+solomons%22

Joined school in 1955 Royal College Hostel photograph Row 2: Wendell Solomons http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lkawgw/rcpa01.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.166.13 (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please raise this matter at Talk:Royal College, Colombo. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

German Invasion musical themes

Wiki's Operation Barbarossa article states: Each German invasion of a foreign country had an official musical theme that was frequently played for the purposes of Nazi propaganda, over the totally government-controlled radio stations after the invasion was officially announced. This was done to whip up enthusiasm among the German population for the military operation. The theme song for Operation Barbarossa was Les preludes by Franz Liszt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#Invasion_musical_theme

What were the themes to Germany's other invasions (Poland,Norway, France, Greece etc)? --Gary123 (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised to learn it wasn't "TUMP utta bum... bum..." in every case. I do know Hotler's death was announced by Sigried's Funeral March. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotler? In contrast, American radios were probably playing, "Ding-Dong, the Son-of-a-Witch Is Dead." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I say Hotler without [sic] you can fix it yourself. I was busy looking for the art historian who told the anecdote of Hotler's passing. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was Ernst Gombrich and he heard a Bruckner Symphony dedicated to Wagner, not Siegfried's Funeral March. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think our murder/Nazi/Japan/pacific islands troll, whatever his name is back. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was that Timothyhere (talk · contribs) and his endless socks, or someone else? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/05/obituaries/steven-s-schwarzchild-professor-65.html

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Schwarzschild

[3] ttp://books.google.com/books?id=Ijpj1tB3Qr0C&pg=PA2168&lpg=PA2168&dq=steven+schwarzschild+biography&source=bl&ots=8BiNcRoDHu&sig=5LNSBphgckIlG2t15ULFf9BcmVM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=67CKUrOtJ4ex2AXu0YDIDQ&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

[1]

[2]

[3]