Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 3

Is Joe Shmoe name of a type of burger or it just means"something"?

I have seen multiple times on internet of people calling burgers "Joe Shmoe"example, but I did not see anything related to this in the article Joe shmoe.--chaoxiandelunzi (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Joe" is a common slang for a hamburger. "Joe Shmoe" is slang for a sort of hypothetical common person, a person having no particular refinements. For that link the name is obviously being used semi-ironically: The burger uses only basic ingredients and is simple in arrangement (in that way it is like a "Joe Shmoe"), but it is obviously also supposed to be refined in the quality of the ingredients and preparation (in that way the name is ironic). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--chaoxiandelunzi (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

WHAAOE. I looked first at the pseudonymous placeholder John Doe, and thought I detected a hint of Yiddish humour with the shm- beginning, so I looked up schmuck. I am reminded of "sloppy joes", burgers that no longer cohere. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oddly enough, "Joe" is also used as slang for coffee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not doubting anyone here, but where is this common? I've never heard of this before except for sloppy joes. Mingmingla (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That first link from the OP is trying to "do something", so I exited from it. Likewise I've never heard of a sandwich being called a "Joe Schmo". Sloppy Joe, sure. Maybe Joe for short, though I've never heard that either. To me, just plain "Joe" implies coffee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Down here, a sloppy joe is a rather dated '60s expression for a type of pullover/jumper thing. I appreciate a hamburger that's falling to bits may end up being worn if the eater isn't careful, but our version of sloppy joes were designed to be worn. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

An American sloppy joe is not so much a hamburger falling to pieces, as it is a hamburger bun with a thick ragout ladled between the bun halves. --Trovatore (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Convergence from two different origins of "slop".[1][2] The term for a loose-fitting pullover nowadays would probably be "floppy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake not common, except in "sloppy joe" (and then, as is apparent, not everyone understands this to be a type of hamburger). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I should have confused Joe Shmoe with sloppy joe.--chaoxiandelunzi (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Jung Myung Seok

It's not a question, but I really want to say "Tank you!!" for saving my life and preventing me from becoming a member of a sect of Jung Myung Seok. I found and article about him in English in Wikipedia by a lucky chance. Thanks to those, who translated it from Korean into English! Now I can understand how important Wikipedia is indeed. It really saves lives!

Best regards,

Arven

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.216.57 (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

On behalf of Wikipedia, you're welcome. StuRat (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

National censuses that exclude certain groups of citizens

In 1967, the Australian people overwhelmingly approved a change to our Constitution enabling our indigenous people to be "enumerated" in our national Census for the first time. It's widely believed that, until then, they weren't counted at all. That's wrong: they were counted for the most part, because the Commonwealth always had the power to collect statistics in the national interest. But the numbers of Aboriginals were excluded from the published statistics, and when it came to considering the populations of the states for the purpose of allocating seats in the Australian House of Representatives and for working out federal funding of state projects, that's where the numbers of Aboriginal people were excluded. That changed in 1967.

Are there other examples of national censuses that, either for specific purposes or for all purposes, explicitly excluded a defined group or groups of their citizens? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this fits your criteria, but until slavery was abolished in America, slaves were counted but were only computed as three-fifths of a person when determining the allocation of representatives in Congress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

To be helpful about that, here's our article about such a topic: Three-Fifths Compromise. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the Romani people have been largely ignored in national censuses across Europe. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Native Americans living on tribal lands in the United States were not counted in the census at all until 1900 [3]. "Indians not taxed" (and to some politicians, all Native Americans ever) were not considered citizens until 1898 with United States v. Wong Kim Ark. So it's slightly different from what you're asking, in that it was a change in who was considered a citizen, rather than a change in which citizens were censused. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You are mostly correct here, but not completely correct. Most or all Native Americans in the United States were counted/enumerated in the 1890 U.S. Census as well. The reason that it talks about the 1900 U.S. Census and U.S. Censuses after that point in your link is because the 1890 U.S. Census was almost completely destroyed by a 1921 fire and by government order in the early 1930s. Also, I thought that many/most Native Americans only became U.S. citizens in the 1920s, under U.S. President Calvin Coolidge? Futurist110 (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Egypt doesn't allow immigrant Christians to become citizens so Egypt didn't count Armenian, Assyrian and Syrian Christians. Perhaps they didn't count Egyptian Jews as well.
Sleigh (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies so far. The Native American and Egyptian cases are interesting, but are not equivalent to the Australian case because they revolve around the question of citizenship. All Australian Aborigines have always been citizens, subject to the same laws as everyone else (Voting rights of Australian Aborigines was a major exception until 1984), paying the same taxes, subject to national service (when it was in force), and so on. But despite this, up until 1967 the Constitution explicitly excluded them for the purposes I mentioned above. The closest case so far seems to be the Three-Fifths Compromise, where slaves were 'partially excluded' from the count. The Romani are probably a special case; have they ever been singled out and discriminated against by a national law in this way, or was it just a question of their nomadic habits making it hard to keep tabs on them?-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The three-fifths thing isn't quite the same since the total number of slaves was published in census reports. They were 'partially excluded' for purposes of congressional representation, yes, but not from 'the count' done by the census. Pfly (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Right. Thanks, Pfly. So, at this stage, the Australian experience is looking uniqueish. I wonder how I could verify that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I would challenge the wording of the question. The censuses that I am aware of attempt to capture data on everyone in the country (in each town, in each household) on a given night. Citizenship may or may not be one of the data points; it's the actual physical presence that matters more. Thus, foreign tourists and visiting relatives are counted, because people ordinarily resident are also likely to be abroad (or in another town or household) on census night. Planning for roads and sewage depends on bodies, not the citizenship of those bodies; likewise, in many countries, planning for schools and health clinics. So, as a rule of thumb, a census will attempt to count every human being on census night, but over the months and years that follow, the statisticians may slice and dice the data in different ways to make different points. They have algorithms to try to approximate the numbers of e.g. illegal immigrants and homeless people and refuseniks.

That's nowadays. If you're looking historically, you could consider extreme examples such as the 1666 census of New France, which involved a door-to-door count of the French, skipping over all the indigenous people. The Canadian Encyclopedia has an article on aboriginal people and demography which explains some of the difficulties and overlapping categories that bedevil demographers. Our article on Aboriginal peoples in Canada states:

Approximately 40,115 individuals of Aboriginal heritage could not be counted during the 2006 census. This is due to the fact that certain Aboriginal reserves and communities in Canada did not participate in the 2006 census, since enumeration of those communities were not permitted. In 2006, 22 Native communities were not completely enumerated unlike in the year 2001, when 30 First Nation communities were not enumerated and during 1996 when 77 Native communities could not be completely enumerated. Hence, there were probably 1,212,905 individuals of Aboriginal ancestry (North American Indian, Metis, and Inuit) residing in Canada during the time when the 2006 census was conducted in Canada.

First Nations men and women could not, as a rule, vote until 1960, so you could say they weren't considered full citizens. (I'm unaware of the correct legal terminology for this.) See Timeline of changes in citizenship and rights. As for who got the status of "American", you might want to read "Racial Reorganization and the United States Census 1850-1930: Mulattoes, Half-Breeds, Mixed Parentage, Hindoos, and the Mexican Race" here. I hope this goes some way towards helping. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh and yes, Roma/Gypsies have been massively under-counted in some countries. The Open Society Foundations has a "Roma Census Success" story here. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Brainy Babe. It's looking like my initial take on the matter is not as clear cut as I may have imagined. I need to read up some more on this. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

January 4

republicans and democrats

When and how exactly did republicans become southern conservative and democrats become northern liberal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

From the end of the civil war through the 1960s, there was a Democratic "solid south", due to the origins of the Republican party as an anti-slavery party (and in the minds of many southerners, an anti-southern party). Around 1929-1932, many blacks started switching from the Republican party to the Democrats, resulting in the Democratic party containing somewhat incompatible elements (Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. and Theodore Bilbo). Partly as a reaction to desegregation, partly as a reaction to the turbulence of the 1960s, and helped along by Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy", the south then went Republican in the 1970s and 1980s, forging the alliance between big-business "country-club Republicans" and more ideological conservatives (religious right, etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

An article, Southern Democrats, gives some background on the switch. I'm sure there are others. Mingmingla (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Conservative Democrat is probably a good one. Surprisingly we don't seem to have an good counterpart, Rockefeller Republican (which is where Liberal Republican redirects) is much more limited in the history section. There are however plenty of external sources which are easy to find discussing the switch e.g. [4] [5] [6] [7] all found with a search for 'republican democrat switch'.Nil Einne (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

One highly cited incident was the Civil Rights act of 1964: Civil Rights Act of 1964#Political repercussions. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

History_of_the_United_States_Democratic_Party#The_South_becomes_Republican also discusses the 1964 civil rights act. LBJ's statement about losing the South for a generation is famous enough that it should probably be in his biography article. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Rangabe

Was Georgo a female name during Byzantine time? This states that Michael I Rangabe's daughters were Georg(i)o and Theophano. Also what would have been the female form of Rangabe assuming that it is a surname?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Greek wikipedia names him as Μιχαήλ Α' ο Ραγκαβές (Michael I the Ragkaves) but doesn't name his children. The B in rangabe is a transliteration error and should be V.
Sleigh (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Depends on whether you're going for a classicizing transcription or for a transcription reflecting the medieval pronunciation of the time... AnonMoos (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It was a surname, the first for a Byzantine emperor [8]. The search seems to indicate there were other relatives that continued the family name, so what would the female form have been. Rangabene? Rangabaina? None of my guesses are getting anywhere.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Only Greek surnames that are adjectives with a distinct feminine form would be expected to have a feminine variant. Many Greek names are not such adjectives. The ending -ene was mainly used to form names of political subdivisions in Asia, while the ending -aina occurs mainly with stems ending in -an (μελας, μελαινα etc.), so I don't know why either of those would occur... AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There is Makrembolites/Makrembolitissa, Komnenos/Komnena, Angelos/Angelina, Doukas/Doukaina, and probably others I'm forgetting...those aren't all adjectives, are they? That said, I have never seen a feminine form of Rhangabe. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

In Classical Greek, names ending in omega (ω) in the nominative case were generally feminine... AnonMoos (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Was Georgo a popular female name or even used today?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Have no idea, but several similarly-inflected names do occur in history or mythology, such as Λητω... AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sexual preferences of transgendered people

I'm acquainted with a number of transgender people (mainly trans women). I get the impression that following transition many trans women are attracted to other women, and I know of at least one who started as a gay man and ended up as a lesbian. Has any proper study been done of this? I'm aware of course that for many trans people the stress of transitioning may not leave much energy for seeking partners of either gender. --rossb (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by a "proper study". Where would you even start? Transgender people (by definition) reject traditional roles, and that umbrella term includes a rainbow of overlapping identities and preferences.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a perfectly clear and reasonable question, and one I would also like an answer to. What are the sexual preferences of transgender people? That is to say, among male-to-female transexuals for example, what percentage of them self-identify as gay/straight/bisexual, and so on. --Viennese Waltz 15:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There are straight and gay transgendered people, and some in-between. [9] appears apt here. [10] and other sources all seem to concur. As the numbers of transsexuals is small, there is no statistical study thereon. Collect (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• This was discussed at length https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2013_December_2#A_Sex_Change_.28Dramatically.29_Changing_One.27s_Sexuality.3F less than a month ago. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I forgot about the topic ban. Disregard.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is "preference" really the right word here, or is it "orientation"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Is a trans woman someone who was born with a penis or was born with a vagina? the term seems ambiguous. Edison (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Trans-women were born with dicks and later got vaginas. Trans-men were born with vaginas and later got dicks. Futurist110 (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Edison, trans women are identified as male at birth (usually due to their male genitals, but not always because of inter-sex conditions) and raised as male. The same applies to trans men, except the other way around. It is definitely a confusing term to people who aren't familiar with it. Futurist - some of us eventually get reassignment surgery but a lot of us don't or can't, but no matter what we're certainly trans women whether we "later got vaginas" or not. The key is the identification with a different gender than was assigned at birth, not the state of someone's physical transition. Katie R (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@Katie: If you are focusing only on the mind/brain, then I agree with you. Of course, I prefer to separate the brain/mind and the rest of the body--for instance, a trans-woman who did not get reassignment surgery (yet, at least) would certainly be a trans-woman mentally/brain-wise, but not physically (meaning in regards to the rest of her body). Likewise, I would consider someone who has a male brain/mind and who was assigned a male gender at birth but who hypothetically, for whatever reason, got a sex change later on to be a trans-woman in the physical sense but not in the mental sense (not brain-wise). Does this make sense? Anyway, I am simply trying to honestly examine this topic; I am not trying to offend anyone here. English is not my first language, and thus, I could have theoretically wrote something which someone else might interpret in a different way than my intended meaning for it. Futurist110 (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you're genuinely curious, and I'm happy to help explain things. It's a complicated subject and tough for people who aren't immersed in it to realize all of the things that can be problematic. My posts sometimes may come off as overly defensive (I know this one did, so I'm adding this disclaimer), but don't take it as anything against you.

According to that, my friend who cannot get the surgery due to medical reasons or those who can't afford it will never be completely a woman. Only about 5% of trans men have reassignment surgery because the results aren't always that great and an unneccessary surgery just means more chances for risks and complications that they could have avoided. I've never seen any writing on trans issues that divides transexualism into a physical and a mental half the way you have.

Drawing the sorts of lines you are is referred to as "gatekeeping" and can be offensive or harmful, as it is a source of attitudes like "you have a penis, so you're not really a woman so I call you he and use your old name." "You must not really be trans if you didn't know from a young age/always suffer dysphoria/some other arbitrary guideline." It's where the idea that we're just gay men out to trick straight people into sleeping with us comes from, and that sort of attitude has led to trans people being murdered. These ideas end up in laws or in the minds of some therapists, and it leads to all sorts of problems for trans people. For example, unless the law in her state changes, my friend who can't have reassignment surgery will never be able to have her drivers license or birth certificate updated to match her gender. That can cause problems in any situation where she needs to show her ID. I know someone who had to find another doctor because hers told her she couldn't really be trans because she had no desire to get surgery, and a teenage trans man whose parents wouldn't help because he still enjoyed wearing feminine clothes sometimes.

Basically, my ultimate point is that although you can have male or female genitals or somewhere in between, that has nothing to do with whether or not you're trans. I don't think we actually have a word to describe someone's "physical" sex based on the configuration of their genitals. That's why I responded to your initial comment - you answered a question about what "trans woman" means with a response focused on genitals, even though 80% of trans women and 95% of trans men have not had reassignemnt surgery, and that sort of misunderstanding in the minds of other does cause real, tangible harm to transgender people. Katie R (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for explaining everything here to me. Yes, I am genuinely curious in regards to this issue. In addition, as I previously mentioned on some other forums, I myself appear to be gender-fluid, at least to some degree. (No, I myself am not trans-gender.) In fact, the idea of me getting a sex change in the far(ther) future often seems like an appealing idea to me, considering that I prefer certain aspects of the female body other those of the male body.

Your point in regards to some transgender people being unable to afford sex reassignment surgeries (or whatever they are called) is very valid. Honestly, I did not know that the percentage of transgender people who do not get such surgeries is that high. Do you have a source for these percentages?

As for the separation into a physical and a mental/brain half, I was not going based on writings when I made this distinction. Rather, I was simply stating the information which I know in regards to this. Honestly, no offense, but I don't see, for instance, how it can be argued a trans-man (who is not intersex) who did not have have any surgeries yet and who did not get any hormone replacement therapy and/or et cetera does not currently have a female body (except for his brain). This is what I meant by the physical aspect of one's gender/sex. Also, let's purely hypothetically say that I (a current biological male) would have sex with such a trans-man. While I would have this sex, would I be having gay sex? After all, he currently has a male mind/brain but a completely female body otherwise. Thus, I do think that there is a point in separating the mind/brain and the rest of the body in regards to this. Of course, it is worth noting that most people probably place (much) more importance on the gender of their brain/mind than on the gender of their body other than their brain.

Honestly, I have never heard of the term gate-keeping before. In regards to "drawing ... lines", the only thing that I was doing in regards to this was describing reality, at least as I see it (and I do try very hard to impartially see these types of things). In regards to attitudes such as the ones that you are describing, those attitudes are repulsive and disgusting. Honestly, I think that individuals should always be referred to by the name and gender which they themselves prefer to use, regardless of whether or not they had any sex reassignment surgery, hormone replacement therapy, and/or et cetera. Likewise, I think that individuals should always be treated according to/based on their preferred gender. As for people who actually hurt and/or kill transgender people, those people are extremely vile, intolerant scum who should be punished by being put in jail. As a side note, though, I do think that it is a good idea for transgender people to tell people whom they are dating about their "status" (for a lack of a better word) before their relationship gets too deep/serious. I apologize if this last sentence sounds offensive, but doing this could actually be a useful security measure and could prevent some individuals from sharing Angie Zapata's extremely sad and tragic fate later on.

I am extremely sorry for all of the problems with which some of your transgender friends and/or acquaintances are going through right now. I honestly think that the law, as well as therapists, should be much friendlier to transgender people than it currently is. In regards to your ultimate point here, I agree with it. Also, in regards to someone's "physical" sex/gender, I was not merely talking about one's genitals here, but also about one's other gender-specific organs/body parts, such as a uterus, an Adam's apple (is that an organ?), et cetera, as well as about one's chromosomes (XX, XY, et cetera). If we don't actually have a word for this, then we should create such a word. In regards to my initial response to Edison, Yes, I foolishly answered it based on genitals because Edison himself talked about genitals. What I should have done (which would have been more accurate) would have simply been to respond to this question in the same way that you did. Frankly, I already knew all of the information in your response beforehand, but I unthinkingly responded to Edison with a very quick, stereotypical response instead of providing a detailed and complex response to this question like I should have (and like you actually did). For this, I apologize; Sometimes we do things which we could have done better, and for me, my initial response here is one example of such a thing.

Also, I would like to point out that I am not trying to offend anyone here. I am simply trying to accurately and impartially describe information and reality. Pointing out that the gender of one's mind/brain and the gender of the rest of one's body are sometimes different is not an attempt to be hurtful or offensive to anyone--it is simply an attempt to accurately describe reality. Also, statements such as this are not a rationale or a justification for purposely being offensive and/or hurtful to transgender people, considering that my statement here actually does acknowledge the reality that transgender people (generally) have minds/brains which match with their preferred gender. Likewise, as I previously said, I think that everyone should always refer to and treat others based on their preferred gender, regardless of anything and everything else.

I seriously hope that I explained myself and everything which I wrote here sufficiently and clearly right now. Futurist110 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think you had any sort of negative attitudes towards any of this, but like you said it's that initial response that set me off. I do understand why you worded it the way you did, considering how the question was asked. I didn't want anyone going away from this thread thinking that being trans was defined by surgery, because that is one of the misconceptions that leads towards the attitudes that we (and hopefully most people) realize are horrible.

The question about classifying pre-transition sex is complicated - it really depends on the situation and how the people involved feel about it. I know someone who was dating a lesbian and they both agreed they were having lesbian sex even though at the time she still considered herself a very femme gay man. The mention of disclosure is complicated too, but I can tell you're aware of that. I'm happily married, and have been since before realizing that I was trans, so it's not an issue I've personally had to put much thought into.

I don't have a source for you on the numbers - I do most of my wikipedia editing from work, and I can't research it here. I've seen those numbers quoted by bloggers on the subject that I trust to use accurate sources, assuming that I remembered them right. It certainly seems to match for the trans people I know that have talked about it.

Gender-fluid, but not transgender is how I started out! :-P Then I realized that girl me was always happy and relaxed and I was always dissapointed when ended up back in boy mode. But anyways, I think we're getting far enough off topic and close to archiving that we can probably end the talk here. If you ever want to talk more about this sort of stuff feel free to contact me on my talk page. I haven't gotten around to enabling email on my account yet, but I'll do it tonight if I remember. Katie R (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Christmas cards

Christmas card says that these things are sent in "Western society" but is no more specific than that. I know the tradition is prevalent in the USA and UK, but I am not sure about other countries and I suspect not all of them do it. Which European countries send Christmas cards, and which do not? --Viennese Waltz 17:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I used to get Christmas cards from a friend in Finland. I would imagine that they are ubiquitous across western Europe - a Google search for "carte de Noël" brings up pages of results. Polish Christmas Traditions says; "Instead of sending Christmas cards to friends and family not present, Poles send oplatki, first tearing off a small corner to show that the donor has broken it with them as a token of affection", although our article says that they are sent with a greetings card. Alansplodge (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a German Wikipedia article for Weihnachtskarte - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihnachtskarte RNealK (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct Economic Term for Brand Inflation

Is there a technical term specifically to describe when an item whose material value is very small but when some intellectual property (brand) is stamped upon it, its price suddenly inflates? For example, I'm thinking of a cheap windbreaker I saw in a store that cost $5, and later in a more upscale store I saw a windbreaker virtually identical in material, zipper, and stitching, but with a small 1" x 1" Nike Swoosh on the left breast going for $35. Peter Michner (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"Premium branding" ? StuRat (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Price discrimination comes to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Premium pricing. 86.183.79.28 (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

January 5

How the Uraeus (Cobra) on the Nemes (headress) does it associate with the sphinx?

I mean in Egyptian mythology. 174.7.167.7 (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, it represents the goddess Wadjet, the protector of Egypt. I haven't read that the Great Sphinx had one on its headdress, but Wadjet predates it, so it's possible it was there and wasted away. Just a guess, but the Sphinx could have been a symbolic sort of guard animal. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Or, perhaps more reasonably, the Sphinx was designed by a pharaoh, who decided it should have the image of his own head. Or maybe by a fan of that pharoah, later (something like Mount Rushmore). In either of those cases, the Sphinx's uraeus may not have had any exceptional symbolic value, aside from the normal use on a human headdress (signifying royalty/godliness). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, the concept of Wadjet later fused with that of the lioness protector Bast to become Wadjet-Bast, something like the hypothetical pharaoh fused with a lion. Maybe the Great Sphinx isn't meant to be a sphinx at all, but the male counterpart (or replacement) to this thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the original question is supposed to mean. As for Inedible Hulk's uncertainty about the uraeus of the forehead of the Great Sphinx of Giza, I'm sure one was originally there. If you look closely at pictures of it, you can see an eroded shape on its forehead that seems certain to be a uraeus. A reconstruction of what the sphinx would have looked like when it was new (here), based on Mark Lehner's study of the sphinx, clearly shows it with a uraeus. The obvious reason that the sphinx is wearing a uraeus is that the uraeus is part of the nemes headcloth worn by whichever pharaoh the sphinx is supposed to depict. Other sphinxes throughout Egyptian history have the same headwear.

If the original poster is asking whether there's a mythological link between the uraeus motif and the sphinx motif, I'd say that they have similar functions but are not exactly the same thing. Sphinxes represent the king or a god in a lion-like form, either guarding a particular place (the sphinxes in front of temples guard temples, and the Great Sphinx of Giza sat next to the causeway that led to the temple at the foot of the Pyramid of Khafre) or trampling the enemies of divine order (as in this image of some furniture from the tomb of Tutankhamun). In ancient Egypt, lions were solar symbols and therefore alluded to the power of the sun god Ra, the original pharaoh and the creator of all order. The uraeus could represent any one of a large complex of violent protective goddesses who destroyed the enemies of order, and of the king, which explains why the uraeus appears on royal crowns. When serving in this protective role, each of the goddesses could be called the Eye of Ra (see that article for more information) because the protective goddess was sort of an extension of Ra's power. (Wadjet and Bastet were two of these goddesses and were sometimes combined with each other, though it would be wrong to say that Wadjet and Bastet were permanently joined. Egyptian gods can form all kinds of combinations as circumstances dictate.) The Eye of Ra goddess often appeared as a uraeus, but it could also be depicted as a lion or a cat. Some sphinxes are female, representing goddesses, and they may well have been thought of as forms of the Eye of Ra. But most sphinxes were male, representing kings or male gods, which makes them rather different from the Eye of Ra. So the uraeus and the sphinx are both divine powers that are linked with the sun god, that protect against or destroy the forces of chaos, and that uphold the authority of the king.

For references to support what I've said about the uraeus and Eye of Ra, see the works cited in the Eye of Ra article. My statements about sphinxes were mostly based on Egyptian Mythology by Geraldine Pinch (2004), pages 206 to 207, and The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt by Richard H. Wilkinson (2000), page 54–55. If the original poster specifically meant the Great Sphinx of Giza, which is presumed to have been carved during the Old Kingdom, I'd suggest looking at The Cobra Goddess of Ancient Egypt: Predynastic, Early Dynastic, and Old Kingdom Periods by Sally J. Johnson (1990), which I don't have. I don't know how well developed the mythology surrounding the uraeus/Eye of Ra was in the Old Kingdom or what relationship it might have had with the sphinx back then, but Johnson's book may say something about it. A. Parrot (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's something I've wondered for a while: is it a mistake to take this all so seriously in some kind of erudite mystilogical way? My intuition tells me that the pharaohs and kings and conquistadors of history have a lot more in common with our street gangs and crime cartels, and that one of them wearing a cobra on his head is like one of our gang-bangers wearing a gold machine gun pendant; that it's just a way of saying that look, he's bad-ass and dangerous and he can strike at whoever he wants. Am I wrong? Wnt (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Parrot, I noticed the forehead and thought it seemed more likely than anything that it used to be a cobra. But, despite the larger leaps I made in my guesses, I somehow didn't feel right assuming that. Starting to wonder whether we should even feel safe assuming it represents a sphinx, let alone a pharoah, rather than just a coincidentally similar hybrid. Maybe future historians will also consider the ThunderCats American sphinxes, for lack of a better term. But I'll certainly defer to your more educated guesses.

And no, you're not so wrong, Wnt. Whether it's business, government, crime, religion, hockey or war, the basic idea of a symbol remains the same. Reminds people of the history associated with it to hint at what they can expect from the bearer (or bluffs it, anyway). The meaning of the symbol can vary wildly, of course, through space or time. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the sphinx, Hulk, I'm not sure what you mean. The Greeks may have seen their version of a sphinx as a distinct type of being, but the Egyptian didn't. Sphinxes were just another instance of the Egyptians' convention of mixing and matching human and animal forms to symbolize divine powers (see ancient Egyptian deities#Descriptions and depictions). The Great Sphinx is a more mysterious case, because it's one of the earliest examples of the sphinx form and the archaeological evidence for its origin is rather ambiguous (see Great Sphinx of Giza#Origin and identity). The meaning that the sphinx image was meant to convey in later, better documented times is pretty well understood, though.

To Wnt, I wouldn't say that it's wrong to analyze this stuff in detail. Egyptian religious ideology really is extraordinarily complex. As much as I've studied the subject, I still can't understand half of what a funerary text like the Pyramid Texts is talking about, even in an annotated translation. But the religious beliefs surrounding kingship did have a lot of the brutal impulse that you describe at their core. Defying the king is defying the gods and the order of the cosmos. If you do it, you die. It's just that the Egyptians were expert at elaborating that basic impulse in an "erudite mystilogical way". Replying to Hulk's other point, they also tended to retain the original meanings of symbols, combining them with each other and with new concepts in novel ways. As fascinating (and, to me, inspiring) as Egyptian religion can be, it had a definite dark side. There are some experts (Barry Kemp and Toby Wilkinson come to mind) who take care to remind people of that. A. Parrot (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I mean the Great Sphinx (and many other Egyptian statues) don't have wings, like the Greek "live" sphinx. A statue of a horse doesn't have an horn, so we wouldn't call it a unicorn. Just thinking the statue represents an entirely different beast, but the Greeks figured it was close enough when they saw it. One day, perhaps the same iconic blending will happen with Gamera and Yertle the Turtle. I dunno. I'm still basically a noob in the subject. Just wondering aloud, mostly.

And yeah, "fused" may have been a poor word. Didn't mean to imply Wadjet-Bast was permanent. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You gotta do what you gotta do

How do you call it when someone begins a judicial case against a politician or official because he did not do the thing that as an office holder he must do? In Argentina, in Spanish, the legal figure is called "incumplimiento de los deberes de funcionario público" ("dereliction of duty of public officials"), but I don't think I should write a literal translation in an article. Cambalachero (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The general term in English is malpractice, though the term is most commonly associated with medical malpractice (doctors) and legal malpractice (lawyers), I think it may best capture the general concept you are looking for. --Jayron32 02:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) You gotta write what you gotta write. I'm no lawyer, but "dereliction of duty" sounds fine to me, the states of California (section 22) and Ohio (section F) and Associated Press[11]. Nothing wrong with "of public officials" either. Malpractice doesn't apply to politicians. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Because there are no professional standards they would ever accept as being applicable to them? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Depending on the context of your sentence, "derelicition of a public official's duty" may be slightly better, as it's in the active voice and in the singular. Or "...by a public official". I might be nitpicking a bit. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Under common law legal systems, such a lawsuit was traditionally known as seeking a writ of mandamus... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Misfeasance in public office 86.183.79.28 (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a specific tort in English law (which requires proof of malice, rather than mere incompetence). The more general term is Malfeasance in office. Tevildo (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

None of these are equivalent to a civil law system... They don't map. You're probably wanting some statutory equivalent... those don't really exist that much. It's surely not a writ of mandamus, which is a relatively neutral writ that has nothing to do with the elements of any crime.... AnonMoos clearly has no clue what their talking about. Shadowjams (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- if "someone begins a judicial case against a politician or official because he did not do the thing that as an office holder he must do" under traditional Common Law, then most of the time it takes the form of filing for a Writ of Mandamus. Such an action was at issue in the very famous U.S. supreme court case Marbury v. Madison... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing from a wedding at the last minute

I recently watched a Chinese TV series which contained a scene where the groom decided to withdraw from the wedding (and thus did not marry the bride) the moment he was supposed to say "I do." In real life, how often does this kind of thing occur - i.e. a bride and/or a groom deciding to walk away the moment they should have said "I do"? 24.47.140.246 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know how common it is in real life, but there's a phrase commonly used to describe it -- being "dumped at the altar" (or "jilted at the altar")... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Or just "left at the altar". It's quite common in fiction if it doesn't have to be exactly at "I do". See TVtropes:RunawayBride. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There also used to be a common law concept called Breach of promise. That is pretty much dead by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently not on your side of the water: Jilted bride wins $43,000 breach of contract award (Dec 6, 2013). Alansplodge (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Breach of promise was repealed in England and Wales in 1970: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(Irrelevant bugbear-based aside) "I do" seems to be an increasingly common response, but the traditional version, at least in the Church of England wedding ceremony (or Solemnization of Matrimony, as the Book of Common Prayer calls it), in answer to the question (for the groom): "Wilt thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?", is "I will", which seems to me to imply rather more commitment to the future than just "I do". This exchange is mangled in one of the weddings in Four Weddings and a Funeral, where the "wilt thou...?" question is answered by "I do". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Further complicated by the fact that "I will" means "I want to" (whether it will happen or not), whilst "I shall" means "I am going to" (definite statement of fact). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Our article on wedding vows doesn't even mention "I do". 75.41.109.190 (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyhow, back to the point. I found Jilted Bride: 'In a Moment, It's the Worst Day of Your Life' about a 1997 New York wedding that was delayed by the non-appearance of the groom. Eventually the best man appeared with the news that it was all off. The reception went ahead. Alansplodge (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on an understanding of psychology and some anecdotal evidence, I suspect it is much more common for the bride or the groom to fail to appear at a planned wedding than for one of them to show up and then decide not to say "I do" or "I will". I think that, if people have doubts, they are likely to make a final decision whether they are ready when they are getting dressed and ready to travel to the wedding venue. It's much easier to jilt someone by failing to show up than by failing to complete the vows in front of the jilted person and both families. Marco polo (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course this happens all the time in soap operas and films. I recall hearing a Church of England priest saying in a discussion on the radio that he has never heard of it ever happening in any real wedding in his experience. I can't provide any reference for that, however. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect it happens far more often in Las Vegas than in C of E ceremonies. Paul B (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure of that. As our article mentions, the whole point of a "Las Vegas wedding" is that it can happen so quickly. Leaving someone at the alter involves you second-guessing your commitment, but a Vegas wedding doesn't leave a lot of time for that. If you're okay to marry at 9:00 when he proposed, you'll probably still be okay with it at 9:15 when the ceremony takes place. Now the next morning when it's too late is another matter entirely. Matt Deres (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I commend the case of Pitty Pat and Prince Lorenzo to your attention - a lesson for us all. PiCo (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy of me, WHAA* about this: see Primrose Potter @ "Family affairs".

(* this is a subset of WHAAOE). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And then they came for me

There is a verse or poetry which starts with First they came for (?) and I did nothing. The end is then they came for me. Would like to know who is the author and complete verse. I think this came out of the 30's or 40's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4:480:1E6:BC67:75FE:955C:584A (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

See First they came .... StuRat (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Who's the girl at the beginning of this USAA commercial?

This reference in Stuart Roosa's Wikipedia article shows a girl who says "Mine was earned orbiting the moon in 1971. Is she Roosa's granddaughter? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The girl or person you're referring to features together with other people at 0:14 in the TV ad, in a set-up uncertain as the man holding a tablet cannot be Stuart Roosa, deceased 1994. The Apollo 14 mission for which Roosa was one of the pilots is known and notable for a first from outer space TV color transmission: Hope this helps; ask perhaps USAA.com ? --Askedonty (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess since it says Roosa sisters, 3rd generation, there's a chance that those are his granddaughters and the man is one of Stuart Roosa's sons. 75.75.42.89 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

January 6

How does Pooh appear in Sophie's World?

A number of characters from other stories appear in Sophie's World, by Jostein Gaarder, particularly in the later chapters, but most of these characters are public domain. Then in the chapter titled "Kant", a certain stuffed bear in a red sweater appears and introduces himself as "Winnie-the-Pooh". He drops the names of Piglet, Rabbit, Eeyore, and Owl, to make it very clear exactly who he is.

I'm a bit confused. As I understood it, Winnie-the-Pooh was first written of in 1926, and thus is still under copyright today, let alone in 1991 when Sophie's World was written, and 1995 when it was translated into Pooh's native language. (Actually, that article at the beginning of this paragraph mentions Pooh revenue disputes over a decade after Sophie's World, so he's certainly under copyright even today.)

Now I've been reading a lot of Jasper Fforde lately, and my understanding from his writing is that a copyrighted character can appear, but not speak. (Fforde's recurring joke is that a copyrighted character like Harry Potter is asked to appear for some speech or ceremony, but has to cancel at the last minute due to copyright reasons.) Pooh of course is speaking quite a bit in his appearance here.

The red sweater might also confuse things further. It does not appear on the actual stuffed bear in the New York Public Library, nor does it appear in the text of the books, or the original illustrations. Apparently the red shirt was created by Stephen Slesinger in 1932, and it seems to me that it could be used in the way that MGM has used Dorothy's ruby slippers -- the slippers did not appear in the original book The Wizard of Oz, so while Dorothy herself is public domain, her slippers are copyright MGM 1939, and you have to pay a small fortune to use them.

There's no mention anywhere in the book of Gaarder obtaining permission to use Pooh. Is this something you don't have to mention? Or does the copyright somehow not apply to Norway and translations of books written in Norway? Or is Gaarder getting away with this just because no one with rights to Pooh has noticed yet?

74.94.209.187 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

List of countries' copyright lengths gives life plus 70 years for Norway. A. A. Milne died in 1956 so his works are public domain in Norway from Jan 1, 2027. The answer to your question, however, either lies in the article Fair use or the publishers of Sophie’s World negotiated a fee (this is commonly done, for example, when books quote poetry in chapter headings). A concise, useful discussion of what needs permission/fees and what doesn’t can be found here. 142.150.38.133 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The motif of the red sweater might be a red herring. Pooh didn't wear one in the books AFAIK. The bear with the red top is Rupert; the clothing is as recognisable as Paddington's duffel coat. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Winnie-the-Pooh#Red_Shirt_Pooh WHAAOE MChesterMC (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Official name of USA

When, exactly, did the USA officially get the name "United States of America"? I am assuming July 4, 1776, but I am not 100% sure. Also, what was the official name before "United States of America"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The term is simply a phrase as used in the Declaration of Independence; "the united States of America", where united is a separate, lower case adjective describing the states. The Articles of Confederation, July 9, 1778 state in article one, "The style of this confederacy shall be, "The United States of America." There's your official title. The preamble to the Constitution says it is established "for the United States of America." μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict] There does not seem to have been any legislation declaring that "United States of America" is the official name of the country, but that name, alongside "United States" is used in its founding documents, the United States Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Consequently, both the long form and the short form (without "of America") can be considered official names. Before the ratification of the Declaration of Independence in July 1776, there was in fact no such thing as the United States, and therefore no name for that nonexistent entity. Each of the British colonies was distinct and in no way associated with the others, except individually and voluntarily and as constituent parts of the British empire. The first Continental Congress referred to the body it represented variously as "these colonies", "America", and "the English colonies in North America". All of these terms, except for the nondescript "these colonies" would have referred not only to what were later known as "the 13 colonies" but also to other British colonies, such as Quebec, Nova Scotia, and East and West Florida, none of which were part of the United States after 1776. Marco polo (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Having just read Medeis's post, I would point out that the Articles of Confederation are no longer in effect. Nonetheless, that line from the Articles may have helped to establish that name as "official", though its official status is now really de facto. Marco polo (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The op may find some answers in our article History_of_USA. It's slightly complicated. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Marco Polo, the Articles of Confederation are no longer in effect, but it's occasionally referred to believe it or not. Check out Texas_v._White where the supreme court ruled that the "In order to form a more perfect union" in the preamble meant that the USA was constitutionally perpetual even though the constitution didn't mention that. The articles of Confederation did use the word "perpetual", and they ruled that the USA couldn't be "more perfect" than the previous union if it wasn't perpetual, therefore it was! APL (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) According to Articles_of_Confederation#Article_summaries, they defined the term. Of course, until the US won the Revolutionary War, the Brits and many others still called them the British colonies. These were drafted starting in 1776 but not fully ratified until 1781. One interesting point is that people said "these" United States, meaning united countries, until the Civil War. After that it became "the" United States. StuRat (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Very interesting replies. Now, here is what specifically prompted my question. In the Wikipedia article Elizabeth Ann Seton, its opening line states: Elizabeth Ann Bayley Seton, S.C., (August 28, 1774 – January 4, 1821) was the first native-born citizen of the United States to be canonized by the Roman Catholic Church (September 14, 1975). As I was reading this, I noted that she was born in 1774. Thus, doesn't that fact (technically) make the introductory statement false? In other words, she was not born in the United States because, in 1774, there was no such entity known as the "United States". So, am I correct, or is my thinking off for some reason? Also, if I am correct, what would be the appropriate way to make the statement about Seton, so that it is factually accurate? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

One possible answer is in the way "natural born citizen" is defined in the Constitution. Obviously, the founding fathers weren't born in the USA, as such, because there was no such thing yet. But they were "grandfathered in" by the Constitution. I've run into this occasionally in genealogy research, where someone will be stated to have been born in "West Virginia" prior to the Civil War. It depends whether you're referring to current geography or geography as it was at some point in the past. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This is rich pickings for pedants and their ilk. For example, none of my grandparents was born in Australia, technically. They were all born in the 1890s in Sydney and surrounding areas. Sydney was then the capital of the British colony of New South Wales. There was no such unified nation as Australia until 1901. But for anyone to deny my grandparents were native-born Australians would be a little extreme, I think. Similarly, my parents (born in 1919 and 1925) were not born Australian citizens, because there was no such thing as Australian citizenship until 1949. Prior to then, all people born in Australia were British subjects. But for anyone to deny my parents have always been Australians - except in the most abstruse and arcane legal sense - would be somewhat absurd. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the phrase "first native-born citizen of the United States" is false, "technically". She was native born - which means born in the land - and also a citizen of the United States. I doubt that better phrasing could be found, without unnecessary prolixity. Paul B (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, that's exactly the point of the question. You state: "which means born in the land". Exactly. But, born in what land? The land known as the United States. That seems technically incorrect to me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Born in the land now known as the United States of America." StuRat (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A story along the same lines (pre-1991)... A Russian old-timer is asked where he was born. "Saint Petersburg." And where did you grow up? "Petrograd." And where did you live and work in the prime of life? "Leningrad." And where would you like to spend your final years? "Saint Petersburg!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 03:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

January 7

Copayments in health insurance

Is the practice of making people with health insurance make copayments something that predominantly only happens in the US, or is it also practiced elsewhere (for instance, in Canada)? Morningcrow (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We seem to have separate articles on Copayment and Deductible, but if there's a difference, I'm not sure what it is. In the UK, we normally talk of having to pay an excess. Rojomoke (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ex-health insurance guru here. There's a big difference, technically, between an excess and a co-payment. But no difference as far as the consumer is concerned: they have to pay, is all they know. Both of these things are features of the health insurance landscape in Australia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think one reason for copays, especially on prescription meds, is the fear that if people could get unlimited free meds, they would get more than they need, possibly leading to abuse of the system and of the meds. StuRat (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

To clarify Morningcrow's question for people where the terminology may be different, he wants to know whether people outside the United States who have some form of health insurance have to pay a fee for every healthcare deliverable (product or service). Typically this fee, or copay or copayment, is a set amount for each type of deliverable, and the amount is a fraction of the amount the healthcare provider charges the insurer. For example, an insured person might face a copayment of $15 for each appointment with an ordinary doctor or nurse (which probably costs the insurer more like $150), $35 for every appointment with a specialist (cost to the insurer maybe $300), and maybe $200 for every admission to a hospital (cost to the insurer probably more than $1,000). In addition, they might face a copay totaling maybe 20% of the cost of any drugs prescribed. This is different from a deductible, which usually stipulates that the insured must pay 100% of the cost of his or her healthcare, up to a threshold (the deductible) beyond which the insurer pays 100% of the cost, less any copays. So, do people face copayments, as described, in Canada or other countries? Marco polo (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I was actually interested in both deductibles and copayments, but for some reason only mentioned the latter - more "accurately" I suppose, I was wondering about addition payments for healthcare beyond the cost of insurance. Morningcrow (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Henning Von Treskow

I was aware of this heroic actions of Henning Von Treskow- he attempted to assassinate Hitler in March 1943 and drafted the Valkyrie plan for a coup against the German government. He was described by the Gestapo as the "prime mover" and the "evil spirit" behind the July 20 plot to assassinate Hitler.

But then I just read this....it does not make sense. I thought Treskow was an honorable man. Is it possible that he signed this order: As Chief of Staff of the 2nd Army, Tresckow signed an order on 28 June 1944 to abduct Polish and Ukrainian children in the so-called Heu-Aktion (Hay Action). Between 40,000 to 50,000 Polish and Ukrainian children aged 10 to 14 were kidnapped for Nazi Germany's forced labour program Can this be researched? I cannot believe Treskow did this...he risked his life for a free Germany. (This is from Wikipedia article of Treskow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.68.72 (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I take it you mean Henning von Tresckow. Our article on him is sourced, as is Heu-Aktion. It's a book source (War Of Extermination: The German Military In World War II) but at least for me, the page referenced is visible on Google Books [12] and confirms what our article says. I don't see any reason to doubt it. Based on what our articles say and the source used [13] I suspect that the order which includes Tresckow's signature was probably found after the war and part of the Nuremberg trials. So it's likely you can find a copy of it somewhere and confirm his signature was on it.

Note that if his primary motiviation was a 'free Germany' then the effects of his actions on Polish and Ukrainian children may not have been a significant concern, in fact he may have thought it a good thing if it helped Germany. (The source seems to be discussing something similar.) That said, our article does suggestion he cared about more than simply wanting a free Germany.

And obvious thought is that if it was clear this was a desired action in Nazi Germany at the time, for him to openly defy it may have put him and any of his plans at risk so he may have thought it an unfortunate but necessary action (which I think most people nowadays would strongly disagree with). He may have also not know or expected everything about the programme that we now know.

But we also should avoid oversimplfiying people's morality, behavior and character and simply thinking of them as 'good'/'honourable' or 'bad'/'evil'. Such thinking may be convient, but leads to silly things like people being unable to accept that Adolf Hitler may have genuinely cared about animal rights because he's evil (or even sillier, that animal rights must be wrong because Hitler supported it).

You also have to look at things from the POV of the time, and recognise that no matter how wrong such POVs may seem to people now, they may have been widely held at the time. Hence why people may have talked about and signed a declaration saying All men are created equal yet continued to own slaves and supported slavery, a contradiction which was even evident at the time.

In other words, there are plenty of reasons why he may have signed it, and plenty of reasons why he may not have even been troubled by it no matter whether that may contradict with anyone's view of him.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

When was Vouziers' town hall built?

I know some French, but not enough to deal with Google's autosuggestion tricks (though their translator is handy). Can anyone find out (or know offhand) when the Vouziers "Hôtel de Ville" sprung up? It's clear that the war monument is post-war, but that could have been added later. Also, was the building ever used for some other purpose? Certainly looks a bit churchish. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

You can see the Vouziers town hall during the WWW I (occupied by the Germans) here (first photograph) and at the end of the war (1918) here; only the façade was standing. A new town hall was built after 1918 according to this web site. — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) :This article [14] states that construction began in August 1923, to replace the previous city hall built in 1808 and destroyed by fire in 1918. The building was inaugurated in 1926 and is listed as a 20th century heritage building. --Xuxl (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff. Thank you both! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:02, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Abolition of capital punishment 30 BC?

Capital_and_corporal_punishment_(Judaism) claims that according to the Talmud, capital punishment was abolished by the Sanhedrin 30 BC. This seems to contradict the stoning of Saint_Stephen. Also Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery seems to be in question in the article. Does anyone have more evidence one way or another? DanielDemaret (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The article actually says it was abolished 30 CE (=30 AD), so around the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Therefore, the story of the woman taken in adultery may have taken place before that time, though the oldest manuscripts of John's gospels do not contain this story. A common interpretation of John 18:31 is that the Jews had lost the right to sentence anyone to death, which belonged only to the Roman governor. This is supported by a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud, of which I can only access a French translation (since I don't read Aramaic): "40 ans avant la destruction du Temple de Jérusalem, le droit de prononcer les sentences capitales a été enlevé aux Israélites" (i.e. 40 years before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the right to pronounce capital sentences was taken away from the Israelites). The Babylonian talmud has a slightly different version and states that the Sanhedrin was exiled in that year and voluntarily refrained from issuing capital sentences (see Sanhedrin 41a and Abodah Zarah 8b). You might be interested in this article, which has more information and was helpful to me in finding the aforementioned references.

Regarding the stoning of Stephen, it may well be that the Jews had no legal right to do this according to Roman law, but it is clear that they did this out of anger, like they tried to do to Jesus as well (John 11:8 etc.) - Lindert (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Silly me, misreading CE with BC :) Thank you! DanielDemaret (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Double credit for film directors

Most films start out the opening credits with "A Martin Scorsese film" or "A Gus Van Sant film" or whoever. The opening credits always end with the name of the director, and it's always, in my experience, the same name that opened the credits. Then the director will get a third credit in the closing credits. The most anyone else involved can expect is 2 credits, one at the start and one at the end.

Is it always the director 's name in "A <name> film"? What's the purpose of telling the audience the director's name twice, in different ways, before the movie's even really got under way? Would it ever be the producer's name there? What does it really mean to say that a certain film is "a Ron Howard film", say? Why isn't it just as much a Tom Hanks film (if he's the main actor) or a John Williams film (if he's the composer) etc, all the way through the main participants (cinematographer, editor, FX, wardrobe, writing .....)? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's the auteur theory - the originally French idea that, despite the inordinate number of people involved in making a film, it has one author, one creative person whose "vision" the film is, and that person is the director. Personally, I think it's absurdly simplistic, undervalues the input of other creative people, especially screenwriters (whose job has been reduced to taking a story from another medium and adapting it to the formulaic three act structure), and doesn't take into account that collaboration can sometimes produce greater work than a single artist could create, and that for a lot of films the director is a hired hand whose job is to realise someone else's ideas. But cinema critics seem to buy into it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The director's name does not appear in the closing credits, unless there is a cold open. --Viennese Waltz 13:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

An example would be 2001: A Space Odyssey which has a grand total of 3 credits up front.[15] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Presents / A Stanley Kubrick Production / 2001: A Space Odyssey [plus copyright info in small print]. As I recall, the closing credits start with Kubrick's name, and his name may be in there a few more times as well. An even colder opening would be the Star Wars series, which have a panel for Lucasfilms followed by the standard slogans of the series. But it's important to keep in mind that credits in general are determined by contractual arrangements, along with various rules (e.g. that the director is listed last in the opening credits). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head with the last line, directors are listed last in the opening credits, a rule that is bypassed by saying it's a "film by..." Hot Stop 01:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• This practice is called a possessory credit, giving primary artistic recognition of a film to a single person. Because movie posters, trailers and the like also repeat part of the credits, this is usually done more to advertise upfront that a prominent or famous director like a Scorsese or a Van Sant worked on the film (you would not normally see it done for a director or a producer who is relatively an unknown). For famous actors like a Hanks, "top billing" is used instead, where the name(s) of the prominent actor(s) appear first before the title of the film and the other names of the main cast. Many movies have both the possessory credit and the top billing listings, where, for example in Superman (1978 film) you have "A Richard Donner film", and the top billings of Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman without any quantifiers or extra phrases (as seen in the fine print of the film's poster if you can read it).Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  And a composer like Williams usually never gets a possessory credit when there is better name recognition with a Steven Spielberg or a Hanks to help sell tickets. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Stranger in distress scams

Many of us have been approached by strangers looking distressed, telling us stories of how they need a small amount of money and that they have no other way of getting it. But how many of these are actually genuine and how many are scams? Clover345 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's impossible to give an accurate answer. How would anyone know whether the story is true or not? --Viennese Waltz 16:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I always look for a way around giving them cash. Say they need cash to take a taxi home. I offer to call their home on my cell phone, and have somebody pick them up, instead. StuRat (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent approach. This scam is as old as money. The archetype is someone asking for money to buy coffee and/or donuts, when they're maybe really wanting to buy booze. This little scam was parodied in the early 30s in the Marx Brothers film Horse Feathers, where a bum approached Harpo and said, "I'd like to get a cup of coffee". Harpo then reached into his trench coat and pulled out a steaming cup of coffee for the guy.[16] In short, determine what the beggar really needs, and offer non-monetary help. His answer will tell you whether he's genuine or whether he's scamming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking from personal experience, these people are mostly semi-genuine. They don't have a car that has run out of petrol, they don't need to get a train, they haven't lost their Oyster card. But they _do_ need a drink. As one who is occasionally in that situation, I'm generally happy to oblige them. ;) Tevildo (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

name of the book and author

The author of this book is a Canadian of Yemenite Jewry background. I am trying to find her book which has the word "world". Also, the book is about Mizrahi characters like one is a police officer and the other is a military officer. The author surname starts Tza or Tsa. I forgot her name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.231.174 (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ayelet Tsabari. It's "earth" not "world". --Viennese Waltz 16:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

looking for a book on "thought friends" from around 1970

One of my friends remembers reading a book thirty or forty years ago, that we'd both like to recover. Neither of us has been able to find any trace of it online though. He remembers the title as something like "Learning to Love Yourself; A Guide to Personal Development". I'm almost positive that title is wrong though -- perhaps it was a chapter title. He says the book was written by a man -- a psychologist -- and that it was published by "UCLA Press". Since there is no UCLA Press, I think he actually means University of California Press or University College London Press. I've already contacted the California press, and they told me that they don't have any books resembling it.

The book was apparently about "thought friends" something like imaginary friends for adults, presumably from a psychological perspective. The author's own thought friend was named "Jenney". And my friend is pretty sure that's correct, because he remembers the unusual spelling.

His copy was apparently a paperback, published around 1970.

Does anyone know it, or know how I might find it without the author's name or the title? 67.142.167.25 (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I tracked a reference down, but the site is blacklisted for Wikipedia (try community dot tulpa dot info). According to the forum, the book is indeed called Learning to Love Yourself : A Guide to Personal Development, and is indeed published by UCLA Press. Jenney is mentioned twice.

We have an article on tulpa.

Cheers to you and all your friends, imaginary and otherwise. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Roald Dahl

This (fascinating) biography of Roald Dahl refers to stories that were "viciously pornographic" and some that were:

"filled with caricatures of greedy Jews. One suggests " a little pawnbroker in Housditch called Meatbein who, when the wailing started, would rush downstairs to the large safe in which he kept his money, open it and wriggle inside on to the lowest shelf where he lay like a hibernating hedgehog until the all-clear had gone."

Could someone link to or identify one of these stories?

Also, I am interested in reading his "vicious attack on his peers in the field of children's literature requested by the New York Times" if possible.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.160.26 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

January 8

a Language of mixed languages

Someone from Pakistan told me that Hindko language is a mixture of Pashto and Punjabi. Is this true and is there any other languages that are a mixture of two or more languages? Oh...he also said that Saraiki language is a mixture of Punjabi and Sindhi. Is this also true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.231.174 (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Our articles Hindko and Saraiki describe each as a dialect of Punjabi.. Hindko makes no mention of Pashto, but Saraiki is also considered a dialect of Sindhi within Sindh province. There are no references given for that though. In general, a language that arises as a meld of two other languages is a Pidgin, and may develop into a Creole. Rojomoke (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Spanglish is one example. Note that such languages are typically not official, but more like slang. StuRat (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Maltese language should be another example. It is even an official EU language. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This probably isn't exactly what you mean, but the origins of English are pretty much an equal mix of French, German and Latin, with minor contributions from other languages. See Foreign language influences in English (not our best written article, but it's clear enough). Equisetum (talk | contributions) 16:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Family Name - Vald(h)aris

Hi,

I would like to know about family name "Valdharis". Some write as "Valdaris". Please throw more light on this Family name, like its origin, its representation, its meaning...

Thanks A.C.Annadurai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.200.93 (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I removed your email from the post, since it's against the policy and it's a generally bad idea to post your email so openly on the internet. If someone has an answer to your quetion, they will post it here.129.178.88.81 (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Affluence of urban vs rural areas

In general, in developed countries, which have more affluent people? Cities or countryside? Why is this? Does it also depend on the country and area?Clover345 (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

By "more affluent people", do you mean "richer people" (presumably averaged per head) or "a larger number or proportion of rich people"? Both types of area will of course have some rich and some poor people. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Traditionally the cities were richer. Some reasons:

1) If you run any type of business which depends on customers, there are more potential customers per unit area in a city, so you can, in theory, make more money there. Of course, there might also be more competition, so this potential isn't always realized. To take one example, say you are a house painter, then you have to travel many miles between customers and suppliers in the country, which means you would have to charge more just to break even.

2) Wealthy individuals often move to the city, for the better facilities there. For example: running water & sewers, electricity, hospitals, restaurants, etc.

3) Housing prices can be higher in more densely populated areas, keeping poor people out.

However, a trend has also been observed where more people flock to the city than can be absorbed by it, leading to unemployment and slums. And poverty in the city is often worse than rural poverty, as the possibilities to hunt or gather your own food, build your own shelter, etc., are more limited in the city. StuRat (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)