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

June 6

Making a differences: Canadian Multicultural Literatures in English commentary

Is there a website or other book that deals with the commentary of each work in the book called "Making a Difference: Canadian Multicultural Literatures in English", edited by Smaro Kamboureli? Please and thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.135 (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

How was Germany so strong

How was Germany so strong that it could fight the entire world in WW2 and almost win (and probably would have won if Hitler had let his generals do the work) even though 20 years before they were crushed by WW1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.83.85.141 (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason Britain and the USA did win despite having armies of 224,000 and 174,000 respectively at the outbreak of war. Germany had well-organised industrial production and the resources to run them at full capacity, and a well-run operation to recruit and train soldiers in the use of new equipment and techniques. Pre-1941, Germany's network of alliances and non-aggression pacts meant they were only fighting significant battles on one front at any given time, while geography meant that Germany could move forces to the front within days while Britain and France took weeks to ship in troops from the colonial empires. Plus, crucially, in the early stages of the war France was hoping for a negotiated settlement and didn't have the will to escalate, allowing Germany and Italy to take the initiative; if France and Britain had smashed into the Rhineland and Ruhr at full strength while the German military was tied up in Poland, the war could have ended within a couple of weeks. – iridescent 10:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me we have questions like this one (or questions which turn out similar like the question a few weeks ago regarding Hitler as a strategist which soon became, at least partly, a question about how Germany could have won the war) pretty often? It seems the Net is fascinated with Nazi Germany. But I've never quite grasped what kind of answer people who ask these questions expect. Is the OP assuming that Germany performed in WWII much better than would be expected from a country of that size/economic power/population/natural resources/industrial/technological/scientific basis, that their military achievement was such that it is in need of an explanation that goes beyond those factors? Are they wondering if Nazi Germany had a "secret" and what it was? (I don't know... "fanaticism"? "discipline"? what?) Their mind is already made up that Germany would "probably" have won the war if Hitler had not continually kibitzed his generals. So what exactly are they asking? What kind of answer would answer their question? Contact Basemetal here 13:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Basemetal, it's because "we saved the world" is such an important part of US, British and Russian history, and "we fought and defeated a powerful enemy" sounds better than "we won a war we were inevitably going to win". In reality, even if the Nazi-Soviet pact had held, once Britain entered the war the only realistic way Germany could have won would either have been a massive amphibious assault to occupy London and force the UK to sue for peace (which would have meant destroying the Royal Air Force first, then fighting street-by-street against a highly motivated and well-armed defending force), to draw the UK into a stalemate where business interests would press the government to declare an armistice (which was never likely to happen, especially once Churchill succeeded Chamberlain), or for Germany to develop the atomic bomb and to have had the means to deliver it. To put things in perspective, had the British Empire mobilised its entire colonial strength its army would have been larger than the population of Germany, and it had the luxury of factories in Canada outside the range of any possible German bomber. (It is possible to envisage scenarios where Germany wins the war, but they all depend on improbable conditions such as a military alliance with Stalin, or Britain remaining neutral following the invasion of Poland.) – iridescent 16:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I just learned the more improbable of those are called alien space bats. The OP (or someone) might be interested in AlternateHistory.com. Judging from the title and a quick glance, it seems like the place to find answers to questions that can't be answered. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, June 6, 2015 (UTC)

Iridescent: I think that had the US not entered the war, and had Hitler not been so against minorities (and women) and 'asocials' (who could have fought or worked industrially to great benefit instead), and if the alliance with Russia had held, then there may have been a chance of victory. Even without a Russian alliance, there would have been two fronts against Russia, which would have put huge strain on the nation and which makes collapse seem more likely. Additionally, weapons such as the V-3 cannon, had they been developed, could feasibly have changed the course of the war. 86.147.145.172 (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

So if literally everything about the 1930s and 1940s had been different, we might be all speaking German right now! --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Following on from the above editor Basemetal. Nazi Germany only had the initial advantage of being the aggressor and so had time to build defences. Together, with modern battle plans (blitzkrieg, better tanks, aircraft etc.,) they held that advantage for some two years. Then, reality bit. Even without the US entering the European theatre, German industrial might (which was not crushed by WW1 – it was the economy that suffered) was not sufficient to bring the war to a conclusion in Nazi Germany's favour. A reasonable regimen would have sued for peace. Even if the second front in Russia had not been opened. Stalin would just have let Europe exhaust itself in war, then walked in. There is no alternative history here where one can speculate what would have happened if Nazi Germany won the war. It was just not strong enough. It was ideology triumphing over the rational mind.--Aspro (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Germany was by far the leading industrial power in Europe (a larger population and greater industrial production than either Britain or France), especially by the 1930s, and in Word War II they had a promising strategy of neutralizing their strongest opponents to the west before turning on the Soviet Union to the east. Also, Germany had been arming and training their military heavily during the 1930s, while its opponents devoted limited resources to their militaries until they rushed to mobilize beginning in 1939. Of course, Germany did not count on the strength of the US-British alliance, the resilience of the Soviets, or the consequences of bringing the United States fully into the war. The difference with World War I was that in the earlier war, Germany had to fight on two fronts from the beginning and was never able to win control of France. By the time Russia dropped out of the conflict, Germany was seriously weakened and the United States had already come to the aid of the western allies. Also, prior to World War I, Germany had no great advantage over its western opponents in military preparation for the conflict. Marco polo (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

According to our Economy of Nazi Germany article, the Nazis had financed rearmament during the 1930s by "...creating a huge deficit and national debt reaching 38 billion mark in 1939". Once Hitler had started to occupy other people's countries in 1938, they were shamelessly plundered for the benefit of the Reich; besides what they could actually steal, the Nazis also manipulated the currencies of occupied territories for their own benefit, forced their companies to trade with Germany on very unfavourable terms and conscripted forced labour from them. "By 1944, slave labour made up one quarter of Germany's entire work force". Then there was The Holocaust which was immensely profitable; everything from the contents of Jewish people's bank accounts to the gold fillings in their teeth. Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that last comment is nonsense. The Holocaust may have been profitable for individuals, but on a state level it was a massive negative - it took a significant part of the population out of productive use, and wasted another part and additional infrastructure on the execution. It's like chewing your own hand off - sure, it gives temporary nourishment, but it's not an overall good thing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• One interesting thing I learned from reading William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich was that workers, many of whom did not own cars, were made to invest a significant portion of their wages into a plan to finance the eventual purchase of a Volkswagen. That capital was also diverted for industrialization and rearmament, with the cars not being delivered before the advent of war, at which time the promise could be broken as an emergency measure. Under single party rule a pragmatic military state not interested in property rights and consensus can build military roads and seize private businesses that don't comply with the government's edicts or help achieve its goals. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Similar weasels still say you can't own a Volkswagen without investing a significant portion of your wages into car insurance. But instead of losing your return in case of emergency, you lose it if you avoid emergency (or can't convince them you're innocent of it). It's like The Trial, except complicated. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, June 6, 2015 (UTC)

Another important factor here is that the British army was quite weak at the time. Take e.g. the way Japan was able to capture Singapore: "The commander of the Australian forces in Singapore later said: "The whole operation seems incredible: 550 miles in 55 days – forced back by a small Japanese army of only two divisions, riding stolen bicycles and without artillery support."". Count Iblis (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you all for these articulate answers. I hope they do satisfy the OP. They certainly satisfy me. One part of the OP's post was not addressed and it is puzzling me: many people who like to speculate on those things affirm (like the OP did) that "Germany would probably have won the war" if such and such a thing had happened. But they do not define a "German victory". What do they mean? That Germany would have managed to physically occupy the whole of the U.S., the U.S.S.R. and the British Empire? (This is what an allied victory meant for Germany, didn't it?) Probably not. So how do they usually define a German victory? Contact Basemetal here 13:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

They (Germany and whichever imaginary friends help) win when their enemies surrender or die, I figure, like how we generally figure the Allies won. What they take for prizes after that is secondary. Even had they not taken anything, they'd still have won, simply for being the last men standing. The freedom to do what you want is more valuable than doing what you want. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:19, June 7, 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hitler was fairly clear as to what his ambitions were, so it would be reasonable to treat "German victory" as something that satisfied those; the complete German control of the lands defined in Deutschland Uber Alles ("From the Meuse to the Memel, From the Adige to the Belt"), plus a German sphere of influence/occupation in European Russia, and US and UK recognition of these boundaries. Had the Allies not entered the war and Germany somehow defeated Russia, it's certainly possible to imagine the US, UK and France eventually grudgingly recognising a Fascist occupation of Eastern Europe as a fait accompli, in the same way they eventually recognised Mao's takeover of China once it became obvious he wasn't going to go away. – iridescent 16:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

InedibleHulk: Hitler wanted a 1000 year Reich, an empire which would be the greatest the world had ever seen. I am not sure if Hitler expected US intervention (and there is the whole structuralist v intentionalist argument), as without it, and a holding alliance with Russia, Britain was the only major European power fighting the Nazis. After the bombing of Guernica displayed the military prowess of the nation, aerial domination was a feasible objective. In response to the original question, disarmament was a big theme in the 1920s, as in the 'Roaring Twenties' people did not see the need for armies, which were inexperienced partly due to the fact that they ignored any crises which did occur brought to the League of Nations. 86.147.145.172 (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

What Hitler wanted in the actual timeline is not necessarily what alternate Hitler would want. The sort of plot twists necessary to change a world war's ending (whether they happen before or during the war) would also change a few military minds along the way, butterfly effect-style. No idea what those new ideas would be, so I decided to keep it simple, and just have him win when his opponents lose. The simple truth is often the boring truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:04, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

"Fight the entire world" isn't accurate. Note that Germany had lots of allies, too. Early on the Soviet Union helped them when they both attacked Poland. Then there was Austria, Italy, Japan, and many other smaller allies. And many others remaining neutral, like Switzerland, Spain, and many smaller nations.

Also, as far as winning, the US still would have the atomic bomb, and the Nazi's were far from it, so they would have gotten the same treatment as Japan. StuRat (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Adjacent countries with no diplomatic relations

The foreign relations section of Bhutan says that the country has no diplomatic relations with China (maybe the Chinese dislike Bhutanese passports?); they only negotiate via ad hoc diplomatic visits. Is this a common situation? How many pairs of countries exist in this situation? I'm excluding countries that have severed relations over disputes; I'm only interested in stuff where the relations simply don't exist, as opposed to where a dispute is a major reason for the countries actively not maintaining relations. Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Israel–Syria relations do not exist, apparently. (Not sure if that fits your criteria or not.) Other might be found in the Category Foreign relations by country but I haven't found a handy list. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

But that's quite an active conflict zone, where "a dispute is a major reason for the countries actively not maintaining relations". Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

According to WP Bhutan has diplomatic relations with 52 countries, so there must be many other countries, besides China, it has no diplomatic relations with. Similarly you would probably find (I haven't checked that) Papua-New Guinea or the smaller island nations of the Pacific maintain diplomatic relations with a small subset of the total number of countries. Embassies are expensive. Contact Basemetal here 13:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You should make it clear you are asking about adjacent countries. The section title does but not your actual question. Contact Basemetal here 13:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Bhutan–China relations have been historically tense. It's not like they just never met. Not sure if that counts as a "dispute", but "historically tense" is how I'd describe the Koreas, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:51, June 6, 2015 (UTC)

The Bhotanese wouldn't have too much to talk about. They don't a too many folks and they're a very small country, too. They are one of the few countries without any diplomats in the USA, and yet they get along with the US. 92.28.229.197 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's difficult to talk about no relations whatsoever, because normally some sort of dispute is in progress. See the case of North/South Korea; who claim to rule each other. China/Taiwan has the same problem. 92.28.229.197 (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

(1) Understood, but there's a big difference between "no relations with your neighbor" and "no relations with the big country on the other side of the world". (2) One speaks of "severing diplomatic relations" as a precursor to war, e.g. countries preparing to go into World War II, but they would still conduct informal or formal talks in neutral countries (e.g. Switzerland) without having restored relations. I'm talking about formal, official relations, whether an embassy in the other country's capital, or a legation in another major city, or whatever: a formal, permanent presence of some sort. I understand that disputes exist, but as far as I can tell, the lack of diplomatic relations between Peiping and Thimbu is unrelated to their disputes, and it's possible to have border disputes between countries that otherwise get along wonderfully. Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine had a new neighbour move in 16 years ago, and he still hasn't bothered learning her name, let alone open an embassy. Keeps calling her "Georgia". Maybe he truly doesn't recognize her anymore. Maybe more to do with spiting the old landlord. Those two talk more than friends do.

Same sorts of passive-aggressive relationship drama and non-drama with semi-fictional places, if you don't dispute those as countries. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

Robert's Rules of Order and Demeter's Manual: differences

What are the differences in procedure between these books? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.102.205 (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

See Robert's Rules of Order and Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have, they don't say what is the difference. see The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure for ane xample of what a comparison looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.102.205 (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

House of Lords carvings

Here's an obscure one. I was looking at the carvings on the royal canopy in the House of Lords chamber, and I noticed what seemed to be letters in the panels to the upper right and upper left of the royal coat of arms. My first thought is that they're "ER", but I don't see any crossbars for the E's. Is it maybe GR for William (Gulielmus) IV who was king when the previous chamber burned down in 1834? That seems like a bit of a stretch. So my questions are: what are those letters, and do they change them for every monarch? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

VR, for "Victoria Regina". – iridescent 19:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh okay, that makes sense. I was misinterpreting that little circly thing for a gap in the letter, so it didn't look like a V. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

They're in a style called uncial; also "U" and "V" are the same letter in Latin, but I agree that they're too fussy to be easily legible. The reredos in the House of Lords was designed by Augustus Pugin, so we know who to blame. Alansplodge (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Alansplodge, thanks for introducing me, at least, to the word reredos. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I had to introduce it to my spell checker too! Alansplodge (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

June 7

Quote about death for a eulogy or funeral memorial

Can anyone suggest a good quote about death ... something that would be appropriate for a eulogy or funeral memorial? Maybe something from Shakespeare, or from the Bible, or from some other source? If getting specific, the death of a parent or the death of one's mother. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course it would depend on the tone you wanted to set, but in general, I have always been partial to John Donne's "Death, be not proud", either in part or in whole. As for Bible verses, there are many, but again, context is important. If the decedent was an active Christian, I like Philippians 1:21-23 "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better." (KJV) or Isaiah 57:1-2 "The righteous perish, and no one ponders it in his heart; devout men are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil. Those who walk uprightly enter into peace; they find rest as they lie in death." (NIV) For general assurance/comfort/hope there's Job 19:25-25 "For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God" (KJV). Some people like 1 Corinthians 15:50-57. I heard this recently: "They say you die twice. One time when you stop breathing and a second time, a bit later on, when somebody says your name for the last time." used to encourage attendees to continue sharing memories and stories of the departed with loved ones even after the funeral.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 06:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Some of the above are included in the Anglican Funeral Sentences (BTW William Croft wrote a wonderful choral setting of these which are always used at British state funerals - the most moving music I've ever heard or ever will probably [1]). Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Here are a few things about mothers for funerals. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, June 7, 2015 (UTC)

Not at all Shakespearean or Biblical, but I like Joyce Grenfell's If I Should Go, which I would have liked to have read at my mother's funeral if I'd known about it at the time. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

As others have said, it all depends on the tone you want to set, and how you (and those present) want to remember the person - as religious, non-religious, fun-loving, well-read, etc etc. - or not. There are many, many, websites, with a huge variety of options. A couple of examples are here and here but there are many more. Some of us do this a lot. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the above suggestions. I will review them. I will clarify a few points. perhaps not clear in my original post. First, I would like to find a short quote ... perhaps one or two sentences long. Something (relatively) short that can fit on a prayer card or a memorial card (in other words, not an entire poem ... but just a line or two). Second, as far as tone: I really hadn't given that any thought. I just assumed (incorrectly) that the tone I had in mind would be the same tone that anyone would have in mind. So, my tone is: something along the lines of these themes: (1) how we often look at death as sad, but we really shouldn't do so; (2) death is not the "end", but rather the "beginning" of the deceased person's "new" life (in heaven); (3) a reflection of how much better our lives have been for having known this person, the deceased; (4) how life is so short and even, say, fifty years or eighty years can go by so fast; since life is so sort, to value every moment and appreciate what you have; (5) how death is a natural cycle, much like the cycle of a flower (or such); the circle of life. Things like that. Basically, the card would have a photo of the deceased, and I'd like to add a nice quote (one or two lines, not an entire poem) under the photo. My first preference was for something by Shakespeare or something from the Bible, but any appropriate quotation would do. If it matters, this would serve for a Roman Catholic faith family. I want the tone to be perhaps: serious, classy, elegant, thoughtful, insightful, religious, thought-provoking, somber, uplifting, hopeful, reflective, bittersweet, etc. Not fun-loving or cutesy or whimsical. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Some that were on our list for a similar personal occasion recently that might fit your numbers 2 and 3. And very sorry for the loss. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

2. Psalm 121:8 The Lord will keep your going out and your coming in from this time on and forevermore.

2. All Creatures of our God and King (paraphrase of Francis of Assisi’s Canticle of the Sun): And thou, most kind and gentle death, / waiting to hush our latest breath, / Thou leadest home the child of God, / and Christ our Lord the way hath trod.

3. The Parting Glass: Oh, all the comrades that e'er I had / They're sorry for my going away / And all the sweethearts that e'er I had / They'd wish me one more day to stay / But since it falls unto my lot / That I should rise and you should not / I'll gently rise and softly call / Good night and joy be with you all.

Thanks for your condolences. Much appreciated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• A slightly different approach, I did the readings in the Catholic funeral mass for my sister. From the New Testament I read the KJV 1 Corinthians 13 but changed the word charity to love, which is used more often in modern translations. One thing is that for the funeral mass you need the priest's dispensation to read the King James, since the Rheims-Douai Bible is the authorized Catholic version. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to take the whole poem, just because it's there. Common in cards and other media pressed for space to just snip a verse or two. As long you don't cut in the middle of a couplet, it should be fine. I mean, unless you'd really rather not, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:12, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Similar to a Shakespeare quote ... it would likely be one line snipped out of the entire play. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Though it's easier to skim and snip a given poem yourself. Shakespeare was a wordy guy. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:13, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

Yes. But death (and "life" in general) is such a universal topic, I am sure that Shakespeare had something to say about it, somewhere. Perhaps in a play? Perhaps in a sonnet? And I was digging around to see if anyone knew anything good. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I remember him saying something about a mortal coil, but it wasn't exactly uplifting. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

She always leaned to watch for us

Anxious if we were late,

In winter by the window,

In summer by the gate.

And though we mocked her tenderly

Who had such foolish care,

The long way home would seem more safe,

Because she waited there.

I like the way that one rhymes, but no pressure. Tastes are personal. Eight lines, but just a couple of sentences. Has a second part. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:52, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

More to what you asked for, here are William Shakespeare quotes about death, from WikiQuote. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:56, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

Looking for a quote

I remember someone making the claim that all humor is based on pain of one sort or another but I can't recall the exact quote nor who said it. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Dismas|^(talk) 09:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"Comedy Is Tragedy Plus Time". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die." Mel Brooks did that one. There've probably been a few. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:15, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

When did the age of majority become 21?

Actually, I'm not concerned so much with when it happened as how we decided on 21. 50.43.33.62 (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Which country are you talking about? Age of majority notes that different countries have different ages of majority, including a number with it set to 21. Different countries will have different reasons for setting their age of majority at the time they do. - Your IP geolocates to the US, so I'm guessing you're not talking about the "age of majority" (the point where one is considered an adult), which is 18 for much of the United States, but rather the age of license for consumption of alcoholic beverages, which is 21 for much of the United States. For the latter, Alcohol laws of the United States notes that in 1984 the US Federal government passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which withheld national transportation funds from states which did not have a drinking age set to at least 21. The reason for the age 21 is partly due to a return to earlier laws which had the drinking age set to 21. At the time of these earlier laws, prior to the 26th Amendment, the age of majority (or at least the voting age) in the US was 21. I'm unsure of why the age of majority was set to 21 in the early days of the United States. Perhaps someone else has more information. -- 162.238.240.55 (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

According to this site, "The concept that a person becomes a full adult at age 21 dates back centuries in English common law; 21 was the age at which a person could, among other things, vote and become a knight." There is a lot more information in this book, mentioning that the age 21 was considered significant back in the 13th century in England. The reason for choosing 21 rather than, say, 20, is obscure, but may be related to a Roman practice of dividing youth into periods of seven years (3x7=21). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

We have articles, Coming of age and Age of majority, which led me to Person_(canon_law)#Age_of_Majority which says: "The age of majority in the Catholic Church is 18,(ref)1983 Code of Canon Law, can. 97(ref) following the general consensus of Civil law, though, until Advent 1983,(ref)Ap. Const. Sacrae Disciplinae Leges(ref) the Age of Majority was 21,(ref)1917 Code of Canon Law, can. 88(ref) based on the age of majority according to Roman Law."

Since the early US legislators tended to follow English Common Law and England was a Catholic country awhile back before then, that seems to be a likely origin. Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Some contradiction to my previous post: Young People’s Human Rights and the Politics of Voting Age by Sonja C. Grover says, "Under Roman law, the basis of civil law in Europe, a person came of age or reached majority and acquired full civil and legal rights at age 25... Under English common law, men and women came of age at 21, which was regarded as the average age at which a person reached full maturity and discretion. English common law divided the twenty one years from birth to adulthood into three seven year periods: infancy, childhood and adolescence" (p. 21). This is a direct quote from Youth's Battle for the Ballot: A History of Voting Age in America by Wendell W. Cultice. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The Institutes of Roman Law by Rudloph Sohm, James Crawford Ledlie, Bernhard Erwin Grueber agrees: "The above-mentioned lex Plaetoria was the first to fix the limit of age at 25 years..." (p. 218). Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• See also defence of infancy and the Jesuit maxim, "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man." μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You can do a few things "normal minors" can't if you're emancipated. In America, aside from getting parental consent, it's the only way to be "Old enough to kill, but not for votin'" since 1971. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:26, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

Approximate number of STANAG magazines manufactured annually in the US

I'm trying to find the approximate number of STANAG magazines manufactured annually in the US. Alternatively, the total number of such magazines sold annually in the United States would also suffice as an approximation, since the import/export factor is essentially negligible due to ITAR restrictions. I found some excellent data[2][3][4] on the number of firearms manufactured, but can't seem to find any useful data regarding magazines. My other car is a cadr (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Handcuffing after shooting

Why do police in America handcuff suspects after they've been shot by an officer? 94.10.243.44 (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

See this article which explains the training they receive in the US. Nanonic (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Would this apply even if they weren't shot too? Are all suspects always handcuffed in the U.S. I know in some countries, they only handcuff if the officer determines that the suspect poses a risk to the safety of officers. 94.10.243.44 (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

At least based on TV shows, I think they're always handcuffed. Sometimes they also get a perp walk. 50.0.136.194 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

One of the reasons they have lawyer-negotiated voluntary surrender of wanted suspects/people for whom arrest warrants have been issued is that it may allow the suspect to walk into court without the stigma of being escorted handcuffed. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

International arbitration

Do we have an article on arbitration between nations, when two nations agree to refer their dispute to a world leader from a third country instead of settling it themselves? See, for example, the Pig War, a minor US-UK dispute that was arbitrated by the German Emperor. We have an international arbitration article, but it's all about commercial disputes involving international trade, where a company from one country gets into arbitration through another country's courts — not at all the same. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, most similar voluntary but binding arbitration nowadays over territorial disputes or similar matters happens somewhere like the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Since we don't seem to have an article covering this (it probably should be in international arbitration), I doubt we have an article covering the historic practice. Nil Einne (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I should perhaps clarify that I believe technically cases voluntarily take to the ICJ may still be considered court cases rather than arbitration. Also by voluntary but binding I mean where there was no existing agreement, nor any aspect of international law or anything else that requires them to settle it that way but where the state parties agree to do so and agree that they will be bound by the decision (though even with ICJ cases, enforcement is not easy if the party changes their mind albeit for many countries strong international pressure may result). Nil Einne (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

June 8

Herman Knaust

I'm looking for references that deal with Herman Knaust — mushroom farmer and founder of Iron Mountain Incorporated — in detail. Just trying to see if there is enough detail available to warrant an article. Hack (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Six results from the google newspaper archive [5] and most of them from wire services (so not just local paper stories) - that's one start. And at least that many google books hits [6], over quite a number of years. Skimming, I'm not seeing anything that focuses on the man rather than on the enterprise (but you might take a closer look, and there might be enough snippets to add up to something). 184.147.134.128 (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Trying to find a book

Hi, I'm trying to remember the name of a book I read an extract of a few months ago. I can't remember the name or author, but I remember the following:

• the writing style was notably unusual
• there was a reference to the radio saying it was 'going to be a scorcher' or similar wording
• the radio crackled
• there was a red postbox
• it was a fairly popular book at some time

I appreciate this is not much to go on, but any help is much appreciated. 86.147.145.172 (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry? Mikenorton (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, but thanks for looking. 86.147.145.172 (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I bet on Red Riding Nineteen Seventy Seven by David Peace. Brandmeister^talk 16:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that was brilliant! Best, 86.184.170.29 (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

1993 South African constitution

If the 1993 South African interim constitution was assented to by the State President in 1994, why is its short title "Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993"?Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It was promulgated in 1993 and assented to in 1994. Similarly the 1996 constitution was assented to in 1997. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Horekhof and Hakanb I

Horekhof returned only 5 google hits and nothing in Books, same as Hakanb I, still both are mentioned as Egyptian "kings" in The Cairo Post, for example. What are alternative transliterations of these names? The associated Labib Habachi article doesn't mention these guys either. Brandmeister^talk 16:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

My best guess is that it means Harkhuf and Heqaib. Both of them were buried at Aswan, but neither of them were kings. Given the other flaws in the article, an error of that magnitude seems possible. The article mangles its English (it says "fiancé" instead of "faience", for instance), and it says Habachi discovered the temple of "Hakanb" "in the beginning of the 20th century" instead of 1946. Habachi wasn't even an adult until the 1920s. A. Parrot (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

find article main authors

How do I find authors so I can contact them? Specifically for Richard St. Clair Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.1.202 (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles don't have authors as such; they have contributors. If you click the "View History" tab at the top of the page, you can see who the main contributors were. You may have to click back in time through several screens of history to see the full history of contributions. In the case of Richard St. Clair, the history shows that there was in fact one dominant contributor who comes close to being the author. This contributor, whose username is User:Shin02143, does not have a home page and has not been active since July of last year, so he or she may not be aware of an attempt to contact him or her through Wikipedia, though you could try his or her talk page. Users are allowed to contribute to Wikipedia anonymously, so we do not know the real identity of this person. Marco polo (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):If you click on the "View History" link at the top-right of any article, it will list all the edits to that article. However, there isn't an (easy) way of finding who's edited it the most. It appears that User:Shin02143 and the anonymous user:18.54.0.213 have been most active on it. LongHairedFop (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with clicking the Revision history statistics link at the top of that page? It brings up all kinds of data, including most frequent contributors (as here, scroll about halfway down). Matt Deres (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Reward for turning in a fugitive criminal

Recently, there were two convicts who escaped maximum security prison in New York. Subsequently, a reward was offered for information leading to their capture. This prompted a curious question on my part. (Not in this specific case, but in any case.) Can the criminal himself turn himself in and claim the reward? I wonder how that would work. Does anyone know? Or have there been similar cases? Just curious. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This person tried something similar [7] [8] although it doesn't say what happened. Of course in this case the reward was offered by a foreign government and it's unlikely the local courts will be particularly helpful in a civil case. Anyway on the more general question, in the US, in various states it's possible Son of Sam laws will apply depending on how broadly they are written. It's also possible Civil forfeiture in the United States could be used (as the money is arguably coming directly from the crime rather than indirectly) again depending on how the laws are written and intepreted. Of course the nature of the later laws means they can just be used and the person will have to sue to get their money back. Nil Einne (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Likely not. Given the amount of money often offered for rewards, I would guess that they have individual contracts or other legal forms for the person(s) claiming the reward to execute between them and the agency, which is likely written to specifically exclude the person(s) of interest. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 04:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you think there would be a contract to sign? To me, that doesn't make sense. The "condition" is to "hand over" the criminal. Once I "hand over" the criminal, I am entitled to the money. After I "hand over" the criminal, the agency cannot then create a lot of stipulations in a contract (i.e., after the fact, after they have gotten what they wanted). No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Who says you're entitled? There's always going to be "a process" to follow. And common sense would say that paying fugitives for turning themselves in would only encourage more escape attempts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your post at all. Yes, I would say that I am "entitled". That, too, is common sense. If the FBI says "we are offering a $100,000 reward if you help us locate this criminal" ... then, yes, common sense (and the law) dictates that I should get the $100,000 if I perform the required act (i.e., locate the criminal). Why would I not be entitled? And if I am not entitled, what's the point of the FBI offering this reward or any reward (i.e., if the person performing the required act fulfills that act and still is not entitled to the reward)? Yes, common sense would dictate that the police and FBI do not want the criminals themselves to get the reward money. Which is the whole point of my question. So, my question is basically asking: how do they "get around" that problem? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's only a problem if you make it one. Just because an entity offers a reward doesn't mean it's unconditional and immediate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If I stick a poster outside my house saying "Cleaner wanted. Will pay £10 / hour" you can't just turn up, break in, half-arsedly clean my house and then demand £10 / hour. The answer to your question is that a wanted poster is an advertisement, not the offering of a contract. Obviously I'm going to want to interview before I hire my cleaner and obviously the FBI's advertisement does not extend to the criminal. --87.224.68.42 (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: and @87.224.68.42: You are both saying things that are obvious and, yet, not answering my question. Also, how is it "obvious" that the FBI's advertisement does not extend to the criminal? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What would lead you to think it would? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point of my question, again. I won't be repeating my question, again, though. Thanks, though. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you are being deliberately obtuse. It is common sense that you aren't going to reward the criminal for turning himself in. You sound like the sort of person who thinks they are clever for going up to someone holding a tray of free sample biscuits with a sign saying "Please Help Yourself", and grabbing the lot, then feigning confusion when people say you can't do that. --87.224.68.42 (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This assumes that there are criminals able to escape, but not currently interested, because of a lack of a cash reward for doing so. As for reasons to pay them to turn themselves in, there's public safety and the low cost of the reward relative to the cost of a manhunt. If the criminals are in prison for life or on death row, there's not much concern that they will personally benefit, either. Presumably their relatives will. StuRat (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Corocotta apparently did. Paul B (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

June 9

FEMINIST CRITICISM

WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK TITLED,"MADNESS AND SEXUAL POLITICS IN THE FEMINIST NOVEL" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.35.143 (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Barbara Hill Rigney. There's a thing called google books [9]. Paul B (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, PLEASE DON'T SHOUT! Writing in all caps on the internet is the equivalent of shouting. Many consider this rude if it is unwarranted. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 10:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Flight security

Why don't many other countries apart from the USA implement TSA style agencies and Air Marshal programmes instead of using private security contractors? Surely law enforcement officers with full powers such as those in TSA are the best way to keep the air industry safe worldwide. 94.10.243.44 (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, not everyone agrees that the TSA is doing all that good of a job. Dismas|^(talk) 12:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

TSA staff (TSOs/TSIs/BDOs) are not law enforcement officers and do not have the power of arrest. They can (and do) detain passengers by taking them for 'further screening' but any actual arrests are made by proper law enforcement agencies. Most countries instead use Customs Officer or some form of Border Guard which are official law enforcement officers instead of employing a large pool of TSA-style nightclub bouncers. Sky marshals are used in many countries around the world. Nanonic (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the TSA has outsourced screening to private security contractors for some US airports as part of the Screening Partnership Program (list of airports/companies). Nanonic (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it's useless security theater? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

See El Al#Security for how to do airport/airplane security properly. The Israelis have been under constant threat of terrorist attacks on their planes for decades now, and have effectively countered the threat. The US, on the other hand, pays minimum wage to TSA agents and avoids profiling, resulting in a 95% failure rate when they are tested. That's the example of how NOT to do it. StuRat (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Apple pay

Is Apple pay ever likely to take off in the U.S. And UK? Nfc has been available in both countries for a while but use seems to be low. The U.S. Still sign for card whereas the UK have been using chip and pin for a while now. 82.132.238.102 (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL - Nobody knows for sure, and we are not supposed to provide speculation and opinions here. That being said, your question is reasonable and common, you might enjoy reading these articles on the topic [10] [11]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

June 10

International Heraldry Day

...is today. I can't find any information on it at Wikipedia. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.2.111.253 (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Simply because no-one has thought to add any information, which may in turn be because it is not notable enough for its own article. If you're interested in heraldry, though, you may want to contact the folks over at WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. --Viennese Waltz 07:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

We have an article on the International Association of Amateur Heralds, the organization who have declared today to be "International Heraldry Day". This is probably the appropriate article to contain any information about the day that can be reliably sourced. Tevildo (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Bordenkircher v. Hayes final outcome

Does anyone know the final outcome of the defendant in the Supreme Court case of Bordenkircher v. Hayes? It was a classic case of prosecutorial vindictiveness where a guy got life in prison for a bad check. Seems like he'd be a perfect candidate for a governor's pardon at the very least, but I can't seem to find out what eventually happened to the guy. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 13:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As of 2013, Hayes was still serving his life sentence in a Kentucky prison, see Carolyn Boyes-Watson, Crime and Justice: Learning through Cases 391 (2013). He is not shown as an inmate currently, at least through the Kentucky inmate locator website. Whether he was released or died is unknown, but he was not pardoned. I doubt very seriously that a governor would consider issuing a pardon for a three-time felon. GregJackP Boomer! 15:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking more a commuted sentence than a full pardon. Considering rapists and killers can go free within a generation, that certainly seems reasonable for a bad-check writer - three times or not. But that's my opinion. Wknight94 ^talk 03:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Source sought for an Egyptian painting or drawing

I'm looking for an Egyptian painting or drawing I once saw. It depicted the encounter of Egyptian sailors with some indigenous African people. There was text supposedly spoken by the Africans (cartoon-like but w/o the bubble obviously) addressed to the Egyptians: "Have you fallen from the moon?" Contact Basemetal here 13:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are referring to Ancient Egyptians - or are you referring to post-medieval Arab exploration of central and southern Africa? Ancient Egyptians were "indigenous African people", though they visually distinguished themselves from darker-skinned Africans from Nubia and beyond. These images are very common in art of the 18th dynasty (age of Akhenaten; Tutankhamun etc). See Book of Gates. I can't imagine why 'negroid' Africans would think Egyptians came from the moon. It sounds like a misinterpretation of part of the litany concerning the movements of the sun and moon in the Book of Gates and other texts. There is a picture of egyptians receiving a delegation from the Queen of Punt who looks like this. She appears to be seriously overweight and is rather caricatured. Paul B (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Ancient Egyptians. Contact Basemetal here 15:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a 'new age' notion that "Khemennu", a term for part of Egypt, means "land of the moon". It crops up in New Age books like The woman's encyclopedia of myths and secrets: "Upper [southern] Egypt once belonged exclusively to the lunar Goddess. It was called Khemennu, 'Land of the Moon'." Serious literature on Egypt does not seem to support this claim. It may come from some older speculation which has found its way into New Age stuff. I can well imagine that an image of Egyptians interacting with Nubians could have been printed in some New Age book with a caption in which they ask "are you from the land of the moon". But that's just a guess. Paul B (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The book I saw this in had nothing to do with New Age. It was a serious book about the history of writing. It was published to coincide with a large exhibition about the history of writing somewhere in Paris maybe in the 1980s. I saw that painting while going through the book while browsing thru a public library. Since no one seems to be able to help me I'll try and drop by that place (where I haven't been for at least 15 years, roughly since I got broadband which means I hardly remember what a book is) and try to find that darn book. I hope they haven't moved things around too much. I was intrigued by that painting or drawing (1) because of the humor and (2) because it was probably among the earliest examples I've seen of people trying to get into the heads of members of another culture to try and guess how they appear to them. Now I'll have to go and find that book if only to prove I have not and never have had anything to do with New Age. Contact Basemetal here 13:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Bathing and privacy in 18th Century?

I remember reading that in the 18th century, upper-class people might receive guests while they were in the bathtub. Can anyone cite works that would back this up? (I'm not asking about other activities we might think of as private or intimate--but specifically bathing.) Thanks. Herbivore (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Death of Marat comes to mind, though Jean-Paul Marat was not a member of the upper class (although he had had a successful career as a court physician), and his bath was not a normal one, but a long, daily, medicinal soaking to treat his skin disease. Still, I've always found his meeting with Charlotte Corday while bathing to be somewhat scandalous, though I don't know if it has been received that way elsewhere. -- ToE 18:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the article fr:Us et coutumes à la cour de Versailles, King Louis XIV of France did receive visitors during his daily baths at Versailles, although the sourcing is weak. This more detailed article about court hygiene [12] mentions receiving visitors while doing his business (to use a euphemism), but not while taking a bath. --Xuxl (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

For a twentieth century equivalent, see Mr. Churchill's Baths. Alansplodge (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

One odd fact of history is that the rich and powerful often had less privacy. Take the groom of the stool for example. They seemed to regard servants approximately like we think of pets, in that it didn't matter if they saw you naked. So, having servants around as they bathe would be no big deal (although perhaps they would avoid the opposite gender). But for those of their own social standing, more modesty might well have applied. StuRat (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Soul(s)

Hello, I've been advised to bring this [13] here. The link will give an understanding of the question below

Q: Buddha, assuming he knew he was 'liberated', before death. Having this in mind, what/how can I classify a person who's not just 'non-liberated' but also following their destiny/going straight to Hell for eternity?

Space Ghost (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Using the terminology of what religion? As was pointed out at WP:RDL#Soul(s), in Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism -- where your liberated vs non-liberated terminology is used -- there is not a concept of eternal damnation. -- ToE 18:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Chinese female names in antiquity

Why hasn't many given names of female in Chinese history not survived? Was it normal for women not to have given names (during the Warring States Period and the Han Dynasty) and only were known by their surnames or have their given names just not survived in historical records? There are cases of famous females from this period whose full names have survived like Empress Lu Zhi and etc.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

June 11

Phạm Đình Nguyên, citizien of PhinDeli Town Buford, Wyoming

Could you tell me something about this rich man? Why had he bought this City for 900.000 in Ebay and why is he living alone there? And did he become an owner of a greencard, as he bought the whole City including the Post, the area code and the Gas station - or was he already born in the USA ?--185.51.85.16 (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You can read all the details in the article's various sources that are cited at the end of the article. This one, for example, explains that it was bought at an auction held in the town (not on eBay) after the aging previous owner decided to move closer to relatives. Mr. Nguyen is a Vietnamese national; he lives in Vietnam. He isn't living in the 10-acre town he bought. The town's current sole resident is a caretaker hired to run the gas station/coffee shop/convenience store. That business is the reason Mr. Nguyen purchased the town: to serve as a U.S. outlet for the startup Vietnamese coffee brand "PhinDeli".--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Does it mean this vietnamese has no greencard and is not the mayor of this town? is there even a mayor ? --185.51.85.16 (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Extremely small towns often have no real "city" government, maybe just a symbolic or ceremonial government, with the county government being the "real" government. Like the town in Minnesota that had a 5-year-old mayor recently. The article claims the town has 1 resident. Have you checked their website to see what they have to say about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Are any of the modern Egyptians descended from the ancients?

Just wondering. 02:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluestarcanada (talk • contribs)

Certainly. If you think about it, the only way to avoid it would be if the ancient Egyptians were totally exterminated at some point, since some interbreeding with any new ethnic group is inevitable. That rarely happens. StuRat (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Population history of Egypt and DNA history of Egypt cover this subject, though not as well as they should. There's also this DNA study. It says that in the wake of the Muslim conquest of Egypt "[t]here was no wholesale population replacement. This is not especially surprising because there is no evidence that the earliest Arabic-speakers, who came as teachers of Islam, intended to replace the indigenous populations biologically" and "…current inhabitants of the Nile valley should be understood as being in the main, although not wholly, descendants of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants, although this apparently varies by geography" (both on page 227). In other words, modern Egyptians are mostly descended from ancient Egyptians, although some of their DNA comes from people, like the Arabs, that have moved into Egypt since ancient times.

Incidentally, modern Egyptians are sometimes considered Arabs because they speak Arabic and have a lot of their culture in common with other parts of the Arab world. But many of them think of themselves as Egyptians and not Arabs; see Egyptians#Identity. A. Parrot (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

See also this recent discussion. Alansplodge (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

World Life Expectancy

What was the life expectancy of the world in 1850, 1900, 1950 and 2000?

Nineguy (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the life expectancy of the world"? Human beings have life expectancies, planets don't; and they vary depending on a bunch of demographic and socio-ethnic factors. The LE of a 25-year-old US Marine is somewhat different from that of a 25-year-old Ethiopian peasant. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that Jack is familiar with the term 'average', but it's a fairly common word. Back to primary school, Jack! In any case, I can't answer the question. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 07:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

He asked this question on the Misc desk also. These questions (whether or not answerable) should be merged into one location. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

According to this page global average life expectacy was 30 in 1870, 34 in 1913, 48 in 1950, 60 in 1973, 67 in 2001. We're talking about life expectancy at birth I think but we're being a bit sloppy. Contact Basemetal here 11:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Friend

Can somebody help me find out which volume of The Friend this snippet is from. It is from a google book combining three volumes Volumes 103-105, but I want to know the exact volume of the page/article in question. So I can create a proper citation.

• Luquiens, Huc-Mazelet (February, 1933). "Engraving at Lahainaluna". The Friend: 35–39. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Portugal in WW1

Why was Portugal involved in WW1? I'm playing a wargame called Commander: The Great War, and I've got Portuguese soldiers on the Western Front. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 11:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A good place to start would be out article on Portugal during World War I. WegianWarrior (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

And then Anglo-Portuguese Alliance. Alansplodge (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Not to discourage you from looking at those articles but I would guess it had little to do in fact with the Anglo-Portuguese alliance, except maybe formally. I would rather guess the Portuguese were eyeing some of the German colonies in Africa. The same reason Japan entered the war against Germany because of the German colonies in the Pacific. In the event the Portugues got very little of them. Even Belgium got more of them. I guess the Portuguese were being naive. They were not going to repeat that mistake in WWII (note: despite the Anglo-Portuguese alliance) and by then there were no longer any German colonies. Contact Basemetal here 13:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)