Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

July 17

In-store USPS

Throughout US history, lots of post offices have been operated in people's stores or houses; they just ran the post office as an adjunct to what they were already doing. Some of these still exist, e.g. the postal counter in the store shown at File:I.O.O.F. Building in Stinesville.jpg. Nowadays, they're calling these "village post offices", but apparently they started doing them in 2011. Is there a specific term for pre-2011 in-store or in-house post offices, and do we have an article on it? Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, at least, if run under a contract, and not by employees of the Post Office, they were (and are) called "sub-post offices". Rojomoke (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the US there are many stores that offer some postal services, like selling stamps and collecting mail, which they then drop off at a mail box or post office, but do nothing else. I'm not sure how they fit in. StuRat (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat emptor, a lot of local private stores that sell USPS postage do so at outrageously marked-up rates, which they do not necessarily make clear to the customer. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a different situation: I'm meaning official post offices (PO boxes, an official postmaster, etc.) located inside businesses, in particular before 2011. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Nyttend says, this was an extremely common arrangement in the 19th and early 20th centuries, being essentially the standard setup in small towns. If you Google "post office and general store," you will see a number of examples. I do not know of any special term for it though. John M Baker (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking the USPS, or alternatively, the National Postal Museum? --174.88.133.35 (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Green Acres/Petticoat Junction, Sam Drucker owned the general store and was also the postmaster (along with many other positions). I don't know if that situation really existed or is purely fictional. StuRat (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend:, the historic term is "contract station" or "rural station"; generically, "Community Post Office." Also, "substation" (1895 to 1902) (The contemporary term is contract postal unit (CPU)).

I hope you'll add this to the USPS article and, if making new article, I would suggest Community Post Office, with redirects for the terms above. See Glossary, p. 6.

Historian, United States Postal Service (January 2006). "Stations and Branches" (PDF). USPS.com. Retrieved 18 July 2015. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= is malformed: flag (help) -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, the post office in Ripton, Vermont is still run out of the back of the general store. It's been a number of years since I was actually in the store though, so things may have changed. If you call them, they should be able to tell you what they call themselves. And until about 5 years ago, the post office in Monkton, Vermont was run out of the back of a resident's garage. It has since moved to an office built off the side of the volunteer fire department. That building is on private property owned by a local farmer. So, they might have a name for it similar to that of Ripton. I don't know about Ripton but I do know that the zip code (postal code) for Monkton only extends as far as the walls of the building. There are PO boxes but they don't offer any delivery. That is handled by the surrounding towns that do have delivery. Dismas|^(talk) 17:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several contemporary variants, all distinct: CPU, CPO, and VPO. Good background article:

Hutkins, Steve (January 29, 2012). "Contract post offices, closing faster than they open". Save the Post Office. Archived from the original on December 9, 2014. Retrieved 18 July 2015. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Nuclear Agreement

I am trying to go back to old news reports, but didn't find the answer. Why did the WH pursue a nuclear agreement with Iran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3304:CD0:192A:5075:5624:9159 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wordy-titled article Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action may help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon

Hi. I'm looking for help in writing Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon‎. I was born many years after the event, but from what i can gather, the Ratcliffe-Gordon disappearance is second only to the Beaumont children disappearance for South Australians and ranks alongside the Beaumonts and the Disappearance of Eloise Worledge for Australian child crime history.

I'm having trouble finding sources. Of course, most online newspaper archives only go back to the 1990s or late 1980s and even then there are gaps. God only knows who currently holds the copyright for The News (Adelaide), Adelaide's old afternoon newspaper.

Can anyone here help me? Paul Austin (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a start, type this into google: kirste gordon site:news.google.com/newspapers All the first page of results look contemporary, though I don't know if the newspapers found are Australian. 184.147.131.217 (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The National Library of Australia's "Trove" website may also be useful for past Australian newspapers.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

Oceanian turbans

How common was wearing turbans in the islands of the Pacific in Oceania? I am wondering if the turban worn by Seru Epenisa Cakobau in this portrait was a native or an introduced/European influenced type of fashion. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mention here of "a turban-like headdress made of masi which was a prerogative of chiefs". Searching for masi and turban brings up a couple more references,[1] [2] it seems very likely an indigenous Fijian garment. 184.147.131.217 (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they were influenced by anyone, I'd think it would be Sihks or some Muslims, who also wear turbans. Muslim influence did spread fairly near Fiji, to Indonesia, for example (much closer than Europe, in any case). StuRat (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turbans have existed thousands of years in the Middle East and other part of the world even in Renaissance Europe before the Muslims or Sikhs came along. --2602:30A:C0A8:AC10:289F:BEBC:6382:F3C7 (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they were less common in pre-Muslim Europe, and much farther away from the Fiji chief in both space and time, making any influence from there less likely. StuRat (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the Muslims copied the turban from the Byzantine Empire (and Constantinople is in Europe). Alansplodge (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the Byzantine Empire fell in 1453, and the Fiji chief in question was born in 1815, making any direct influence from the Byzantines unlikely. StuRat (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: maybe indirectly though. Alansplodge (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If turbans weren't a native innovation, it is most likely a fashion adopted from South Asian maritime trading contacts or, a little later on, from Lascars who deserted European vessels. The sandalwood trade was just one enterprise that historically brought many ships from India to the area.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the leads. I think from the things I was able to find online that, which I used to create I-sala, it was most likely a native custom that merely resembles the turbans of Asia. It turns out that it was more of a hairscarf and the turban shape is from the hair of the wearer and not from wrapping in the shape of a normal turban. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a US senator who represent two countries?

Not at the same time, of course. 149.78.124.20 (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "countries" I assume you mean states? See Category:Members of Congress who served in multiple states for the full list of Senators and Representatives - note that some people on the list have served as Representative for one state and Senator for another. James Shields is the only senator to have represented three states (Illinois, Missouri and Minnesota). Tevildo (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only other person to have represented two states as Senator (rather than Senator and Representative) is Waitman T. Willey (Virginia and West Virginia). Tevildo (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not assume that. "States" can mean either, but "countries" only means nations. StuRat (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the language in the Title of Nobility Clause would prevent a US Senator from holding an office in a foreign country. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does. The President must be a "natural born" citizen, but not Senators, AFAIK. Thus, somebody with dual citizenship could possible serve in both nations at the same time. There are restrictions on Senators accepting cash from foreigners, though, so financing a campaign abroad could be tricky. If they were rich and could self-finance, that issue would be eliminated. Then there would be charges of "dual loyalties" made by their opponents in each nation, but those would be less of an issue if the two nations were close allies. Of course, no restrictions in place in the US would keep an ex-Senator from moving to another country and then seeking office there. StuRat (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see several ways around that:

1) It doesn't apply to an ex-Senator.

2) It doesn't apply to somebody running for Senate who formerly held a foreign office.

3) It's unclear whether it applies to somebody currently holding a foreign office who then runs for US Senator. It could be interpreted to not allow them to accept the offer while they are a US Senator. (If the concern was that the offer of a foreign office could be used to reward a US Senator for a given vote, that wouldn't work if they already had it when elected in the US. Case 1 would still be a concern, but then US Senators voting in favor of some bill and then getting rewarded with a lucrative job at the company that benefited from that vote, as soon as they leave office, is a far more severe problem.)

4) Congress can give their consent, in any case. As I already mentioned, for purely political reasons the two nations would need to be close allies anyway, so consent from Congress might not be that difficult to get (although partisan politics might get in the way). StuRat (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We may mention in passing Oliver Wallop, 8th Earl of Portsmouth, who had been a legislator in Wyoming before he succeeded to the peerage; and John W. Geary, who was San Francisco's last alcalde and first mayor, governor of Kansas Territory, and governor of Pennsylvania. —Tamfang (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget the Republic of Texas... there were several early US Senators from Texas who had served in various posts in the Texas government prior to Texas becoming a State. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the Confederate States of America formed its provisional congress at the outset of the Civil War, one of its members was John Hemphill, who had been a U.S. senator. I don't know if he was the only one (I only noticed him by seeing the disambiguator "(senator)" on this page), and I don't know if any former US senators were members of the CSA's later, elected congresses. Of course, since the US won the war, the de jure status of the CSA is that it was never a real country and doesn't count anyway. --174.88.133.35 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Davis, before becoming President of the CSA, was a senator from Mississippi (and also a House representative from Mississippi and Pierce's Secretary of War).--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CSA was not an actual nation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's arguments to be made in both directions on that. Let's just say it's not clearly one side or the other. --Jayron 32 04:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No nation considered the CSA to be a separate country. They had no more legitimacy as a nation than did Sealand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, the CSA did have informal relationships with France and Britain. Napoleon III was sympathetic to their cause, but pragmatically avoided formal recognition because they were never really viable. There's some speculation that Trent Affair could have caused Britain to formally support the Confederacy as well. --Jayron 32 06:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't the place to argue this, but, in brief, whether any other country considered the CSA to be a separate country is irrelevant in determining its status as a nation per se. Take a Poli Sci 101 class and it will be clear that all of Bugs' arguments are against its legitimacy (i.e. its relationship to other nations), not its status as a nation. All that's required for a nation state is that there be an "identification of a people with a polity" -- in this case a polity that happened to have its own constitutional framework, an elected government, well-defined borders, armed forces to protect said borders, printed and used its own currency, etc. You can argue against its de jure legitimacy, but not its de facto status and operation as a sovereign nation (however short-lived) during the war.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 07:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CSA pretended to be a nation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As sovereign states customarily do. —Tamfang (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Ward served in the Texas House of Representatives (when it was an independent country) and later as a U.S. Senator, so that's close. --Jayron 32 03:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Claiborne Clay served in the Senates of both the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. There may be more, a good place to research this would be at List of members of the Confederate Senate. --Jayron 32 03:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which side is whose?

In the Middle East the old bipolar alliances are clearly dead. Old enemies the US," Iran, and Syria each oppose ISIS. Sunnis and Shias are generally at each other's throats. President Obame has declared "daylight" between the US and Israel, after decades of very close cooperation.

Can anybody make sense of the current lineups? How many conflicts are there, and which countries are on each side? --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complex task, but let's take a shot at it:

Palestinian conflict: Israel on one side, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Iran, Syria (the remaining area controlled by Bashar al-Assad) on the other. The US supports Israel politically and financially, but not with direct military intervention. Egypt is an interesting case, where the military government now in control (and formerly in control before the Arab Spring) opposes the Palestinian militants, while the recent Muslim Brotherhood government supported them. Most other Middle Eastern and EU nations stay somewhat neutral.

Syrian Civil War: a 3-way conflict here, with Assad and his supporters (including Iran) on one side, the US, Kurds, and some small remaining rebel groups on another, and ISIL on the other. Turkey is trying to remain neutral.

Iraqi insurgency: Similar to the Syrian Civil War, except Assad isn't involved and the Iraqi military is, allied with the US, although some Iraqi militias are under Iranian control.

Yemeni Civil War: Saudi Arabia is on the side of the old Yemeni government (what little is left of it), while Iran is supporting the rebels. The US has so far avoided this one. ISIL/ISIS has even fought against Al-Qaeda in Yemen. So, this is like a 4-way civil war.

There are also conflicts in Afghanistan, North Africa, etc., but I tried to narrowly define "Middle East" to avoid talking about those. One key to understanding the current situation is that the secular vs. fundamentalist division has now become as important as which sect/religion people are in. So, just being in the same sect and religion no longer guarantees that two groups will be allies, as was the case with recent fighting between Hamas and the Fatah, while secular people can cooperate even if they are of different religions, like the Israeli government and current Egyptian government. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it is more complex, and I think StuRat's description doesn't capture very well how Palestine issue and the Israeli role links to the regional confrontations.

There are several layers of conflict, that correlate with each other. What needs to be stated is that different actors have primary and secondary antagonists. Iran and Saudi are competing for regional influence across the region, a mini Cold War of sorts. This confrontation is largely fought along Sunni-Shia lines, but it would be wrong to say that the confrontation in based upon sectarian contradictions. Rather Sunni-Shia sectarianism is an instrumentalization of a regional power game. Notably for Iran the sectarianization of regional power struggle has meant that it has had to retreat from its past ambitions to become a leading pan-Islamic force (an ambition that peaked with the 2006 Lebanon War).

Israel pitches Iran to be its primary opponent, but doesn't mean that Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies per se. Pitching itself against Iran is important for Israeli leaders in order to plead for US politicians to fund their military, it is a semantic game to portray one-self as the underdog.

In regards to Syria, Israel has exclusively hit Hezbollah/regime targets, even at times that Hezbollah battles with al-Qaeda affiliate Nusra Front. Stating that Israel and Nusra are allies would be a stretch, but evidently Israel prefers having Nusra on the Golan than Hezbollah.

All Palestinians inside Palestine are united against the Israeli occupation, there isn't any political space for collaborationist projects. Contradictions between Palestinian parties is a secondary contradiction. The Palestinians have tried to stay out of regional conflicts, but economic dependency on either Gulf states, Western states or Iran complicates that. --Soman (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "All Palestinians inside Palestine are united against the Israeli occupation", that wouldn't seem to apply to Arabs with Israeli citizenship. (I am defining "Palestine" to include Israel, as most Palestinians do.) StuRat (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that quote were literally true, it would indicate that peace-loving Palestinians are afraid to speak up, for fear of being killed by their beneficent leaders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One can be peacefully against an occupation. Typically not very effective, but popular for everyone's natural instinct against being killed by anyone. Si vis pacem, para bellum isn't as catchy as kumbaya. Despite the picture in American news, the majority of the opposition goes forward by not fighting fire with fire. Doing so is virtually a sure loss, and the violence is the thing they oppose, not the occupation, per se. Good intentions, which still pave the road to hell. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, July 19, 2015 (UTC)

"For those who have never lived in a system of violence like the Israeli occupation, it is hard to understand how simply not going anywhere constitutes resistance, but when the objective of your oppressor is to get you to leave your land, staying put is part of the daily struggle. In this sense, every Palestinian living under the Israeli occupation is a nonviolent resister." InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, July 19, 2015 (UTC)

I dispute that "all Palestinians inside Palestine are united against the Israeli occupation, there isn't any political space for collaborationist projects". Plenty of Palestinians would be happy to move to Israel if they had the chance. Or for Israel and the West Bank to unite into a "bi-national" state. Abu Mazen runs on a relatively moderate (or at least pragmatic) platform, and he's mainstream. And when it comes to non-political practical collaboration with Israel, be it civil administration, military, or commercial, believe me, thousands of Palestinians are involved in such activities. They don't usually feel safe boasting about it, though. Nuance and moderation are not unheard of in the West Bank. The compactness of the Gaza Strip on the other hand, pretty much forces everyone into the same cauldron, ergo a lot less nuance. 110.149.165.69 (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think someone should refer the OP the the USA's long-term strategy: Balance of power (international relations). The US remains the biggest guy in the room by ensuring that everybody else is worrying about each other, and cancelling each other out, so no regional hegemon arises. Ergo, The US can and does shift alliances to help maintain this supposed "balance". That's the theory, at least. 110.149.165.69 (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal level many Palestinians are coerced into collaboration. Sometimes for money, sometimes to secure medical treatment for a family member. This reality is very much part of the Palestinian collective tragedy. But as a political project, collaborationism would be a dead-end. Fatah, albeit heavily entrenched in coordinations with Israeli authorities, maintains a nationalist posture. --Soman (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Syrian Conflict is far more complex as our article describes. You left out Hezbollah, the Khurds, Iran, etc. and al Qaeda versus ISIL among other belligerents. Rmhermen (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Good afternoon!

On the Wikipedia page for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (top, right hand side) it has his birth name as:

Born	Michael King, Jr.

January 15, 1929 Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.

Is this correct?

Thank You,

boyd schenck2601:242:8201:16F0:CD78:FE57:BC1B:4B67 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post. In the "early life and education" section the birth name is mentioned with a link to this website as a reference so the line in the infobox is correct. MarnetteD|Talk 19:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though King's father said Martin was never supposed to be named Michael, but the doctor made an incorrect assumption and "Michael" ended up on the birth certificate. But yeah, the definition of "birth name" seems to be "whatever the doctor wrote on the paper", rather than "what the family intended and actually used". He was apparently never called "Michael". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:242:8201:16F0:CD78:FE57:BC1B:4B67 (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Myth that Banks create money out of nothing

not a forum

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

There is a myth that banks create money out of nothing when they give/approve a loan to a borrower. This is not true. Banks do not create money out of nothing. Banks create loans out of nothing. When the loan goes bad, it becomes bad debt and it is cancelled by removing it from the ledger and REDUCING the bank's shareholder equity. In other words, the amount of VALUE the bank's shareholder has, has been REDUCED by the amount of bad debt. In other words, the bank took the VALUE from it's shareholder and gave it to the borrower. This is not creating money out of nothing, it is transferring money belonging to the bank's shareholder and giving it to the borrower. 220.239.43.253 (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines at the top of the page. This desk if for requesting links to relevant articles or references and related subjects. It is not a place to make or engage in arguments. μηδείς (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

Aye, wir aw Jock Tamson's bairns

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

Why are bad things considered "good" by those that oppose them?

Can someone tell me why things that are traditionally considered bad (racism, fascism, rape, supplanting native populations, mass murder, etc) are considered good when flipped/reversed (affirmative action, Islam, male prison rape, multiculturalism, feminist advocated male genocide)? It seems that those on the "hard left" of the political spectrum take all the things they claim to hate and then advocate those things to be applied against their ideological enemies. Have I misunderstood something? Schlicks2animegrills (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted.

Missing from your question are specific examples. Can you flesh out even one case in which one extreme corresponds to another extreme? I think these would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. You might as well start with one case. In my opinion any generalized response to your inquiry would be almost nonproductive. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The one case that rings true is racism versus Affirmative Action. That's just counter-discrimination. One advocate claimed it's OK because it discriminates "for" someone, as opposed to "against" them. However, when you discriminate for anyone, you automatically discriminate against everyone else. Better to just enforce anti-discrimination laws, IMHO. StuRat (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. The theory behind affirmative action is that there are more candidates than there are positions. Without affirmative action, an organization would be free to select by race, thus leaving out equally qualified candidates of another race. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be racial discrimination, which is illegal. Selecting candidates based on stats alone, with no pictures, names (like Lakeshia Jackson), or interviews, would be one way to eliminate racial bias in hiring. I also reject the idea that there are equally qualified candidates. Whatever you are ranking people on, you can always add more precision, to enable you to distinguish between candidates. For example, SAT scores range from 600 to 2400, so you aren't likely to get many candidates with exactly the same score. StuRat (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it now usual to conflate "affirmative action" with non-discrimination? As I understand the term, AA means going beyond passive non-discrimination to, for example, advertising aimed at the disadvantaged. —Tamfang (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The old way was "take care of the white guys first and see if anything's left over." Under affirmative action, it's fairer overall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's core premise is highly flawed. Every one of the so-called "opposites" are not opposites, and the notion that left embraces the second list is baloney. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least for the case of "affirmative action" (or "positive discrimination" outside the US), the article privilege (social inequality), and other articles linked from there, should give some of the answers. For advocates of the approach, its undesirable attributes are outweighed by larger considerations. The OP's dichotomy of "good"and "bad" is too simple to be of any value in the discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a look at the "War of Words" (I prefer "Dictionary Dance-off") between Republicans and Democrats. Did you know the opposite of life is choice? Me neither.

Even generally, you never want your opponent to sound good, when you and your opponent's power depends on who likes who. If it's one-on-one, best to go with accentuating his/her positives. That way, if you win, you beat someone formidable, and if you lose, you didn't get beat by a schmuck. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

Considering the username and that this is their first edit, congrats folks, you got trolled. --Golbez (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is implied by the username? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"schlick" is the female equivalent to the male "fap". --Golbez (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or the opposite. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what "fap" means either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? (Is it younger generations slang?) It means to wank. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As in wanker, the British insult. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The old five knuckle shuffle. Badgering the witness. Playing the mutton trombone, and so forth. Like checking for squirrels or kneading the whisker biscuit, but the other way around. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the user's name makes total sense now. So, should this entire section be zapped? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do American atheists hold funerals?

I am just wondering, because I've read obituaries and watched movies and noticed that dead people have a funeral service in a church. It makes me wonder whether American atheists have a funeral at all. Although Christian-raised atheists may have Christian families who may bury them or cremate them, what about people whose families have never been Christian? I have heard that most cemeteries are owned by churches, so does that mean non-Christians have to be buried in their own backyard or cremated? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of cemeteries have "non-denominational" areas, for those who choose burial. Many cemeteries are owned by trusts, and divvied up into sections for each denomination. But as to the general question, I suspect most atheists would choose to donate their body to science (i.e. to be used for research). Do we have an article on this phenomenon? It still leaves the question of what to do with the person's remains after the researchers are finished with them, though. You've still got the same options as everyone else: burial, or cremation. If I was an atheist (which I am NOT), I would want to donate my organs and tissues to living recipients if possible, the rest of my body to science, and after the scientists were done, Natural burial. 110.149.165.69 (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the "phenomenon" as you call it is body donation. Dismas|^(talk) 15:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth adding perhaps, as far as what is done with the body afterwards, where I live they will cremate it for free and send the ashes back to the family. Zell Faze (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of US communities have public cemeteries; anyone may buy any lot that's not already purchased by someone else. But what about the funeral itself? I don't know; hopefully someone else will know better than I do. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are likely as many answers to what atheists do as to what theists do. While not a religious occasion, the life is often still celebrated with friends and family. There may be a viewing of the body at a funeral home and then off to the cemetery like many theists. There may be no body (possibly due to donation to science, cremation, etc) and just photos of the deceased while people sit around a pub or a family member's home and again, celebrate the life. Dismas|^(talk) 15:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of links to secular ceremony officiants, in the US and elsewhere, here. In the UK, where most people are cremated, secular and humanist funerals like these are widely practiced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "atheist", I did not really mean secular. Sometimes, atheists will follow traditional cultural practices, but I don't think that idea is feasible if the atheist is removed geographically from the rest of the family. It may be very difficult to keep traditions in the family that way. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're pretty much all non-believers in my family, but the ceremonies are still followed. Most Catholic priests won't ask too many questions about a funeral as long as you make a donation (about $1,000 for my sister's funeral). I did the readings in the funeral mass, although everyone knows I am an atheist. I just don't go to communion. You might also want to watch Six Feet Under to see various options for funerals. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral homes often offer free coffee (or even little sandwiches). That's not the main reason people show up, but it's better than paying for it. Some places let you pay for it. Something for everyone, no need for faith. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, July 19, 2015 (UTC)

I just realized you asked "how" and not "why". My bad. For one less-than-sacred farewell to an ungodly mess, see G.G. Allin's funeral. Or don't. Viewer discretion is advised and, of course, that's not typical for or indicative of atheists. Just an (allegedly bad) example. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

Hi 71.79.234.132—you say "I have heard that most cemeteries are owned by churches". Where have you heard that? Do you have a source for that? Bus stop (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have attended two funerals for friends who were Atheists... for the first one, I did not attend the burial, but did attend a "Memorial" at his home - the "service" had no prayers or hymns... a few friends read poems that he liked, others gave "remembrances" (sharing stories of his life), and his sister played a song he loved on the piano.

For the other, there was a full religious funeral service (in an Episcopal church) and burial (in the churchyard cemetery - where about five generations of her ancestors were buried). My friend actually left her family instructions to do this... because while she was an Atheist, she knew the rest of her family were not... and that it would mean something to them to have a religious service. She felt that funerals were for the living, not for the dead (As she lay dieing, she said: "I won't be there... so do whatever makes you happiest"). Blueboar (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the funerals I've gone to for religious persons had a limited enough religious presence that one could easily repackage it for atheists -- probably a deliberate choice on the part of the funeral homes. I'm saying this from the Bible Belt, too. Have the visitation, eulogy, etc in the funeral home instead of the church (because for some of them there was no attempt at even lip-service), have a close friend speak at the burial instead of a minister giving a sermon, and tada, completely secular funeral. Or read some quotes by biologists or economists (whether their preferred expressions of atheism leaned more towards science or politics) suggesting how the person's death is freeing up resources for others, and portray it as something noble. Or read from their favorite philosophers.

I'm pretty sure that my mom's cousin ("the" atheist in a family of Baptists and Methodists) is going to have a Unitarian Universalist service to accommodate (or rather, mutually annoy) both his religious family-by-birth and irreligious family-by-association. Ironically, my immediate family (liberal Baptists and Methodists) are quickly shifting toward "no funerals for any of us, dispose of the body in the cheapest way possible and grieve however you damn well please on your own time" or "just give me a stick." We're usually told that that's selfish or mean to everyone else who knew us, that they deserve their chance to grieve (in front of us), that the surviving family is going to regret not hearing other people saying "I'm going through the same thing," etc. However, a lot of people aren't as misanthropic as us and do want their love ones to have a chance to say goodbye one last time. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

Why did Bush and Obama let North Korea get nuclear bombs but not Iran?

Did they have intelligence that the craziness is all bullshit and the Iranians' craziness is real? Did North Korea make too many dumb empty threats? I guess in their favor the Koreans just want to have something intact enough to invade and the Iranians want to commit genocide and country destruction. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is closer to places that have lots of oil. ;) --Jeffro77 (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tthe U.S. is clearly in less of a position to influence what goes on in North Korea. The Chinese government considers it very much within their sphere of influence, and while they may not like the idea of North Korea having nuclear weapons, they probably like the idea of the U.S. deciding the issue even less. As for the suggestion that Iran wants to engage in 'genocide and country destruction', I very much doubt it - their regional ambitions have much more to do with their rivalry with Saudi Arabia as the local head honcho, and they know full well that any use of nuclear weapons would be suicidal. Don't mistake bellicose rhetoric for military ambition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler and Japan should've known that starting WWII that early was suicidal. But no need to copy, if Iran's leaders are rational then they are what they are. They must fantasize though, right? If they had advanced nuclear tech and the rest of the world had none?.. Maybe they'd bomb Saudi Arabia, too? Or maybe the people at the top don't actually believe Allah and just want power? So Israel's not that important then. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it has much to do with let. Iran depends on foreign trade much more than North Korea, thus the regime of Sanctions against Iran are a reasonable tool to use to put pressure on Iran to curtail their nuclear weapons program. North Korea is quite isolationist, and has little in the way of raw materials or finished goods it trades with the outside world anyways, it's hard to hold the sanction of "we'll cut off trade with you" with a country that doesn't trade much with the outside world anyways. --Jayron 32 04:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... The US did not "let" North Korea get the bomb... The US did everything they could think of (short of going to war) in an effort to stop the Koreans from getting nukes. North Korea developed the bomb despite everything the US tried to do. The UN imposed extremely harsh sanctions on North Korea (even harsher than the ones imposed on Iran). The North Korean government simply ignored these sanctions, and continued on until they had a bomb. The North Korean government was willing to let its people suffer great hardship in order to get the bomb. It is possible that, had the recent talks failed, the Iranian government might have decided to do the same... continue development despite continued sanctions. Whether the Iranian people would have been willing to suffer as much as the Korean people did is another question (and one that we will never know the answer to). Blueboar (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Country With The Highest Life Expectancy In 1950

What was the country with the highest life expectancy in 1950? What was its life expectancy?

125.255.167.126 (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/datamaps/LifeExpectancyWorldMaps/Life_Expectancy_WorldMap_1950.html it seems Norway topped the list with a life expectancy (at birth) of 71.6 years. Gabbe (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the World Bank, the highest life expectancy is Japan. See http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN/countries/1W?page=3&display=default

Both sex

Country Name 1995

Japan 79.5
Sweden 78.7
Hong Kong 78.7
Switzerland 78.4
Italy 78.2
Iceland 78.0
Spain 78.0
Canada 78.0
Australia77.8
France 77.8

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Infant Mortality Rate

What was the infant mortality rate of the world in 1850, 1900, 1950 and 2000?

Nineguy (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want the average infant mortality rate for the whole world or the median with upper end and lower end? The answer rests on that knowledge, because there is a disparity in infant mortality rate between wealthier, developed nations and impoverished, undeveloped nations. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN/countries/1W?page=3&display=default―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the UK lose economic ground to France, Germany and Italy?

As I understand it, in about 1960, the UK was richer than the other three countries, as measured by GDP per capita. But, over time, these countries overtook the UK. Why did this happen?--Leon (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Economic history of the United Kingdom. In two words - Harold Wilson. In a few more words - NEDC, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Technology, decimalization, British Leyland... Tevildo (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The basic reason is a case of the common but absurd obsession with foreign currency exchange rates, leading to excessive high interest rates to "protect" an exchange rate and the highly destructive consequences of high interest. The greatest damage was probably under Thatcher. Trying to remember a good paper on this. When George Soros broke the pound later, he made himself a fortune but helped the UK far more by helping it change from a destructively following this traditional obsession. Of course, the UK was helped more recently keeping the pound, not going into the Euro death trap, like those other 3.John Z (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have probably made a mistake, although the broad principles are correct. The 1967 devaluation (Harold Wilson) was forced by market pressures on sterling; one of Mrs. Thatcher's first acts had been to do away with currency controls - those of us who lived through the '70s can remember the absurdity of trying to go on foreign holiday with limited currency. Mrs. Thatcher actually sorted out the In Place of Strife mess - vide the 1981 budget and the Trade Union legislation (1980, 1982, and 1984). Nigel Lawson, in the late 1980s, adopted a policy of shadowing the Deutschmark, which predictably failed. The main policy failure was not under Thatcher but the hopeless incompetent John Major and Black Wednesday. --95.49.76.116 (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Germany seems to have done quite well out of that supposed death trap. Also despite (or maybe because?) not being in the Euro, Britain seems to have struggled more than the others in the financial crisis. 86.189.248.177 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is because, just as the Euro is overvalued to the Greeks, it is undervalued to the Germans. If we still had the Drachma and the Deutschmark, the Drachma would be worth half as much as the Euro and the Deutschmark twice as much. In other words, the very collapse of the Greek economy (and the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Irish economies) is pulling the value of the Euro down and making it easier for German exporters to sell their goods; if either the Germans or the Greeks were outside the Euro, the price of your Mercedes car would be prohibitively expensive. Not that the Germans see it that way, of course. 95.49.76.116 (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the issue of the productivity of British workers, which is still a problem; see UK productivity gap with developed nations now widest for 20 years (2014) and Average UK workers pose a productivity puzzle (2015). Alansplodge (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20s vs 40s

I;m a 27 year old guy but am pondering whether to propose to a 40 year old. I suspect she will accept but our families probably not, seeing our age difference as weird. I was wondering how uncommon it is for a man to marry a 40 year old woman. Any stats? 78.144.241.217 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Age disparity#Statistics. -- ToE 21:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Age disparity in sexual relationships. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, same article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This [3] article from the Chicago Tribune gives some statistics and links to further studies. Relevant to your case - "A 2003 AARP study found 34 percent of women older than 40 were dating younger men, with 8 percent seeing men 10 or more years younger." So your situation is not the most common, but it's not that rare either. (Bad Religion, Lady Gaga and OK Go all agree on the matter - "Do What You Want" [4] [5] [6] :) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Rudner is about 4 years older than her husband. She said, "The old theory was, marry an older man, they're more mature. The new theory is, men don't mature, so marry a younger one." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conditions in Cuba

identical question was asked in March, user is suspended for block evasion

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

Is Cuba a poor country? If so, then why does it have a high life expectancy and a high literacy rate?

Nineguy (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba is probably somewhere around 'average' as far as wealth goes, depending on how you measure it - see for instance List of countries by GDP (PPP). As for life expectancy and literacy rate, it has historically dedicated a relatively large proportion of its (limited) resources to education and health care: see Education in Cuba and Health care in Cuba. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also shows the the power of a proactive, single-payer, population-outcome oriented health care system. If you provide equal care for all, you will pick the low-hanging fruits. While I'm happy that I can get very good personal health care, it's much more efficient to provide good basic health care to a larger population than to concentrate resources on a smaller number of wealthy patients. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The exact same question was asked in March: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2015_March_12 The user is currently suspended for block evasion. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

Did anyone die from heat on 8 July 2003 in Dhahran?

On 8 July 2003 Dhahran experienced the highest dew point since we have been recording them. It had a 95F dew point and a temperature of 108F. This gave the city a heat index of 174F. Combined with a 3 MPH wind, this must have been awful. I have been able to find all sorts of stats on the weather for that day, but I haven't been able to find out if anybody died. Does anyone here have access to newspapers from the area or some other way to determine the death count (if there is any).

Sources: Ask Tom why: What is the highest dew point ever recorded?; Extreme Weather and Climate By C. Donald Ahrens, Perry Samson; Weather History for OEDR Tuesday, July 8, 2003

Zell Faze (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absent someone turning up a real archive, you could use google to search the websites of Saudi newspapers on that date and shortly thereafter. For example, here are the results for the English-language Arab News for 9 July 2003 (their date format) [7].

One other note - even if the heat that day did kill, this fact might not be recorded. [8] and [9] say many deaths due to heat aren't identified as such; that it's only after some time has passed and authorities notice the average death rate is elevated that the heat can be blamed. Sorry I haven't been able to find if the Dhahran record was part of a heatwave. 184.147.131.217 (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Living to age 100 or more

Are there any data or statistics that would answer a question such as this: "A person born in the year _____ has a _____ percent chance of living to age 100 or more"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first link when I google "likelihood of living one hundred" is this: "How likely are you to live to 100? Get the full data", which seems to be estimates for people born in the United Kingdom over the last one hundred years. Gabbe (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general concept you're looking for is an actuarial table. -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is safe to assume that statistics for the UK would be somewhat similar to that of the USA? Or not, for some reason? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to find correct reference Mkalburge (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I read about Francois Bernier on your website. URL - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Bernier

On that page a paper written by Bernier is mentioned and that is 'A New Division of the Earth'.

In the References section it is given that 'François Bernier, "A New Division of the Earth", in Journal des sçavans (April 24, 1684). Translated by T. Bendyphe in "Memoirs Read Before the Anthropological Society of London" Vol 1, 1863–64, pp 360–64.'

I found the 1st volume of the 'Memoirs Read Before the Anthropological Society of London', but in it could not find the paper.

Can you please help me to find this paper? Where can I find it ? It is important.

Please reply.

@User:Mkalburge

Bernier, François (2001-04-01). "A New Division of the Earth". History Workshop Journal (51): 247–250. ISSN 1363-3554. JSTOR 4289731. Retrieved 2015-07-21.

"Register & Read". JSTOR.. Free individual registration, offering free read-only access (no printing or saving) to three articles every two weeks (seventy-eight per year).

Your local public or academic library may also offer free institutional access to JSTOR.

If you've tried both of the above and they don't work for you, try re-posting to Resource Request

I've added the source as an external link to the François_Bernier article. Please use it as a reference if you can improve the article.

-- Paulscrawl (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - sorry for delay; got distracted with another author's article, "On the Phallic Worship of India", in source book found on the Internet Archive - here is the direct link to page 360:

Bernier, François (1864). "A New Division of the Earth". Memoirs Read Before the Anthropological Society of London. Vol 1. 1863–64. London: Trübner and Co. pp. 360–364. Retrieved 21 July 2015.

Now hyperlinked in article References. Please use to improve article - and welcome to Wikipedia!

-- Paulscrawl (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dames & knights

my query is in regard to British royal titles. When a man is knighted he is thereafter known as Sir .... and his wife is know as Lady..... When a woman is given a Damehood, what title, if any, is given to her husband? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janinsane (talk contribs) 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None.
121.211.12.111 (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - see TITLES AND STYLES OF KNIGHTS AND DAMES. An attempt in 2012 to address this issue and that of same-sex partners (Civil partners of knights and peers should get honorary title just like wives do, MP argues) seems to have come to nothing. Reform can be a slow business in the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can the British parliament change the New Zealand rulebook like that? Or would that only fly in their realm? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Females on slave ships.

Were females on trans-atlantic slave ships wearing shackles and manacles like the men? Secondly, how did they look after their children on the slave ships? --Constiniolp (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, "Women and children were kept in separate quarters, sometimes on deck, allowing them limited freedom of movement, but this also exposed them to violence and sexual abuse from the crew." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources most any library will likely have:

All the European nations lodged the two sexes of their slaves apart, as usual following Portuguese practice, ordinarily “by means of a strong partition at the main mast, the forepart is for men, the other behind the mast for the women. If it be in large ships carrying five or six hundred slaves, the deck in such ships ought to be at least five and a half or six feet high [being] the more airy and convenient for such a considerable number of human creatures; and consequently far the more healthy for them.” Female slaves were treated better than the men, not being chained. The reason for these arrangements was not only to prevent the male slaves from seducing the women but also that black women were often said to do what they could to urge the men to assert themselves and attack the crew.

Thomas, Hugh (1997). The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1440 - 1870. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-684-81063-8. His quoted source in first sentence is (apparently, not clearly noted): Elizabeth Donnan, Documents Illustrative of the Slave Trade to America, 4 vols., Washington,DC: Carnegie Institute, 1935, vol. I, p. 272. All four volumes of primary source material online here

The Middle Passage was exceptionally hard for women. They were often kept on deck and at proximity to the ship crew, who would routinely rape and abuse them. The crew would often make them sing and dance as a mode of humiliation and entertainment. This was a practice called ‘‘dancing the slaves,’’ which occurred regularly during the passage. The suicide rates during the Middle Passage were higher for enslaved women, because they chose to jump ship rather than endure the horrors of slavery.

Deetz, Kelley (2007). "Women". In Falola, Toyin; Warnock, Amanda (eds.). Encyclopedia of the Middle Passage. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. p. 405. ISBN 978-0-313-33480-1.. Other articles listed in the analytic table of contents under "Middle Passage Experience" include "Children", "Families and Family Separations", "Rape and Sexual Abuse", and others relevant to your questions. Many public and academic libraries offer online access to the e-book edition.

Paulscrawl (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English-speaking Buddhists

How do English-speaking Buddhists meditate on the Buddhist prayer beads (aka Buddhist rosary)? Do they chant in, for example, the name of the Amitabha Buddha in a non-English language or use an English translation? 140.254.226.190 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most I've encountered or read (who bother with mantras) use the language most closely associated with the tradition they belong to, or just Sanskrit.

(There are some English-speakers who call themselves Buddhists, who really mean they're just atheists who don't want to appear anti-religious. Some of them will admit this, the ones that won't will still try to get out of saying mantras.) Ian.thomson (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How strange. Anglophones say the Roman Catholic rosary in English. Everything is recited too straight from memory. I think they use the vernacular language, because they want to understand what they are saying. I wonder if the atheists that you met would bother with saying the Catholic rosary, which is explicitly theistic, but they chant in Latin so they don't even know what they're saying. 140.254.226.190 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catholics use the vernacular since the Second Vatican Council, but it used to be common for many Catholics to use Latin (or what they could make of it) -- see Patter. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't celibate Catholic priests castrate themselves?

What is the justification against castration and becoming an eunuch? I read it on the clerical celibacy page. 140.254.226.190 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Castration#Christianity: the First Council of Nicea forbade voluntary castration except for health reasons, probably because most surgery just wasn't safe until the late 1800s. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But since surgery is relatively safe now, why can't eunuchs become priests? 140.254.226.190 (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt safety was the only concern for the bishops at Nicea, but in any case, according to Roman Catholic dogma, the decisions of the Ecumenical councils are infallible, and therefore it is not possible to revise them. - Lindert (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, eunuchs can become priests if they were castrated against their will. One argument against willful castration by the church father John Chrysostom is that it is an insult to God's creation, because it implies that the sin is caused by our bodies, rather than our personal choices: "For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demoniacal agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the work of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security, as being irresponsible; and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members, and by impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds." (source). - Lindert (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the obvious point that Catholics without testicles can't bless themselves. μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Testicles was a Greek philosopher. Or was he a playwright? I tend to get them confused. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

You're obviously confusing him with the impresario, Spectacles. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Biblical proscription against castration (Deuteronomy 23:1); "No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD" {New International Version), or the King James Bible which puts it rather more graphically; "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD". However, Christians don't always treat the injunctions of Deuteronomy as binding. In the Byzantine Empire, parents would have their sons castrated in childhood to give them a chance of a lucrative career as an official in the Imperial court, and priesthood was open to eunuchs too (see The Eunuch in Byzantine History and Society). One example was Theophylact of Constantinople who "...was considered old enough to discharge his duties as patriarch (still he was still only sixteen years old). At this time or before he was castrated to help his career in the church." Not mentioned in our article, but Methodios I of Constantinople was also a eunuch; he displayed the evidence in court when appearing on a charge of seduction of a woman. In order to avoid the ban on castration by the Council of Nicea mentioned by User:Ian.thomson above, Methodios claimed that it had happened miraculously. [10] God moves in a mysterious way. This is perhaps the oddest subject I've ever researched for the Reference Desk; one never knows what will appear next. Alansplodge (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual slavery in the United States

How common was homosexual slavery in the American South before 1860? Are there any works of fiction (say, films) on the subject? --217.118.86.102 (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to help answer your historical question are cited in:

Foster, Thomas A. (September 2011). "The Sexual Abuse of Black Men under American Slavery". Journal of the History of Sexuality. 20 (3): 445–464.. Libraries and institutions offering access or simply Register & Read for free read-only access (no printing or saving) to three articles every two weeks (seventy-eight per year).

Foster also edited a collection with a few relevant articles and a much larger bibliography:

Foster, Thomas A. (2007). Histories of Same-Sex Sexuality in Early America. New York: New York Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-2750-8..

Paulscrawl (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For works of fiction on the subject, including film adaptations, see:

Bibler, Michael P. (2009). Cotton's Queer Relations: Same-Sex Intimacy and the Literature of the Southern Plantation, 1936-1968. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. ISBN 978-0813927923.. Available in academic libraries via Project Muse: http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780813929842?auth=0

The author's introduction states the case of current scholarship:

We simply do not know how many homoerotic or homosexual relationships might have flourished between men and women living and working on a plantation before or after the Civil War. Unfortunately, studies of same-sex relations in southern literature are similarly scarce, with only a few articles devoted to homoeroticism in works of plantation literature.

Both sentences are footnoted, indicating references for both your historical and your literary question are readily available.

Paulscrawl (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your information. Good to know that the subject is no longer taboo in the US. --217.118.86.102 (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery and US currency

Which of the men currently shown on US currency owned slaves? Edison (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of them, except Lincoln and Grant. --217.118.86.102 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure about Grant? Edison (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Born and raised in Ohio; father was associated with abolitionists' party; US Grant went into military academy as soon as he was of age, then began a military career. By the time he was retired from the military, slavery was illegal throughout the land. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe an asterisk for Ben Franklin, who freed his few slaves prior to the American Revolution and as time went on became opposed to slavery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - And if you include coins, only Washington and Jefferson. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)And except McKinley, but good luck getting one of those.

If we're counting coins, then we still have Jefferson on the nickel and Washington on the quarter for common use coins. Roosevelt and Lincoln are the two that didn't own slaves (so half and half for common use coins). Half and half there.

Of coins that don't see common use but are still circulated, we've got only non-owners: Kennedy, Eisenhower, Susan B. Anthony (who actually wrote antislavery petitions), and Sacagawea.

For the Presidential $1 Coin Program (can't say that it has caught on), most of the ones before Lincoln were slave owners except James Buchanan (who was still pro-slavery despite apparently not having any), Franklin Pierce (who was personally opposed to slavery but legally on the fence), Millard Fillmore (again personally anti-slave but wanted southern votes), John Quincy Adams, and John Adams. Of the presidents after Lincoln, none were slave owners except Andrew Johnson (who was generally a dick to former slaves afterward) and Ulysses S. Grant (technically his father-in-law's, and he didn't actively try to screw former slaves over, but still). Overall, 12 slave owners and 24 non-owners.

Overall, 14 slave-owners on circulating coins, 30 non-owners on circulating coins; though the non-owners are on less common coins. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cents and dimes are pretty common. Also, if Grant's father-in-law had slaves, that doesn't make Grant a slave owner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re cents and dimes: true, but that's 2/30 of the non-owners.

Re Grant: It's iffy, though. He attempted to profit directly from slavery, using his father-in-law's slaves. If we're going to put an asterisk next to Franklin because he freed his slaves and became an abolitionist, we need to put an asterisk next to Grant if we're going to count him as a non-owner because he probably would have been if it wasn't for outside factors. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Grant apparently acquired at least one slave. As regards cents and dimes, you said "the non-owners are on less common coins." Cents and dimes are very common coins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're doing all circulating coins, there are also the state quarters to take into account. The slave owners on those are: Caesar Rodney (Delaware); Washington (also on other currency), James Monroe, Edward Hand and possibly others depicted in Washington Crossing the Delaware (New Jersey); and William Clark and Meriwether Lewis (Missouri; although I'm not sure whether Lewis ever owned slaves personally, he supervised his mother's plantation) - the non-slaveowners are the Wright Brothers (North Carolina); Neil Armstrong (Ohio); Lincoln (Illinois); Helen Keller (Alabama); John Muir (California); and Duke Ellington (DC). York, also depicted on the Missouri coin, was a slave. Kamehameha I, depicted on the Hawaiian coin, did not own slaves in the continental US sense, but the Kingdom of Hawaii had a strict feudal caste system with Kamehameha at the tip - whether or not that counts as slaveowning for the purposes of the question is debatable. The South Dakota coin shows Mount Rushmore, which depicts Theodore Roosevelt (not a slaveowner) plus three presidents who appear on other currency. Smurrayinchester 09:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(There are also some generic individuals on state quarters. The Massachusetts Minuteman could theoretically have been a slave owner (slavery was common in the state until the 1780s) - all the other images seem to postdate the abolition of slavery in their state.) Smurrayinchester 09:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over at the Alexander Hamilton article, I can't actually find anything saying he owned slaves. Some historians said he was an abolitionist, and he argued that the Brits were going to arm the slaves because the slaves are just as cunning as white people. Hamilton also suggested that they use this strategy against the Brits: buy their freedom and arm them.

That means 5 of 7 on banknotes were slave owners. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Woodrow Wilson owned slaves. He's on the $100000 bill. --Trovatore (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not in circulation, though. Non-circulating currency is a can of worms. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Recounted them off just figures (removing duplicates like Washington or Jefferson), 13 slave owners and 27 non-owners on circulating currency. With duplicates, 17 slave owners, 28 non-owners on circulating currency. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're splitting hairs, Sacagawea and Susan B. Anthony weren't men. And Susan B. Anthony Man wasn't on any currency. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Shackles and leg irons.

How long can female prisoners in the US be legally restrained in leg irons and/or handcuffs? --Constiniolp (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming there are laws governing such things, it is likely the laws vary from state to state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Germans

During ww2 Japanese Americans were interned but German Americans left alone even though German Americans were a larger community. Why did they detain the smaller community, but remained unconcerned about the larger community? 84.13.153.27 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in Internment of German Americans, they were not "left alone", but they were interned out of proportion to the Japanese internment, as you suggest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also racism. --Jayron 32 01:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do also note that the German American population was largely integrated in (White) American society. Today (according to Wikipedia...) 15.2% of U.S. population has German ancestry. That percentage was probably higher at the time of WWII. Apart from being unjust, systematic incarceration of German Americans would have been practically impossible to carry out. --Soman (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

bronze age India

what type of bed and mattress were used in bronze age India (e.g. the Buddhas time)

Thank you!!