Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

November 16

How many Muslim women marry Jewish men in Israel? (Plus some more questions)

I can't find any data regarding the number of Muslim women marrying Jewish men in Israel. When I Google that all the results I get are regarding the reverse situation (Jewish woman and Muslim man). Does anyone have any idea how to get that data? If only to say that there are none.

I've suddenly realized I have a few more questions. As far as I understand a Muslim court would accept to marry a Muslim man and a Jewish woman because such a marriage is legal under Islam but not a Muslim woman and a Jewish man because that is not acceptable under Muslim law. On the other hand a Jewish court will not accept to marry any two people who are not Jewish. Therefore the only choice for a Muslim woman and a Jewish man wishing to marry is to go abroad register their marriage. (Whereas, as stated, a Jewish woman and a Muslim man can be married by a Muslim court). Is any of this incorrect?

The same applies to a Christian-Muslim situation, i.e. a Muslim man and a Christian woman will be married by a Muslim court, whereas a Muslim woman and a Christian man have no choice but to go abroad seek a civil marriage, because a Christian court will only marry two people who are both Christian. Is that correct?

What happens if a Karaite Jew and a non Karaite Jew wish to marry? Are there Karaite Jewish courts? Would a Karaite Jewish court register a marriage between a Karaite and a non Karaite? How about a normal (Rabbanite) Jewish court?

Thanks

Contact Basemetal here 09:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

only ones with a death wish -- Q Chris (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About question #3: The reason why a Muslim woman cannot marry a Christian man is in Islam, not in Christian law. Christian churches nowadays marry many couples where only one is Christian, the other being of another religion or atheist. Akseli9 (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain this is not a recent development in Western Europe? E.g. do the Greek Orthodox do that too? Remember that most Christian Arabs in Israel belong, as far as I know, to the Greek Orthodox Church, not to the Catholic Church. So I wonder if your information is also accurate in that case? Contact Basemetal here 10:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. It is more a recent development in Western Europe. Akseli9 (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the U.S., at least, Roman Catholic churches will not marry a couple unless both members are (at least nominally) Roman Catholic. I have known several couples where one member of the couple had to go through adult catechism and officially joining the Church. See Marriage (Catholic Church) and Disparity of worship. In fact, the Roman Catholic church requires both members to be in full communion with Roman Catholicism, not merely just professing Christians, or for the union to receive a special dispensation, though those are becoming more common. Protestant churches are often more liberal, one need not belong to the exact same denomination. --Jayron 32 13:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Interfaith marriage in Christianity which only has information about the Catholic church, but suggests that the situation has changed since Jayron's experience above. Alansplodge (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how it has changed, where I say that the "union to receive a special dispensation, though those are becoming more common." and the article you linked states "The Roman Catholic Church requires a dispensation for mixed marriages." I'm not sure where those two statements come into conflict. --Jayron 32 16:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I seem to have misread your post. Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is mainly a discussion of who would perform a religious ceremony, I have nothing to add to the above. May I point out that traditional Arab women who are devout Muslims or live in a village setting or otherwise close to their birth family, are unlikely to have enough contact with Jewish men to develop a relationship leading to marriage. Conversely, a secular (non-practicing Muslim) Arab woman in a setting (e.g. urban) where she'd meet Jewish men and become involved with one to the point where the couple chose to marry - likely leading to ostracism by traditional members of her family (or worse: the so-called "honor killing" by male relatives) - wouldn't expect a religious wedding. To get some sense of the unlikelihood of Muslim/Jewish F/M couples in Israel, look for figures on unmarried Muslim women in employment and higher education and subtract the number who live in their parents' home. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers. I do know at least in one case of a marriage between a Jewish man and an Arab woman, namely singer Mira Awad, but she is a Christian. In general Arab Christian women seem to be better integrated but here we're talking show business and there's really no difference between Muslim women or Christian women or Druze women. There's got to be Muslim women in show business who work everyday with Jewish men. Take for example the case of Muslim singer Nasreen Qadri who sings as much in Hebrew as in Arabic. That not even one Muslim woman is married to a Jewish man even in show business might also have to do with the greater stigma that carries among Muslims and the supremacist attitude of Muslims who are very loath to "give away" their women, which is, in their mind, a shameful thing, which is very different from "taking" the women of others. Contact Basemetal here 18:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In August 2014, a high profile inter-faith marriage in Israel attracted considerable interest from media and from the general citizenry. See [1]. --Jayron 32 18:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it seems the Jewish bride chose to first convert to Islam. But is this something that Israeli Muslim courts require? In principle, as far as I know, Muslim courts will accept to marry a Muslim man to a Jewish or Christian woman without requiring that the woman first converts to Islam. Are things different in Israeli Muslim courts? Contact Basemetal here 18:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, part of it is the understanding of "conversion". I'm not Muslim, but my understanding is that Islam has the doctrine that every person is born Muslim in the sense that there is but one God, who has but one plan for his creation, and who has the expectation that all of humanity would observe His law. People exist in either a state of adherence to his laws or not, thus all people who are not properly practicing Muslims exist in a state of apostasy rather than in a state of simple "believing in something else" or "not a member of the Muslim faith". According to Muslim doctrine, we're all Muslims, some of us are just not doing it right. This concept is known as "fitra", that is it is in our born nature and purpose to be Muslims. One becomes a practicing Muslim the moment one makes a sincere statement of the Shahada. See also Religious conversion#Islam. --Jayron 32 21:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One is in fact mostly born a "practicing Muslim" (to use your terminology), simply by virtue of being born to a Muslim father. I have heard that Muslim fathers often whisper the shahada into the ears of their newborn child, but that is not a requirement and failure to do so does not change the fact that that child, were they later to convert to another religion would be deemed an apostate from Islam. I have heard that theory that you never really "convert" to Islam (but only "revert" to Islam), but the "apostasy" (again to use your terminology) of not "reverting" to Islam in the first place is very different from the apostasy of leaving Islam deliberately and explicitly. As far as I know the latter is punishable by death according to all schools of jurisprudence (madhhab), whereas the former isn't, at least if one happens to be a Christian or a Jew or a Zoroastrian, etc. Regarding that Israeli Jewish woman who converted my understanding is that she converted formally (i.e. pronounced the shahada in front of two witnesses, etc.) although it is difficult to be sure as the article just mentions that once in passing and it might be that they are implying (incorrectly) that she converted simply by virtue of marrying a Muslim. It might also be that she did convert, but just because that's what she felt like doing, without it being a formal requirement for her to marry that Muslim man. If it was required of her by Muslim authorities in Israel then I think that that would not be in keeping with normal Muslim practice. Contact Basemetal here 23:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After a discussion at talk page of the Marriage in Israel article I think I might have the solution for this oddity: it seems (at least according to Married On The Mediterranean — But Not In Israel this source) that Israeli law prohibits the religious courts from performing a marriage unless the two partners belong to the same religion. Assuming that source is correct, this would explain why the Jewish woman had to undergo a conversion to be able to marry that Muslim man. Contact Basemetal here 06:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "the penalty for apostasy is death" is part of the twisted interpretation of Islam practised by terrorists. What the Qu'ran actually says is "There is no compulsion in religion". 86.149.14.226 (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the usual politically correct Islam-apologetic uninformed nonsense. Start by reading Apostasy in Islam instead of spouting nonsense. This (part of a) verse is about the only thing in the Qur'an that apologists know. If you really want to learn something you may also want to read Al-Baqara 256. Generally speaking it is not enough to quote out of context something in the Qur'an that fits what you want to believe regarding Islam to really determine what Islam requires. Contact Basemetal here 13:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: I remember reading a dramatic story about people detained after the Iranian revolution. Some of them were taken for interrogation and were asked whether their fathers were devout Muslims and kept the family praying regularly... eventually some people who knew more about the religion realized that the purpose of the questions was to convict and execute them for apostasy, and the remainder were able to answer differently. Wnt (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of that story. If you have a source so we can all read about it, that would be useful. --Jayron 32 16:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give the source if I could remember or find it, but I can do neither. I would guess (perhaps) that it was an article in The Atlantic, and that I read it 10-15 years ago. I actually don't think this was the 1988 massacre - the account I read was about the first prisoners who did not yet have experience with executions being a possibility, and most of whom where unaware of the legal aspects of apostasy. Wnt (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wnt was referring to the 1988 massacre mentioned here. See also here. It is just a guess but the prisoners were asked from what I understand how well they followed Islamic prescriptions, etc. However the charge of apostasy was not the main reason they were executed. Contact Basemetal here 16:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Apostasy in Islam covers this - note the Koran verses in the first section. Wnt (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My bad. This Isis video shows in their (Isis's) interpretation Islam is a religion of love. Contact Basemetal here 19:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free-range terrorists

One of the reported perpetrators of the recent massacre in Paris was actually convicted of "criminal terrorist conspiracy" based on his intent to leave France to go fight in Yemen. [2] Similarly, one of the perpetrators of the Curtis Culwell Center attack was arrested immediately before planning to leave to Somalia.

Question: how many of these "free-range terrorists" are there? By which I mean, people criminally convicted of an imminent plan to go fight for ISIS or Al-Qaida, who though (apparently) banned from foreign travel are nonetheless allowed to roam their home countries relatively freely? Has anyone gathered a public website/database of them all? Wnt (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not just their home countries, the Schengen Area comprises most of Europe; France does not have any regular border control. - Lindert (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Schengen Area is only applicable to European countries; France has land borders with Brazil and Suriname (although neither Brazil–France relations nor Foreign relations of Suriname#France mentions border controls) and presumably maintains border controls at seaports and airports. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at least when you enter France by air from outside the Schengen Area, passengers are separated into those with EU passports and those without. The ones with EU passports still have to go through security but I guess it's faster for them. If you were flying between France and, say, Spain, there is no border control. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in August I flew from Belfast to Paris on an Irish passport (i.e. a Schengen Area passport) and still had to go through a passport check, as did everybody else on the flight. Incidentally there were a few people on the flight travelling on Chinese passports but we all went through the same controls. Keresaspa (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland isn't a Schengen country. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First time that a French president addressed a joint session of Parliament since 1948?

According to CNN, President Hollande's address to a joint session of the French Parliament (i.e., a Congress of the French Parliament) at Versailles today marked "the third time since 1948 that a French president has done this."

Before this, the most recent occasion when a French president made a speech before both houses of Parliament in Versailles was on June 22, 2009, when Nicolas Sarcozy gave a speech on the Great Recession. (NYT, book) Yet this 2009 AP article on the Sarcozy speech says: "The last presidential speech to France's parliament was in 1873..."

So (1) is either CNN or AP wrong here (CNN says that there have been three speeches, while the AP seems to imply that there have been only two, unless there was some speech in between '09 and 15); and (2) if these were the second and third occasions, what was the first? Neutrality^talk 18:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess its a typo. The date should be 1848, as per [3] which notes that before the 2009 Sarkozy address, the prior occurrence was during the Second French Republic, shortly after Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte's election to the Presidency in the French presidential election, 1848. --Jayron 32 19:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems likely. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 19:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't know that the statement "The last presidential speech to France's parliament was in 1873..." is accurate. As noted in Adolphe_Thiers#Third_Republic, the law banning Presidents from speaking to Parliament was passed in 1873, but I don't know that any such Presidents actually spoke to Parliament between 1848 and 1873; between 1851-1870, France didn't have a President, and several sources have noted that 1848 was the last such speech also. I believe the AP article is misunderstanding the significance of 1873; that wasn't the year of the last actual speech, that was the year such speeches were banned. --Jayron 32 13:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SS Kresge picture

Our article on S.S. Kresge has no free portrait of him; the only images are a nonfree portrait of him and a free picture of his house. By 1924, Kresge was worth more than a third of a billion dollars, so presumably his picture had started to appear in print by the end of 1922. Does anyone know where I could find a pre-1923 image of him? I was thinking of the New York Times or one of the Detroit papers, but I'm not familiar with searching the NYT archives, and I'm not familiar with the Detroit papers at all. His article mentions The Book of Detroiters, published 1914, but the archive.org edition is all text and no pictures. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The city of Detroit, Michigan, 1701-1922 by Burton, Clarence Monroe, vol. 3, published 1922, has a picture on page 172. Rmhermen (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

Terrorist attacks in Paris, France

According to the article:

"France had been bombing various targets in the Middle East, including Syria, since October 2015. ISIL's motive was retaliation for French involvement in the Syrian Civil War and Iraqi Civil War. In the weeks leading up to the attacks, ISIL had claimed responsibility for several attacks, such as twin suicide bombings in Beirut two days earlier, and the crashing of Metrojet Flight 9268 on 31 October"

Why is France such a target for ISIS? Why France instead of the plethora of other countries that were involved in the Syrian Civil war and Iraq civil war? Is France just an easier target? 199.19.248.7 (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Islam in France: "With an estimated total of 5 to 10 percent of the national population, France has the largest number of Muslims in Western Europe." Wnt (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, Syria was a French-controlled territory for some time, and the historical legacy of colonialism reaches deep and wide. --Jayron 32 12:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS allegedly says they're getting around to the others. And it's not like France is "such a target". You note yourself, it was preceded by attacks on Russia and Lebanon. Iraq and Syria are still the main targets, as far as states go. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt and Turkey have been hit already this year, and other countries have had attacks blamed on, but not claimed by, ISIS. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, November 17, 2015 (UTC)

Some commentators in the UK are saying that Paris was an easier target than London because of the Schengen Area allowing free movement across borders in continental Europe [4]. I'm not saying that you can't smuggle several AK-47s into the UK but it wouldn't be easy, neither would it be easy to obtain one here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B&B, an anachronism?

I was surprised in episode 8 of this year's Downton Abbey to hear the earl refer to Mrs Patmore's "B&B". Is this an anachronism? I see from Ngram that Bed and Breakfast was used as early as the 1840's, but B&B sounded very recent to me. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OED Online has a 1993 draft entry under "B and B, also b and b" with four citations dated 1961, 1964, 1967, and 1986, so it looks as if Downton Abbey did get it wrong. In fact, none of the 1960s cites actually uses B&B as a noun meaning a type of guest house. The 1961 one refers to a criminal who broke into a factory and fell asleep as "the B-and-b raider", and the other two use the abbreviation to refer to bed and breakfast service rather than the establishment offering them. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Downton Abbey has been much criticised for its clunking anachronisms, particularly in the language used. --Dweller (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, well I remember there was sump'm else quite anachronistic (or anatopostic) from a prior season, but this simply smacked me upside the face. I should of googled this. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that link Medeis. What a wonderful phrase is "British language prescriptivists". Alansplodge (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Israelis

See here01 I have tried doing some research to find out what this is all about but I am afraid that most if not all of it is unreliable. Does anyone have accurate/informative references about this? 199.19.248.7 (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a classic conspiracy myth. A little bit of truth (some Israelis were arrested by understandably nervous cops on 9/11) made into nonsense. More info here. Not that the truth will interest anyone desperately looking to pin just about anything on Jews. http://www.funny.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Funny.woa/wa/funny?fn=CJ2FB& --Dweller (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unamerican Activities Committee transcripts

Does anyone know where I can find transcripts of the investigative hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.76.174 (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here maybe? --Jayron 32 15:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that doesn't help, here is the official archives of the House of Representatives records. Maybe that will help? --Jayron 32 15:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

information regarding mandatory life class modelling in british art schools until 1960s.

I am seeking further information regarding female art students in british art schools up until mid 1960s being obliged to model nude for classes. I know from first hand accounts that this occurred but am unable to find any information on the subject. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starkpic (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KFC then and now

Is the chicken the same size/quality as decade(s) ago? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any information on KFC's chickens "changing" over time, I can find that KFC aims for consistency across the entire chain in terms of size and flavor of the birds; this makes sense from a marketing and cooking point of view, in that you'd want uniform cooking times and uniform customer experiences across the entire chain. KFC uses 35-day old chickens, raised on large factory farms. Without getting into passing a value judgement on the practice, as the article does, that 35-day growth period should give you a rough idea of the size of the bird. Chicken_(food)#Marketing_and_sales discusses size of birds based on growth time. It notes that the smallest market chickens, Poussin, are 28 days old, while the next largest age, the "fryer chickens" are 7 weeks (49 days) old. Thus, the typical KFC bird is somewhat younger (and thus smaller) than the typical market fryers; if you purchased a "fryer chicken" at your local grocery story, it would be somewhat larger than what KFC uses for its chicken. I don't know if this has changed over the years, but that's what it is today. --Jayron 32 21:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general, everything used to be better. No clue about bigger. I'll never eat there again. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, November 17, 2015 (UTC)

Chicken, in general, was only flavourful until 1948, when it became plentiful. Allegedly. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, November 17, 2015 (UTC)

It is not just chicken, it's everything. In the past we have real democracy, now it is all fake democracy but since everyone now grew up in fake democracy environment, fake democracy is now the real democracy. It is all shadows on the wall. Allegory of the Cave 175.45.116.66 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real democracy? The era when we had slaves? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think he means the era of the robber barons and political machines had total control of public life in the U.S. --Jayron 32 15:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was never real democracy. It cannot coexist with capitalism, and capitalism really exists. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is about useless, but my personal recollection was that the chicken flavor went downhill somewhere near the time that they went from "Kentucky Fried Chicken" to the TLA. And then it went further downhill in some places as they opened up combination stores with taco restaurants, etc., which presumably meant sharing some of the same oil ... the good news, though, is that there are several very tasty fried chicken competitors nowadays. Wnt (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The better news is, since all your fast-food chicken is made in the same goddamned place, everyone could just use the exact same bag of natural and artificial flavouring to spice up equally bland tofu, which is much, much cheaper and doesn't require unfathomable levels of murder.

The problem is, studies show, tofu turns Americans gay. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:32, November 18, 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, though I have encountered others at least as good; I tracked this down to this nebulous page which doesn't tell me much, but I'm skeptical they're secretly supplying KFC without crowing about it!

As for cheap tofu alternatives ... can you point them out? I mean, I'm prone to try something if I notice a lower price on the rack, but meatless alternatives don't stick out in my mind as being particularly cheap. Wnt (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I buy Mandarin brand. $1.50 for 420g. Which yes, is currently more than chicken, at the store. That's a supply and demand problem, which could be solved with the right marketing. Simpler and cheaper to produce. The main appeal (to me) is simply the lack of industrial-scale cruelty. Invaluable. But yeah, "fuck those stupid birds" is a very common sentiment. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, November 18, 2015 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Can you point to some data that actually tells me the tofu can be cheaper if more people buy it? I have to be skeptical because there are large portions of the market - like breakfast cereal - where some pretty minimally processed and basic farm products remain permanently pretty expensive. I mean, you can buy 24 cheap hot dogs (i.e. largely chicken) for $4, the same price as a box of cereal with fewer overall calories. True, the former gives you colon cancer, but the latter gives you diabetes... life at the low end is seldom dull. But if we want to convince ourselves we're not overexploiting the resources of our planet worse than everyone else, we would have to live at the low end. Of course, there are always sunflower seeds ... healthy, absurdly cheap, pretty to see growing by the roadside. But man cannot live on sunflowers alone - not sure if that's true, but it's a good thing to recite while chowing down on a drumstick :) Wnt (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I could, but so much out there is tainted by hippie lies, just as the other is full of vulture lies. Simply and unsourced, when things get hot, people want to buy them. Those who wish to sell the most must offer attractive deals. In fast food, the most attractive thing is a low price. So each chain will play the same sort of penny-pinching tricks they always do, just adapted. Everything starts out more expensive. Hell, tofu might be artificially jacked up right now, just because it's seen as "green" and "fashionable". Nothing a middle-of-the-road ad campaign can't fix. Worked for cereal, eggs and beer. Tofu is basically all of those things. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, November 21, 2015 (UTC)

Two companies apparently supply KFC with flavour (as of 2005), and neither knows who the other one is. Marion Kay Spices, out of Brownsville, Indiana, seems a likely suspect. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:33, November 18, 2015 (UTC)

Chicken, and livestock in general (but also all food), in the US has been radically changed over the last few decades. The goals have been to grow it as large as possible as quickly as possible, with the minimal amount of money spent to get it ready. How have they accomplished this ? A combo of breeding, antibiotics, precisely mixed nutrients in the feed, growth hormones, limiting movement so they don't burn calories that way, etc. Note that tasting good is not one of the goals, as consumers can't taste it before making the purchase decision, and thus tasty chicken is not the result they achieve (plus they can somewhat fake it by injecting the chicken with "flavoring agents"). There are organic, free-range chickens available to those who are pickier about what they eat, but I wouldn't expect KFC to offer those any time soon. Try someplace like Panera Bread for that (no fried chicken, but they have grilled chicken on salads, in soups, etc.). StuRat (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hormone administration for growth purposes is only approved in the U.S. for beef cattle. "Tasting good is not one of the goals" is kind of an odd claim, since few people only purchase food from a restaurant once in their lives. If they don't like the food, they probably won't come back. This is not to say that taste is the only factor considered, and it is true that intensive livestock farming has been strongly driven by a desire to increase yield. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, they have ways of faking the flavor that cost far less. Between the flavoring agents they inject and the fried grease and salt and spices, it's difficult to tell what the actual chicken tastes like. Not so if you prepare it at home without all that (although many chicken parts are sold in the US with the flavoring agents already injected, so you will never know how bland the actual chicken is). StuRat (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarket chicken tastes all wrong, slightly chloriney, gluey, odd, flavoured, gross. It is nice to have natural, freerange chicken (especially capon, a significant proportion of what is walking around in villages). You can really taste the difference. Nothing bland about it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If all chickens were raised in the organic free range way, how much more expensive would a KFC meal become? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the 1948 link above, "The bird that was selling for 60¢ a pound in 1948 was down to 39¢ in 1968. In 1948, a 5-pound chicken cost $3 — which might sound inexpensive, but in today’s dollars it works out to $30 for a single bird. In 2015, a supermarket chicken will run you $7. Chicken today costs less than a quarter of what it did during the Chicken of Tomorrow contest."

Of course, some of the genetic advances could stay, but there'd still be a subtanstial wait before they're big enough. So, about quadruple price, if your entire KFC meal is various degrees of chicken. On the bright side, that'd mean fewer fat dead poor people (or the dark side, if you don't like poor people). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, November 18, 2015 (UTC)

Or, lower income persons would stop buying KFC and get burgers instead, and then KFC would go bust. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. Even hypothetically, I can't imagine an America where only one of the three breakfast burrito animals (or fourteen, if you count Thanksgiving) gets life, liberty or the pursuit of truffles without the others. They'd scream "That's not fair!" so loudly and flail so pathetically that even the bin of piglets at McRib Facility #1408 would feel sorry for them. It's terrible what billionaires have to put up with these days. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:37, November 19, 2015 (UTC)

In answer to the question, no. There is not a specific Wikipedia article on the modern chicken, but you can google 'Henry Saglio' and 'The Chicken of Tomorrow', which will basically tell you that the former bred the latter. The modern chicken is bigger and grows quicker, but at the expense of taste. If you can access the BBC website, I suggest that you listen to this radio programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06gqh8k

As an aside, the great chicken expert Cab Calloway can be found on You Tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88pD6vKNptk . 5.80.70.207 (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From anecdotal experience, I think that there are large international variations. In Florida, what I got was mostly battered bones. In Jamaica, KFC was excellent (but always in competition with local Jerk chicken stands), and here in Germany it's somewhat in between. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mention different places. Well, here's the skinny here in China: A decade ago, KFC was new. People tried to like it. It might have been okay then. It is less and less popular. Personally, I don't eat it, but did as a kid in Montreal. Here, it appears small, soggy, and expensive. A drumstick is around $2 USD. That same money can buy a taxi for 2km or 3 x 2l water or a pound of raw pork. McDs is way less popular and a worse value. Interestingly, few know what a thigh is here. KFC sells them, but one may have to point to it. Some KFC workers know it as "big leg" as opposed to the drumstick "little leg". But then, some refer to big and little leg as drumstick and wing drumette. The supermarkets don't have them:

ME: I would like chicken thighs. Why no chicken thighs?

SUPERMARKET: What?

ME: The other part of the leg. It is attached to the drumstick.

SUPERMARKET: There is drumstick, that is leg, and then body. Breast?

ME: No. It is part of the leg. (I show him my thigh.) See? This part?

SUPERMARKET: Huh? Wing?

ME: No, thigh. This part.

SUPERMARKET: Chicken body has breast. Two parts stick out: leg (points to drumstick) and wing.

ME: The leg is made of drumstick and thigh. It has two parts, like our legs.

SUPERMARKET: Wing?

ME: No. Thigh.

SUPERMARKET: Only drumstick.

ME: Fine. Forget it. Thanks anyway.

Maybe they turn them into chicken dogs or something. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do all of the butchers do with the thighs? As their cutting up the chickens, do they throw them away? Have you tried taking a whole chicken to the butcher in the store and pointing to the part you want? For the record, it's proven that, objectively, the thigh is the best, tastiest, and most awesome part of the chicken. I would never trust a culture that didn't know that. --Jayron 32 21:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thighs are best! I think supermarkets bring in frozen parts. Whole chickens are sold whole.

Market butchers take beef, mutton and poultry and just whack it with a cleaver until it is in small bits. They generally do not differentiate between this cut and that. Pork, on the other hand, is carefully cut into tenderloin, feet, shoulders, etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much (or all, if they're careful) of what the processing plants can't sell as "meat" becomes the "real chicken" in pet food and probably frozen fingers and nuggets (though the National Chicken Council swears that's luncheon meat's game). Talons, brains, eyeballs, intestines, the good stuff kids go for. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, November 18, 2015 (UTC)

Pity to waste lovely thighs. And chicken brains? I've seen them. They're miniscule. Not worth extracting for by-products. By the way, chickens are total idiots. I'm in the countryside a lots, so surrounded by them. Cocks are smarter, but hens, well, hens are morons. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not brain surgery. They just hang them upside down by the hundreds, and their heads fall onto the floor (unless they're halal). Then it's just broom and dustpan work. Dogs and poor people don't mind a little beak and tongue with their brain. Even a retarded junkie can (and often will) do it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, November 18, 2015 (UTC)

Dude, the preferred nomenclature is "intellectually disabled substance abuser". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. My apologies to that demographic. Speaking of hopeless downward spirals ending in jail... InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, November 18, 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you will be forgiven. :) I was scolded once in IRC for using such a term. I guess am am behind the times because I did not know the right term. Our hearts are in the right place to be sure. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched the latest South Park, and calling cafeteria plans retarded isn't cool, even for "special" editors who prefer "handicapped". Timely as always. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:25, November 21, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all, as usual, for the thoughtful and informative responses! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

Derivatives tracking stocks to enjoy lower tax rate

I was reading European Union financial transaction tax and was confused as to why the tax rate for derivatives is lower than that of stocks. Couldn't people just create derivatives that track the price of individual stocks and trade those instead at a much lower (90% lower!) tax rate?

For example, let's say a stock currently trades at €100.00. Why not create just an American call option on that stock, with strike price at €0.01, expiration date 2999. The value of that option is €99.99. The tax rate would be 0.01% on the derivative instead 0.1% on the stock itself.731Butai (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing prevents you from doing that, and professionals who know how to do this are making heavy use of derivatives, especially swaps, to avoid the tax. But you can't use any derivative, you have to buy something that has sellers. For that option with that maturity date, which you describe, do you know any seller? --Lgriot (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An American option can be exercised at any time before the maturity date.731Butai (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could, but you won't own the stock, so you aren't a shareholder and don't get voting rights or dividends. This is fine if you're just speculating on the share price, but many entities, especially institutional investors, actually want to own stock (and often make large trades). Also, one reason some people advocate a transaction tax is to cut down on high-frequency trading, which is primarily a stock market issue. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The actual holder of the stock, the market maker, still owns the actual stock and thus gets both the voting rights and dividends, so nothing is "lost" in this sense. The owner of the derivatives enjoys the capital gains and the 90% discount on taxes, and the owner of the stock still enjoys the "normal" benefits of stock ownership, minus the capital gains part. 731Butai (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really need and American option - there is already total return swap that is being used as a soft of "synthetic stock" to circumvent withholding taxes on dividends (among other uses). However, part of the stated reason for the FTT is to reduce the volatility (read: high-frequency traders) in the stock and bond markets. Different tax rates would force HFTs to move to the derivative market. On the other hand, a lot of stable long-term investors, such as investment and pension funds, would still buy shares, since a lot of them can not hold derivative instruments in their portfolios. Finally, no derivative will ever be a true substitute of the underlying asset, since it is issued by another institution (say, Goldman Sachs) and thus exposes the buyer to credit risk towards that institution (even if it is minimized through collateral).No longer a penguin (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHAOE! Low_Exercise_Price_Option. Also, you can create any stock position with a combination of European calls and puts: these are called synthetic stocks. Here is an example: http://www.theoptionsguide.com/synthetic-long-stock.aspx. However, in the United States at least, there are complex tax rules that make it harder to mitigate taxes this way: for example, the "constructive sale" rule, explained here http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/constructivesalerule.asp. OldTimeNESter (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Does any of the EU countries have this "constructive sale" rule? 731Butai (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for variations on "euro zone derivative constructive sale" and didn't find anything related. The search results I did find excluded "euro zone", so I expect the term "constructive sale" is only applicable to the United States tax code. Your best bet would be to find an online forum on derivatives based in an EU nation and ask there. OldTimeNESter (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you mean WHAAOE? Contact Basemetal here 15:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Religious observance

I was sitting next to a woman on a bus one Sunday night a couple of weeks ago and happened to notice her crossing herself. I looked up to see why and saw we were passing the (Anglican) parish church. We continued on our way and as the church of the next parish came into view I watched to see what would happen and she did it again. I have never before seen any kind of religious observance on public transport (apart from itinerant preachers) and wonder if this is commonplace. 86.149.14.226 (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sign of the cross is a form of prayer. Each person prays in their own way. Perhaps she couldn't make it to church that day, or maybe she needed God's blessing to help her through a trying time. The Transhumanist 11:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As this book says, "There are Catholics who cross themselves when passing a church, before eating, when they succeed at some act, or when they feel in danger" (my emphasis). I assume that some High Church Anglicans do so as well. Judging by forum posts on the Web, the usual justification that Catholics, at least, give for the practice is that it's an act of veneration for the reserved host usually present in the churches. Deor (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catholics are taught to cross themselves when passing the front of the altar (properly, the tabernacle) which holds the Host. This extends to any church in general in most Catholic's minds. In my neighbourhood in upper Manhattan Mexicans and Dominicans would routinely cross themselves when passing the front of an Episcopal church. At my parish church we never crossed from one side of the church to the other without genuflecting and crossing ourselves at the midline. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very commonplace in Poland, especially among older people and in the countryside. Crossing oneself when starting a journey is common too. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how can singaporean studying or holidaying in western country, protect from racist hate crime?

terima kasih untuk jawapan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.31.118 (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not technically a jawapan, but in most countries, you have a far bigger risk of being harmed in an ordinary crime, with little racist or hate motivation. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrators of hate crimes may react aggressively or violently to perceived offenses by a stranger, particularly one of a different ethnic origin. You'd be wise to become familiar in advance with local practices: payment (e.g. at time of placing order vs. receiving goods), eating/drinking, use of lavatories, public transportation, etc. Eye contact, maintaining distance, touching, etc. and gestures in general may be misunderstood (e.g. as threatening vs. displaying sincerity), also in regard to the opposite sex, children, the elderly, and uniformed officials. Search "advice foreign visitors xxx" where xxx is the country in question. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All excellent advice but, in all fairness, there are things that can be beyond your control. If you're Black or Asian and you happen to encounter a bunch of skinheads there's little you can do to "avoid giving offense". The only advice there is "don't go to a part of town where you're likely to run into skinheads" or "run as fast as you can". In general hate crimes are not always the result of locally inappropriate behavior. They can be pure hate crimes no matter how much one tries to not give offense. There are strategies for dealing with such situations too. But I would pick up on what Nil Einne said: your strategy should be to avoid crime in general (unless of course you wouldn't mind being victim of a crime so long as it is not a hate crime). If you have worked out such a strategy (which is of course never full proof) then avoiding hate crime will come as a bonus. Contact the local Singaporean embassy where you're going. Without specific details regarding your personal situation it is impossible to be more specific. Contact Basemetal here 14:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the country! For example, I don't think that Singaporeans have any real risk in the United States. Many American racists actually believe ideas of race and intelligence that place them inferior to east Asians. Wnt (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, I have never heard of such a thing in the US. One might want to avoid certain neighborhoods, but simply because they are bad neighborhoods, not because there's and hostility towards Singaporeans. μηδείς (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that Singaporean isn't a "race" under many common definitions and Singapore is somewhat multiracial and multireligious. Malay Singaporeans may be considered East Asian "race" under some definitions, but Tamil people (and most others of Indian descent) definitely aren't normally. I mention Tamil people not just because they represent a majority of Indian Singaporean but because many are dark enough that despite looking fairly different from most people of sub-Saharan African descent, many racists probably don't care and would consider them black (or at least "similar"). Also I'm fairly sure a songkok wearing Singaporean Muslim Malay with a beard who visits a mosque is at risk of a hate crime, just as a Arab Muslim doing similar. Not particularly high risk perhaps, but the point is being Singaporean doesn't make you somehow immune to such risks. Most people who perpetrate such crimes definitely don't check passports and aren't known for being great distinguishers of who they are attacking. And in any case, most perpetrators are going to consider them equally deserving. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP ain't saying much so we don't even know if they're planning to visit the US, but since the US were mentioned I'll note that there were in the past some tensions between East Asians and African-Americans and there might still be. See for example this. As already stated, there is no such a thing as an Singaporean ethnic group. From WP article Demographics of Singapore#Ethnic groups, resident Singaporeans (=nationals+non-nationals) were in 2014 comprised of 74.3% Chinese, 13.3% Malay, 9.1% Indian and 3.3% Others. Based purely on physical appearance a Singaporean of Chinese or Malay origin will probably look "East Asian" to your average American. Contact Basemetal here 17:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One practical bit of advice for any traveler is to ensure that the rental car does not have bumper sticker on it that identifies it as a rental car. Criminals have been known to hang out near airports, and to follow and then rob anyone leaving in a rental car. The assumption is that visitors will have money and valuables (cameras, laptops, etc.) with them and be less likely to report a crime or stick around to testify at a trial, if the perp(s) are caught. When you reserve the rental car, make sure it won't have a sticker on it, and if it does, rent from somebody else.

Also, you need to avoid bad parts of town. Unfortunately, towns are reluctant to admit that they have bad parts you should avoid, so you have to ask a local resident about it, or possibly obtain a map of crimes that have occurred in the area, so you can avoid clusters. There are also areas that are safe during the day but dangerous at night, like many parks in the US. StuRat (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Basemetal's post above, yes, Korean bodega owners were attacked during the Rodney King riots, as were white truck drivers. This does not in any way indicate any significant anti-East Asian sentiment, nor does the fact that half a dozen Sikhs have been assaulted since 9/11 for wearing turbans indicate any general animus against Tamils or ethnic Indians in general. There are plenty of racists, but the notion that a Singaporean should wear a hijab to avoid being raped while visiting the US is an absurd one. I have no idea how this plays out in the UK. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that hijab wearers are more likely targets for hate crimes, especially in Europe. Sikhs are also a significant minority group in Singapore. The assaults on Sikhs in the USA are an example why Singaporeans are worried about hate crimes when they travel to the West. --G. Sivalingam (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of the UK I was reminded of this. Even leaving aside racism there is also the fact that some ethnic groups may be considered by others to be "easy prey" because they supposedly don't "hit back". For example I was told American Jews sometimes have the feeling that African-American violence may be directed at them simply because African-Americans believe that "Jews won't hit back". Whether true or not, the mere perception may put some groups at risk. One may argue that, strictly speaking it is not the same as racism, but it seems to work about the same in the end. I believe the people who stole from that Asian boy in that video got identified, charged and sentenced. Contact Basemetal here 18:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for all countries, but as a U.S. citizen I can tell you many Americans have no idea where Singapore is (they probably have at least heard of it). In the U.S. you're pretty unlikely to be a victim of a hate crime. You're way more likely to be a victim of a plain old petty crime like pickpocketing or someone swiping your stuff if left unattended, especially in the places that get a lot of tourists. That's what you should keep in mind if you visit. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/59052/how-can-singaporean-studying-in-western-country-protect-from-racist-hate-crime — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.66.161.95 (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comedians of the past who turned into prominent politicians

I've read articles/blogs/essays collectively commenting on comedians successfully switching to politics as a relatively recent phenomenon (Jón Gnarr, Al Franken, Beppe Grillo, Jimmy Morales). Out of curiosity: Can you give me some precursors, 20th century, say? (Apart from Alfred Rasser of whom nobody here has heard, and I don't consider Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ronald Reagan comedians. Not the kind I'm looking for anyway). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does Fred Grandy qualify? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or Sonny Bono? --Jayron 32 19:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Were either of them "comedians"? Playing roles in TV sitcoms that come with lots of (canned) laughs doesn't qualify one as a comedian, does it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Bono did sketch comedy (i.e. the same comedy done by Al Franken) on the The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour and several other shows. He also was a songwriter and singer. --Jayron 32 20:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Morales is the president elect of Guatemala. Pat Paulsen and Dick Gregory ran for president of the US. Though the last two are not really successful. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current field of Republican candidates are all comedians, I'm pretty sure. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just hope that the joke isn't on us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The multi-talented Kinky Friedman is politically active, and has run for more than one office, but not thus far successfully. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Edwards was a candidate for Parliament but, again, doesn't quite fulfil the successful remit. Keresaspa (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Original poster here) Thank you, all, for your suggestions! Please keep 'em coming! ---Sluzzelin talk 23:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert (as Stephen Colbert (character)) ran briefly for president (see Stephen Colbert presidential campaign, 2008), but it was in jest - a serious joke, as it were. Neutrality^talk 05:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese politician Hideo Higashikokubaru - a prefecture governor, and later a member of the House of Representatives, rose to fame as a television comedian. Neutrality^talk 05:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actor-politicians might bear fruit. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First names of Asian-Americans

Based purely on my own experience, it seems that most Americans of East Asian ancestry have first names that are European or Biblical in origin, while most Americans of South Asian ancestry have first names that are South Asian in origin. First off, can anyone point me to hard data that either supports or contradicts my assumption? And if it's true, is there any real research into why? I can toss out tons of convincing-sounding ideas, but I would really love to get something solid and verified. (Wikipedia does have Naming in the United States, but it pretty much just discusses nationwide and Black-American trends.) Thanks! --M @r ē ino 18:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Chinese_name#Western_name and this article and this article. --Jayron 32 20:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The Slate article was especially useful. So it seems like it's mainland-Chinese culture that is behind the phenomenon, more than anything peculiarly American. --M @r ē ino 20:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Same sex marriage & abortion

Ireland has legalised same sex marriage and has a [near] total prohibition on artificially aborting a pregnancy. Is this a unique situation?--Stanstaple (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a national level (there are subdivisional examples within US territory, for example, where abortion is illegal while same sex marriage is legal), the closest I could find quickly is Chile where "abortion is illegal without exception" while same sex unions are legal and marriages might well become legal soon. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "within US territory"? Roe v. Wade (albeit there have been some modifications around the edges in the intervening years) applies in all US territory that I'm aware of. I suppose I'm not completely sure about, say, American Samoa, or what would happen if a Native American tribe possessed of limited tribal sovereignty were to ban abortion, but Roe v. Wade was based on the same quality of personal rights as Obergefell v. Hodges, so I would be fairly startled if there were a US jurisdiction where the latter applied but not the former. --Trovatore (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Sluzzelin was getting at, but maybe the comment was intended to be about access rather than legality. Not much use in having a legal right if it's incredibly difficult and expensive to access it, see e.g. map here [5]. Several areas of that map may change soon, e.g. there may be less than 10 abortion clinics in TX after the supreme court hears this case [6]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Abortion in the United States and Abortion in the Northern Mariana Islands suggest it's illegal in the Northern Mariana Islands, and the applicability of Roe v. Wade to there is untested. On the other hand Northern Mariana Islands and Jack Abramoff CNMI scandal mention forced abortions. According to Same-sex marriage in the Northern Mariana Islands and LGBT rights in the Northern Mariana Islands, same sex marriages are performed there as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rulings (although I'm surprised the same hasn't happed with Roe V. Wade). In truth, I'm not sure how many really doubt Roe v. Wade, it may simply be finding someone to test it is difficult (you'd need a person willing to be publicly linked to a case plus a doctor in the territory willing to be publicly linked to performing an abortion). Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nil Einne, and apologies to the others, for not having specified what I meant. That part of my research (from comparing colored maps and skimming some of the articles linked by Nil) was a bit too perfunctory. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that this represents changing attitudes. Originally, prohibition of abortion and homosexuality were both viewed as the agenda of churches with a sexual fixation, and gay groups (ACT-UP, Queer Nation, etc.) would oppose the entire agenda with a sense of solidarity. But.... abortion isn't really all that much of a gay issue, for obvious reasons. Meanwhile, there are more Christians in churches with teachings that accept gays, which goes all the way back to scriptural/theological issues, while abortion is seen as more of a "pro-life" agenda that can actually include anti-death penalty activism (whereas in the past 'conservatives' would be seen as pro-death penalty and anti-abortion), opposition to euthanasia, and charitable attitudes toward the poor, refugees, etc. So I feel like some significant developments within religious organizations, which is echoed in their past opponents, is leading to the separation of the two issues. But I'm just putting this out as a thought ... I'm not really sure how you would search for (or confirm) a reliable source for such a general idea. Wnt (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To concur with and summarize what you're saying: the two topics are apples and oranges. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion in Argentina is a mess but it sounds like the law there is fairly unclear and legal non-clandenstine abortions are really restricted there, particularly for the poor. That article actually suggests it's only allowed in the event of rape (which is distinct from Ireland) and where the life of the mother is at risk (which is a bit distinct since it's not substanial and real risk), but [7] and [8] mention health. (Health clauses can have very differeing intepretations so while they are a distinction, they don't necessarily have imply that much difference.) Argentina does appearently also have similar protections from conception. Same-sex marriage mentions that Argentina does have same-sex marriage. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

Unidentified artist "Watson"

File:Annual report (1906) (14748550322).jpg and File:Annual report (1901) (14563473479).jpg both seem to be signed by the same artist. The signature appears to me to be "?Y S. WATSON", where the question mark is a character I can't make out. Can anyone identify the artist? - Jmabel | Talk 00:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, I just answered my own question. It's "HY S. WATSON", and it's Henry Sumner Watson, who may deserve an article. - Jmabel | Talk 00:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Social democracy vs social liberalism

What are the differences between social democracy and social liberalism? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly historical development: You can think of the two achieving essentially similar ideologies and goals and outcomes, but with a distinctly different origin. It's a form of convergent evolution among political ideologies. Social democratic parties originated as an offshoot of Marxism (i.e. pure socialism) and gradually began adopting more of the tenets of liberal democracy. Social liberalism began as an offshoot of classical liberalism that began to adopt more socialist policies. You can see these differences in the "Development" and "Origins" sections of the two articles. --Jayron 32 15:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final fate of the Orlik armoured train

What happened to the Orlik armoured train[9][10][11] used by the Czech legion? Does it still exist, and if so, where?

The last record I was able to find says the Japanese forces used it during WWII in China. Due to its size and obsolescence, I doubt it was transported back to Japan at any point during or after the war, so presumably it's still somewhere in China (if it hasn't been melted down for scrap already).

I'd doubt it's in a museum somewhere since it's not historically significant to the Chinese, or the Russians who built it, but it's a pretty amazing piece of history for the Czech people so I'd like to track it down. 731Butai (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the discussion in this forum correctly [12] the caption in the photo suggests it was destroyed on August 22 (don't know what year) in Shmakovka, in Primorsky Krai, Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood the concept of an armored train which I encountered for the first time in the movie Doctor Zhivago. Even leaving aside aviation, they seem so easy to disable: you blow up the tracks and they're stuck. If you want to repair the track you're no longer protected. Besides the quantity of spare tracks you can carry is limited. Can someone explain what exactly they were good for? Contact Basemetal here 20:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article does. The obvious question is what's alternative are you thinking of? Steam trucks require decent roads or passageways which are also somewhat vunerable to destruction so aren't that useful particularly if you have far fewer of them than tracks. Transport by water requires water. Not really sure why Aviation came in to it, Rigid airships and powered heavier than air flight didn't come until the 20th century in a meaningful way. By the time of Orlik, these combined with other stuff like the caterpillar track, internal combustion engine and massive increase in roading were changing things hence why they were dying out, but that's irrelevant to why they were once quite a useful thing. (Although rail was still quite a useful thing in certain places, particularly if you had decent control over the territory, as the Death Railway unfortunately showed.) If you're asking why armour if it can still get stuck, consider that getting stuck is likely to be considered far better than getting destroyed which itself is likely to be far better than get captured. Nil Einne (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that, but armoured trains were still in widespread use at the start of WWII. The thinking behind them was that they could quickly bring a huge amount of firepower to any given point, at a time when tanks could move at 30 mph at best and some could barely manage 10 mph and a train could easily do 60 or 70 mph. The armoured train would move up, do its stuff and retire again before its tracks could be overrun. Few military thinkers (even German ones) had envisaged the kind of fluid fronts produced by Heinz Guderian's panzer divisions and few armoured trains survived contact with them. We Britons were still making armoured trains in 1940 and they were used to patrol coastal rail lines; the theory being that as an enemy landing party came ashore, a train could be pulled up nearby and plaster them with machine gun and anti-tank fire while they were still on the beach. Fortunately, this theory was never put to the test. Alansplodge (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a way to quickly bring a large amount of firepower to bear to any point of a closed perimeter that the enemy has to cross (as in the UK WWII case mentioned by Alan) the armored train does make some sense, but most uses were not of that order. Does anyone have any example, any battle, from the Russian Civil War for example, where the armored train played a crucial role?

Regarding the concept of the mobile tank warfare which is usually considered to be a purely German contribution, and which made many things (among them armored trains) obsolete, it seems it had been developed independently by de Gaulle in his book Vers l'Armée de Métier, which had few readers in France but ten times more in Germany: "In 1934 [De Gaulle] wrote Vers l'Armée de Métier ([French] Toward a Professional Army), which advocated a professional army based on mobile armored divisions. Such an army would both compensate for the poor French demography, and be an efficient tool to enforce international law, particularly the Treaty of Versailles, which forbade Germany from re-arming. He proposed mechanization of the infantry, with stress on the wholesale use of tanks. Ironically the German panzer units, so effectively employed in the invasion of France in 1940, utilized similar theories, while the French dispersed and wasted their armor. The book sold only 700 copies in France, where Pétain advocated an infantry-based, defensive army, but 7,000 copies in Germany, where it was studied by Adolf Hitler." (from WP article Charles de Gaulle). Mikhail Tukhachevsky in the USSR also developed similar ideas. I'm not saying the Germans got their idea from de Gaulle or from anyone else, but that it could be that several forward military thinkers had independently arrived at the idea, but the Germans were those who implemented it first and in the most efficient way.

Contact Basemetal here 11:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The conception of the armoured formation is usually considered to be the brainchild of "Boney" Fuller and Basil Liddel Hart who inspired the British Experimental Mechanized Force in 1927. It was based on the experience of the use of medium tanks at the Battle of Amiens (1918). However, neither the British or French high commands were really convinced of the concept since the inter-war tanks were not terribly capable. However, the Germans seized on the idea and Hitler even invited Fuller to inspect his new panzer divisions, asking if Fuller recognised his children. Fuller was so impressed by Hitler that he became a leading Fascist, thereby losing any credibility that he had left in the UK. Even the German high command weren't really sure about the Blitzkreig idea, but Guderian sold the idea to Hitler and they were overruled.

For the Poles and the Russians, the main armoured train users, the issue was the large distances that needed to be covered and the inability of 1930s tanks to cover these. Before tank transporters had been developed, the only way to move tanks at any speed was to laboriously load them onto railway flatbed wagons and then unload them again close to where they were needed. Any long drive on their own tracks resulted in a catalogue of mechanical failures and top speeds varied from 10 to 30 mph on road. The Germans not only developed transporters, but also more mechanically reliable tanks and a superb mechanical support infrastructure that allowed tanks to be kept in fighting condition. Both Russia and Poland had used armoured trains with some success in the early 1920s and they were seen as a valuable adjunct to other fighting arms rather than as a battle winner on their own. As history shows, they were less effective than expected, but hindsight makes things easy for us. Alansplodge (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

Voting in Congress

I assume that there is no "one correct answer" to this question, but I will ask it nonetheless. When an individual member of Congress (in the USA) votes on bills, is he supposed to cast his vote in order to reflect the will of his constituents? Or is he supposed to cast his vote according to his own personal beliefs? Is there any generally accepted guideline in this regard? Or is it just completely up to that individual congressman? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:CCAD:9B1:8392:7C6B (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the given issue. Members of either party tend to believe in the overall goals of their party, but there's also a fair amount of individuality. Congressmen are likely to be the most interested in supporting or opposing something based on what they think will help them get re-elected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best answer is probably "yes". There isn't really any "guideline" other than what those who elected the Congressmember expect. The U.S. has a "weak" party system, in part because most of the framers didn't want political parties in the first place. Contrast with parliamentary systems, where the party a member belongs to has more power over how the member is "supposed" to vote; the general expectation is that party members are expected to vote the "party line" except for conscience votes, although the strength of these expectations and their enforcement inevitably varies between countries and over time. Whip and party discipline have some information. That's not to say political parties in the U.S. have no influence at all over Congress. If a Congressmember defies their party enough, they won't be getting any good committee appointments, which are very important for exercising influence, and the party won't spend money on their campaigns unless they think losing the seat to the other party would be worse. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a Congressmember defies their party enough, they won't be getting any good committee appointments ... and the party won't spend money on their campaigns unless they think losing the seat to the other party would be worse. True. And they likely would not get re-elected. (At least not by members of their own party. Conceivably, though, by the other party.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:CCAD:9B1:8392:7C6B (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would depend on the specific issues. It's not uncommon for the national party to want one thing and a representative's constituents to want something different. To again contrast with parliamentary systems, in the U.S. voters mostly decide through primary elections which candidate runs under a party's banner. Party leadership has little say. This has been highlighted recently by the Tea Party movement challenging "establishment" Republican candidates in Republican primaries. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See delegate model of representation and trustee model of representation. Edmund Burke gave his famous speech to the electors of Bristol in which he favored the trustee model, saying "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." I encourage you to read the whole thing. Neutrality^talk 16:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that legislators usually have a clearly known ideology when they are running for office, they don't normally feel like they are betraying the constituents who elected them. Representing their constituency often just comes down to pork; who can get the most federal money for their local districts, avoid having the military base in their state shut down, or get the most money for public works. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia was legendary for the federal money for public works he got directed to his state. But there are other factors, such as this comment from TheHill.Com about Democrats passing a House bill limiting immigration from Iraq and Syria which Obama had threatened to veto: "The 47 Democrats who voted for the bill ranged from centrist Blue Dogs, (to) vulnerable lawmakers in tough reelection races....". In other words, public sentiment becomes more important when your opponent can say you ignored it come election time. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creation

I've read that Adam and Eve were created. I've also read that children were created at conception, and that God designed everyone individually. What I don't get is whether the use of "creation" means the same thing in both instances. If God is believed to design a baby's features inside the womb, then where's the father's role? And what about genetics and maladaptive genetic traits? 140.254.70.25 (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a formal term of this theology? 140.254.70.25 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, define "God". If "God" equates to "Nature", then it works. Also, see Creationism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is irrelevant, as this is not what happens in the real world. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily true. As I said, it depends on how you define "God". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was posted at the humanities desk rather than science, I'll assume the OP is looking for an "in universe" answer from the perspective of Christian theology (I assume Christian, sorry if you're looking for other religions which include Adam & Eve.) I'd say that the two types of creation are different in character since the first one (Adam & Eve, or at least Adam) did not require any human action. God's "creation" of children in the womb has a component of human action to it, and so you could say that it's different. (Someone who knows more theology than me can probably find classical references discussing this.) You see this clearly in various Biblical divine conceptions, which are regarded as very special and different from ordinary conceptions.

As for maladaptive genetic traits, this is a well-known argument against creationism: Argument from poor design, sometimes called "unintelligent design" or "incompetent design". You can see some creationist responses on that page, typically that human frailty is an important part of God's design (either by God's original intention or a result from Adam's sin, human weakness is a feature, not a bug, in most Christian theology), and so we should not expect our bodies to be perfectly constructed. Staecker (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allegorical interpretations of Genesis are adhered to by many (and possibly most) Christians, if you want to take that perspective. Especially since the Big Bang is fully acceptable cosmology according to the Catholic Church. Heck, it was a Catholic Priest who invented the idea. --Jayron 32 16:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Predestination is the term for this idea. See also Creationism (soul) and Traducianism. Tevildo (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a lot of "predestination" built into DNA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BVI Legal Profession Act 2015

Please can you clarify which provisions relating to the admission of English qualified lawyers and practice overseas were excluded from the proclamation when bringing it into force? Also is there any indication as to when these severed provisions might be proclaimed as operational? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.0.160 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See BVI Bar Association for our article, although it's fairly incomplete on the exact provisions of the Act. This article from Withers LLP goes into some more detail, and states that the act "is expected to come into force in 2016". This article from Maples and Calder has information about the operation of the Act. Tevildo (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early 20th century nature illustrator Lang

File:Annual report (1901) (14563604959).jpg, File:Annual report (1901) (14563604959).jpg and other similar images are simply signed "Lang". Does anyone know the full name of this illustrator (birth & death dates would also be very nice). - Jmabel | Talk 17:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried doing a google reverse image search on the image posted here, but had no luck. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found Louis Lang (1814-1893), an artist who worked in the US; he was already dead by 1901, not that this entirely rules him out as a suspect, but he seems to have been more of a studio painter than an illustrator. I got lots of results for Andrew Lang who produced illustrated books about fairies, but somebody else did the pictures. Alansplodge (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prints of the mysterious Mr (or Ms?) Lang's illustrations from the Fish and Game Commission report are readily available (here, for instance), but I've not been able to find any more details on the artist. The report itself doesn't have the information, unfortunately. One name that does come up frequently is Hamilton Mack Laing (1883 - 1982) - he's not the Fish and Game artist (he was only 18 in 1901, and still living in Canada), but he seems reasonably article-worthy. Tevildo (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

Why the Key of A?

I have been asked to explain the lyrics:

It was just another Saturday

and ev'rything was in the key of A

from a song by ~~Florence and the Machine~~ Patti Smith (oops), but I am clueless. Can someone like @JackofOz: suggest what might be meant here by referring to that key? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Musical key? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The key of A is the only musical key whose name rhymes with Saturday... --Jayron 32 04:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing really to add on why A particularly, but I can't help but be reminded of a Doonesbury strip with Jimmy Thudpucker. His conversation with his guitarist went something like this (from memory; I can't seem to find it online):

Guitarist: What's wrong, Jim? Doesn't feel good in B flat?

Thudpucker: No, it's too formulaic. I want this to be archival. It should have a tricentennial sound.

G. Oh.

G. You mean like something in an F?

T. If you've got it.

--Trovatore (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Hey, please, don't kid (assuming you are kidding) because I am posting this for someone else who plays the guitar and sings and who asked me to ask this here, but who doesn't have www access; and I myself am musically illiterate, in the sense that I cannot read music or tell what key something is written in, even if I can sing in harmony with some sort of key, although I might be off by an octave or a third or a liter and a half. I mean really, folks, you are going to make opossums and chipmunks cry if you mock me so. I am not joking, I am off to look for crying mammals to post here. μηδείς (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I for one wasn't mocking you, just saying something it reminded me of. I'm gonna go with Jayron's explanation, which sounds reasonable, plus there's a resonance of a grade of A or A-OK and stuff like that. I don't think there's any special emotional quality to the key of A per se, but maybe I'm just ignorant about it. --Trovatore (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, maybe I can accept that. Although I remember from studying music theory in the 80's that the different keys have different emotional nuances. In any case, the question is not for me, but for an innocent third party.... μηδείς (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different keys used to have different emotional nuances, prior to the widespread use of Equal temperament, which makes every key functionally identical in terms of the spacing and ratio of notes. Unless you believe Nigel Tufnel, who claimed D minor was the "saddest of all keys". It makes people weep instantly. --Jayron 32 05:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even with equal temperament, keys hit the harmonics of an instrument in different ways. D makes a violin just sing, e.g., while E is much more mellow. And if you're not stuck with fixed tuning, you typically take liberties with the notes anyway: pushing that leading tone up a bit, or getting a really perfect fifth. -- Elphion (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists might pooh-pooh the idea, but many composers chose particular keys for their works because of their emotional aspects. That is, what those keys meant to the composer, subjectively. You can find a lot about this if you search. This is one person's idea, from Christian Schubart's Ideen zu einer Aesthetik der Tonkunst (1806). Here are some more, and this also gets into linking keys with colours (synaesthesia), but again, there's little agreement. (Oh, I see those links are also @ Key (music)). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The song is We Three. The key of A would normally refer to A major but here I think she means the key of A minor. Contact Basemetal here 08:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the song, "We Three". I will pass along the above, and a copy of our article on key. μηδείς (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been instructed to thank everyone for their answers, and specifically to "ask @Basemetal: why does he think that PS was talking about Am? Is it because of the sadnesses of minor chords? Or something like that?" μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bible translation that is gender neutral re God

ANy suggestions? Print or online acceptable, just want no 'Lord'/ 'He'/ 'His' etc 31.185.193.157 (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Our nonspecific gender parent, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name..." Nope. Doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just "parent" would work there. StuRat (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Gender in Bible translation article cites two examples. Google "gender neutral bible" and you'll find plenty more.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English seems to lack good singular gender-neutral pronouns. There are plural gender-neutral words, like "they" and "their", which can be used as singular, when the context makes it obvious, but when applied to God, that could make it sound like you refer to multiple gods. Then there is "it", but that seems rude when applied to living things. StuRat (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Let us make man in our image..." How many gods are in that committee? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, probably in the 10s named ones, plus unnamed multitudes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English has more gender neutral pronouns than French or Spanish. --Jayron 32 15:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Leave aside "they" (used for "he or she") which I doubt has made it yet into a Bible translation, what pronouns do you have in mind? Contact Basemetal here 16:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English has two specific gender neutral pronouns: it and they. Spanish and French have no equivalent of those. Two is more than zero. --Jayron 32 20:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had mentioned "they" but "it" is not gender neutral. "It" is for things that have no gender. E.g. "someone came while we were out and they carried away the refrigerator" never "someone came while we were out and it carried away the refrigerator". At least I've never heard the latter. Contact Basemetal here 20:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Economics

an abbreviation "IBITDA", what does it stand for and mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.218.244 (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The usual abbreviation is EBITDA, "Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization". Tevildo (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Class/hierarchy in England

Was there a class or hierarchy system in England that separated the low class, from the middle and upper/nobility? I'm thinking something along the lines of the caste system in India, but not necessarily based on religion, but based upon other factors. And if so, when did this hierarchy/classism end? ScienceApe (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were social classes in all of Western Europe. See Nobility. However the system was not as rigid as in India since a commoner could become a noble. The privileges of the nobility disappeared, little by little in some countries (such as England) or brutally in others (such as France): see Nobility#Noble privileges. Contact Basemetal here 20:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of white babies killed each year

How many white babies are killed each year through jooish legalized abortion?