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.

March 2

Help me with this question

What book by Laura Numeroff is going to be titled "If you give a _____ a brownie"?? Some Internet sites answer this question with mouse; others with bear, but I can't find any pictures of the cover of either version online. Those that say mouse are all predicting 2014, which is now in the past. Does anyone have a clue on what's going on with this title?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If You Give a Bear a Brownie was published in 2014, according to our article: Laura_Numeroff#Works. But I concede; I cannot find cover images, and stockists have none for sale. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Noel beat her to it by a year (minus pictures). Hard to find what he'll want next in the "official story". Leaning toward tea, based on a YouTube comment.InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

But Blake was a year earlier [1]. And Gauhar the same year [2] and does include pictures. (Actually I'm pretty sure all of these were released before the real Brownie book was, see below.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help thinking the book was never published. While our article and some other sources may say 2014 (e.g. [3]), other sources say it was coming out in 2009 [4], or this 2005 source which lists it like it was already out [5], likewise this 2010 source [6]. This seller meanwhile doesn't really know when it was released (lists 1900) [7]), this library thinks it was published in 2007 [8] and has 34 copies on order (no archive I can find but I suspect they may have had this for a long time), Worldcat thinks 2004 [9], OpenLibrary thinks 2007 from Worldcat [10].

This seller thinks it's unreleased and expected at the end of the year [11] as does [12] [13], [14] thinks it was 2006, meanwhile [15] thinks it was the end of last year. Although I strongly suspect both this and the previous are just that they for some reason though it was being released in 2015 or 2016, may be the 2016 ones are even automatically updated after they didn't get it in 2015 or maybe this is their data source perhaps the publisher.

GoodReads thinks 2013 first published 2006 [16], from the reviews/ratings there it was added in 2008 or earlier. It was listed in our article in 2009 as being published in 2009 [17].

Meanwhile this suggests the author was working on it I think in 1998 (or before) [18], although the other book mentioned wasn't released until 2008 [19] [20]. And interesting enough, the book she just finished working on doesn't seem to have been published, unless it published as one of the other books (some of the others involve Christmas, Merry Christmas, Mouse! in particular a Christmas tree although they seem to be published a long time after 1998). Again someone else has written their own version [21] with pictures.

From her wikipedia page and looking at the other books, it sounds like she's resonably popular. So the lack of a cover or any real info on the Bear book is quite suspicious. GoodReads and some of the other pages included random reviews and people tagging having read it but if you compare to the books which definitely exist [22] the number is at least an order of magnitude less [23]. Also although it's a simple chilren's book following a formula, still you could surely say something about it, but none of the reviews do.

Plus as mentioned no one, not even Abebooks [24] [25] or other second hand sellers seem to have any copy. Actually one of those is to what I think is a supplementary/tie-in recipe book also listed on Goodreads [26] and another is to a version which may come with a doll. These and others have ISBNs which combined with all the other stuff likely means the publisher has listed them as upcoming at some stage (perhaps they still are hence why some sellers suggest them coming in 2016 and why a library still has copies on order), but likely they still haven't been released for whatever reason.

Current version of the authors webpage includes a video, some description of another book and links to Amazon US so isn't very helpful. Amazon US interestingly only seems to list the recipe book [27]~~, I wonder if this is because the either manually or automatically removed the other version because it still doesn't exist as a published book likely a long time after the publisher first listed it~~. Amazon UK lists the doll version [28]. There is a third party seller who claim to have the recipe book [29] for £989.99, but I strongly suspect this is some automated system and they will look for the book when your order and fail to find it.

Of course there is a small possibility the book was really published in a very limited run (perhaps the doll version was the only one) but I fairly doubt it, I strongly suspect even in that case there would be more sign of it existing including people trying to sell it or talking about it.

Actually from looking in to those ISBNs, I found that some of them are just called If You Give #9 by some including Amazon [30]. (That lists end 2016 while US Amazon lists 2014 [31].) I don't know how they count, but if you include the ones not titled "if you give", there's more than 8. And there doesn't seem to have been 8 titled if you give (not counting the recipes), unless perhaps you include If You Give A Moose A Matzoh which I'm also not sure exists. (Although it sounds like the kind of thing which may be limited circulation if it did exist and I didn't look hard.)

The ISBN number itself is interesting, presuming the published gives them somewhat sequentially, it sounds like it's somewhat old when you compare to other books (although those are also a bit weird when compared to publication date, perhaps reflective of the fact these changed). I wonder how long it's been called #9, unfortunately my archive search didn't find anything useful about that. (My first look a the ISBN found the doll version.)

My conclusion is it's a book that may or may not one day be published (whether before or after the next "if you give..." book). It may or may not be finished. If the story is finished, it could be the illustration is hold things up or other things (e.g. the tie in doll or recipe book or some dispute). Considering how long it's been since it was first talked about, it could be there are changes etc too. You could try emailing or contacting the author if you're really interested.

P.S. I've removed it from our article.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The LibraryThing page If You Give a Bear a Brownie has a note saying "This book has not been published. According to Laura Numeroff's web site: "IF YOU GIVE A BEAR A BROWNIE, ANY RECIPE BOOKS, PIG PUMPKIN, MOOSE MATZOH... Many people ask me when these books will be available! These were tentative titles that AMAZON and BARNES & NOBLE got, but will never be published! Sorry about that!" DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you give a pig a pumpkin, she will want to party. And if you give a bear a peek, he will want to share. If you give another pig a party, you will see no pumpkins there. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

If you give a pig to Brownie, she will bake a cake. And then we'll all want ice cream, even bears love to partake. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

Number of postal codes in Singapore

Approximately how many postal codes are in Singapore?

Postal codes in Singapore doesn't seem to have this information. Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With 80 area codes, and hypothetically 10,000 codes per area, there are 800,000 possible codes (or probably a bit under that as some number combinations are probably rejected). How many are in current use doesn't appear to be indicated anywhere obvious - though with lots of development going on I doubt the number stays fixed for more than a few days.109.150.174.93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Button factory runner-up

Today I learned Qiaotou makes a lot of buttons. About 60% of all the buttons. Is there a clear leader (a district or company) among the rest of the button industry? Bonus question: Which individual factory in Qiaotou is the most efficient? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

For anyone wondering which of the dozens of Qiaotou Towns or Qiaotou Villages in China InedibleHulk is talking about - it's the one in Wenzhou, in Zhejiang: Qiaotou, Yongjia County. Apart from buttons, it is also officially crowned "Home of Chinese Zippers". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's the one. It's also rolling in buckles and snaps. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

This recent news story gives a figure of two to three million buttons *every day* for a company called Mailifa. And this claims that jfdbutton.com is one of the biggest of the 200 to 300 button factories in the town. Have you considered asking on the Language desk for help searching Chinese-language sources? 184.147.122.76 (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, thanks. I'll consider that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

They apparently also go by Malypha. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

Shell shock (WW1)

How did shell shock psychologically damage individuals? Were their identities as men and as soldiers diminished? --Milloanard (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shell shock is our article, it is fairly long and well-referenced. Let us know if there's something specific you want to know that is not covered there. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources also link "shell shock" to post traumatic stress disorder. --Jayron 32 19:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This [32] recent article from National Geographic discusses possible physiological underpinnings of shell shock.--Wikimedes (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What stars is the Emir of Bokhara wearing?

Can anyone identify the stars which the Emir of Bokhara is wearing in this photo? DuncanHill (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, they're the Order of the Crown of Bukhara (no article), the Order of Noble Bukhara (no article), the Order of St. Anna, and the Diamond Cipher of Tsar Nicholas II. Tevildo (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, we do have File:Order of Noble Bukhara.jpg, but that doesn't look very much like the Emir's decoration, and I've not been able to find any other illustrations of the "triangle" star. This page has an image of the Order of the Crown star. Tevildo (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I wonder how many Prokudin-Gorski pix we have. Years ago I downloaded 1930 of them from the Library of Congress ... —Tamfang (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

Could the Republicans choose not to run a candidate?

There has been a lot of news lately about how Donald Trump is opposed by Republican party leadership. I even saw someone on CNN recently discussing the notion that Mitt Romney could file to run as an independent candidate. Question: in such a scenario, is it possible for the RNC to intentionally decide not to nominate a candidate, or alternatively for Republican party leadership, despite having a nomination in hand, not to file paperwork for the candidate to run in the election? Presumably leaving the independent candidate to run against the Democrats. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is hypothetically possible - though it isn't going to happen. There are actually 50 separate elections (one in each state), so it would be necessary for the Republican Party in each and every state to agree not to put the chosen candidate on their local ballot.109.150.174.93 (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ballot access is not directly controlled by the RNC or DNC; rather, it is a function of state law. Sometimes state-law gives certain privileges to state or local party organizations (for example, "automatic ballot access"—the right to appear on the ballot without paying a fee or collecting signatures on a petition, or the right to automatically substitute a candidate to replace a candidate who dies before the election). There are also complex legal rules about to the extent to which state law may regulate internal party operations. But generally, it is the candidate who files the paperwork to run, not the party.

There have been occasions in the past where a candidate not wanted by the party has nevertheless appeared on the general-election ballot under that party label. For example, in 2012, Kesha Rogers (a member of the insane LaRouche movement) narrowly won a Democratic primary for a congressional sheet. She was promptly disavowed by the state and national party, but it appears they could not remove her "D" sign from the ballot. (There are other, perhaps less bizarre primary wins: Alvin Greene in South Carolina and Robert Gray in Mississippi come to mind, see here). See also Comparative Politics: Nations and Theories in a Changing World (2nd ed. 1996), p. 101 "the American parties have little control over their individual members ... in popular primaries ... people can acquire the party nomination while disavowing all principles and policies for which the party seems to stand." Neutrality^talk 16:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OR here, but I would presume that what the Republican party does is controlled by a majority of the delegates to the convention--if the majority of delegates are loyal to Trump, then presumably they would nominate Trump. It's inconceivable to me (or am I wrong here?) that the RNC could block the delegates from voting for a nominee. Loraof (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue would arise if Trump were to have a plurality but not a majority of candidates, leading to a brokered convention where one of the other candidates could pull enough support to overtake Trump. This has happened in the past, where dark horse candidates, as they are sometimes called, have come out of brokered conventions and ended up even winning the Presidency. See this article which explains the brokered convention, as well as the complex delegate assignment and voting rules in the Republican party. --Jayron 32 17:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On that point, see also Smoke-filled room. Matt Deres (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't the candidates (or more likely, their staff) actually file the paperwork to run, as opposed to the Party filing it ? If so, the only involvement of the Party would be if they disputed that the candidate was actually the nominee of their Party. If they won this dispute, presumably the candidate would still be on the general election ballot, but without a Party designation. And in states that allow a straight-party-vote lever, this would no longer select that candidate. StuRat (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not really very clear on who does what to claim a party's special perks for getting a candidate nominated without getting a bazillion signatures. But it looks like my scenario is off from what is being mooted here, which is the brokered-convention model. Wnt (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charity oversight in the USA

Does the USA, or do the individual states, have some sort of equivalent of the Charity Commission to oversee charities? DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They might, but you may find the IRS page on applying for tax-exempt status interesting.[33] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's any one entity that governs charities in the US, but there are several watchdog groups that publish reports on how productive charities are. Basically, they break down how much donated money actually goes to the cause the charity supports and how much goes to salaries or whatever. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 01:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it seems to be up to the media to root out unethically operated charities, such as the recent "Wounded Warriors" exposé.[34] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Reports watches watchdogs watch charity, and says three of them matter the most. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

: If only I was allowed without restrictions, the word NGO would've meant something...

-- Apostle (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

March 4

Avoiding being sent to fight in Vietnam War by claiming to be gay

Wikipedia's article on draft evasion has the following item in a list of draft evasion methods:

"Claiming to be homosexual, when the military in question excludes homosexuals—this would be considered evasion if the claim was false, but if the potential conscript is in fact a homosexual, it would be the rules of the military body that prevent him from enlisting, even if he wished to do so"

Are there any reliable stories in the US of a man who successfully avoiding being drafted into the Army during the Vietnam era by claiming (either truthfully or falsely) that he was gay? Just wondering how common this was, if at all.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chevy Chase has stated (in 1989) that he avoided the draft by this method. A biography of Jimi Hendrix published about 10 years ago made the same claim, but Hendrix was actually given an honorable discharge in 1962 (before Vietnam) on the grounds of "unsuitability". Tevildo (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Vietnam War – A Queer Perspective has more details. Apparently there were consequences to this tactic; nobody would employ you afterwards. Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly one of the assumptions in "Draft Dodger Rag". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A doctor who did physicals during WW2 said that the sexua orientation screening consisted of asking the draftee "So, do you like girls?" In the Brian dePalma/Robert DeNiro film Greetings (1968 film) a man wishing to avoid being drafted is counseled by his friend on how to be rejected as gay. He is told to wear his pants high, to wear a mesh shirt (after shaving his chest, since in that era heterosexual men did not generally shave off their body hair), to wear black silky underwear, and to use some flamboyant mannerisms during the interview. As for "no one would employ you afterwards" how would employers know what you said or why you were rejected? People got out for having flat feet, or in one case a toenail fungus. Edison (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edison: Employers would know why you were discharged from the type of discharge you were given, some more info Sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military, a "dishonorable", or an "undesirable" discharge would blight your employment prospects. DuncanHill (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they were rejected during the physical, it doesn't seem likely that they would fall into any kind of discharge category, since they were never in the military in the first place. If it came out after already being inducted, that could be trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"So, why isn't a fit young man like you in the army? You some kind of commie, or queer?" DuncanHill (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Because [I claim] I got a high draft number and didn't get drafted". Loraof (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you failed the physical (psych, bad vision, bad hearing, bad back, sexual orientation, toe fungus, flat feet, obese, high blood pressure, poor vision, severe allergies, asthma) then how would you have a dishonorable discharge, since you had never held up your right hand and been sworn in? Wouldn't you have to be sworn in to be discharged?The physical preceded the induction. If you got 4F or 1Y there was no induction.The 1Y with certain medical issues could be called up only in a larger national emergency such as all-out war. A man I knew failed the physical multiple times because he had this blueish fungus on his toe. He was not sworn in, so was not discharged honorably or otherwise. They did not compel him to treat the toe with an antifungal. He called it his "magic toe." The 4F (or 1Y) did not include a detailed explanation of what the limitation was. He could tell an employer the truth or make something up.The prospective employer did not have access to the military physical and mental exam documents. Lots of people who later got great jobs had medical deferments. Edison (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The website GLBT History claims that "hoaxosexuals" did exist.

During the Vietnam War era, the Pentagon continued to view homosexuality as a “moral defect,” so homosexuals were one of the few groups of able-bodied young men theoretically ineligible for the draft. Anti-war groups even counseled young, straight men to become “hoaxosexuals” as a way of avoiding service. Since working-class and minority draftees were less likely to have student deferments, many pretended to be gay when called up for the draft, but sexuality was only rarely a “deferment” from this war. Enforcement of the ban on gays became strict again only after the war, in the mid-1970s. Ironically, one group of young men and women who didn’t want the military to think that they were homosexuals were gay military personnel proudly serving their country.

I believe a "hoaxosexual" featured briefly in the movie of Hair, but I may be misremembering. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you could say you're gay, and actually be gay, and still be drafted. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Vietnam era draftee medical records were destroyed in 1973 when the draft ended, so draft age men who for some reason were not drafted ~~avoiders~~ like Trump and Bloomberg have no worries about anything embarrassing emerging from their physicals which kept them out of the war. Trump can now say it was because of "bone spurs in his feet." If they had been rejected for showing the induction sergeant a boner rather than a bone spur, no one could prove it. Edison (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edison: See WP:BLP and come back if you have any questions about what it means. If you do understand what it means, you'll redact much of what you just said. --Jayron 32 19:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the refs. They do not describe draft-seeking behavior. Struck the implication that they "avoided" it. Maybe they were just lucky with some medical issue showing up. But per Draft evasion "Just as tax avoidance is defined as reducing or eliminating one's tax liability through legal means, draft avoidance is the elimination or mitigation of a potential conscript's military service obligation through some lawful procedure. " Such procedure are stated to include medical reasons as well as seeking a student deferment. I do not see a BLP issue with "draft avoidance." The point about boners is that no one who got out on medical was publicly classified as to what the actual issue was. If you read the text, it does not attribute that behavior to a named person. Edison (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, you seem obsessed with getting an erection in front of a sergeant. DuncanHill (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proper term, I believe, is "standing at attention". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, March 5, 2016 (UTC)

"Making your privates stand at attention?" Edison (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty good, but doesn't cover "don't ask" woodies. Sometimes dudes don't know they're into submission till the right driller pops up (or comes along). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Seriously though, would a young gay man keep company with high-society New York women? Doubtful. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Marxism simplified

Could anyone please explain the entire Marxist theory including the concepts of dialectical materialism and historical materialism in a simple way? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the Wikipedia articles titled Marxism, dialectical materialism, and historical materialism? They're fairly well written, and each has a lead section and an overview section that covers the key ideas. If you have specific words or phrases or concepts in those articles you don't understand, we can help you with that. --Jayron 32 16:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try this - a simplified guide for school use. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/sociology/theories-in-sociology/marxist-concepts/ 109.150.174.93 (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the Marxist class analysis based on the relationship with means of production and stages of history like primitive communism, slave society etc. But I fail to understand dialectical materialism and historical materialism. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which words/phrases/sections/concepts from the Wikipedia articles titled dialectical materialism and historical materialism do you not understand? --Jayron 32 16:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main idea of dialectical materialism lies in the concept of the evolution of the natural world and the emergence of new qualities of being at new stages of evolution. As Z. A. Jordan notes, "Engels made constant use of the metaphysical insight that the higher level of existence emerges from and has its roots in the lower; that the higher level constitutes a new order of being with its irreducible laws; and that this process of evolutionary advance is governed by laws of development which reflect basic properties of 'matter in motion as a whole'."

This whole series of forms (mechanical, physical, chemical, biological and social) is distributed according to complexity from lower to higher. This seriation expresses their mutual bonds in terms of structure and in terms of history. The general laws of the lower forms of the motion of matter keep their validity for all the higher forms but they are subject to the higher laws and do not have a prominent role. They change their activity because of changed circumstances. Laws can be general or specific, depending on their range of applicability. The specific laws fall under the special sciences and the general laws are the province of diamat --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping an open mind, one mind venture over to the Simple English Wikipedia articles for these concepts if a perhaps more streamlined explanation of each concept might be helpful.--67.244.30.139 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That bit of Marxian gibberish supports what Richard Armour said about Marx's work: "Widely discussed, especially by those who never read it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slaves inheriting their master's position?

Sultan Selim II was the son of the previous sultan by one of his (former) slaves. This seems to have been fairly common in the East. Did this ever happen in the West, either in the Classical era or in more modern times? I know some children of slaves and their masters could gain important positions (e.g. Thomas-Alexandre Dumas), but did any ever inherit their master's full title / role / estate? Iapetus (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion at Quora is actually really good regarding the inheritance of slaves from their masters. --Jayron 32 18:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding slave castes which later became ruling classes, see Mamluk for the most famous example of such. It should be noted, however, that Selim II is not a good example of a slave inheriting a title or position. His mother was part of the Imperial Harem of Suleiman; which while broadly looking like slavery to modern, western culture, was not the same thing as, say, the agricultural slaves of the Americas during the 18th and 19th centuries. The sons of a Sultan's concubines frequently inherited, indeed Selim II was, if I am not mistaken, one of the first sons of a Sultan's legal wife. Also, the notion of a slave laborer who's children would be slaves is decidedly not part of the equation when looking at the children of the Sultan's harem. It is unwise to draw parallels between the court life of medieval Turkey with plantation life in the American South, let's say. --Jayron 32 18:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I realize now I badly titled the question. It should really have been "children of slaves inheriting their master's position?". Selim II was of course never a slave. But even if we don't consider Imperial concubines to be true slaves, I think it would be fair to consider his mother a "true" slave before she became a concubine (i.e. when captured by Tatars and sold to the Ottomans). I know it was, as you say, common for Sultans (and I'm guessing other nobles) to take slaves as concubines, and make their sons by those concubines their heirs. I also know it was common in the West for slave owners to take slaves as concubines - and treat their children by their slaves as a source of fresh slaves. I had herd of such children sometimes being freed and given a boost by their father, but never of anything like the Ottoman situation, so was wondering if anything like it had occurred. From that Quora article, it seems that the answer would be (at least in the US) "no - because the law prohibited it". Iapetus (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mamluks did not really "inherit" anything though, as much as "depose and execute the ruling sultan" :) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To ring the freedom bell for peace of mind, sometimes you need to let a balalaika sing what a guitar wants to say. But strumming on the old banjo doesn't quite work on a bağlama. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, March 5, 2016 (UTC)

More on topic (if Brazil counts as the West), freed slaves there could take their ex-master's surname. Not as useful as an ox, but it's something like a hereditary title. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:16, March 5, 2016 (UTC)

According to the article "Slave and Master in Ancient Near Eastern Law" (pp. 1649-50), there was a contract where an Assyrian slave was to be manumitted and given "x. acres of land and one ox" after the deaths of his "father" (owner) and "mother" in exchange for serving them the rest of their lives. Ben-Hur, however, got a better deal. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the famous example of Dido Elizabeth Belle (1761–1804), who inherited from her uncle and possibly from her father. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was possible in Roman law (and Roman-based medieval law) for a slave to be freed by being named the heir of his master, although I'm not sure if that ever actually happened or if it was just sort of an abstract notion. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

How did the Nazis treat converts to Judaism

I write this question with much trepidation. Given that I get the impression that we have a Nazi troll regularly posting on this page (I haven't kept up with the details), I'm a little cautious about asking questions about the Nazi regime. But it's a sincere question (check my contributions if you worry that I'm the troll), so I take the plunge, and here it is:

As my title suggests, how did the Nazis treat converts to Judaism? Particularly converts of "aryan blood / decent" (fellow Germans in particular, and perhaps the Scandinavian countries. I focus on this particular group, as I doubt the Nazis would have much hesitation in summarily executing a convert to Judaism if they came from a race the Nazis despised anyways). Were they gassed and shot en masse with equal ferocity and zeal as "sub-human" "born" Jews? Or were they treated like Jehovah's witnesses, merely needing to renounce their Judaism in order to regain their place as a "fellow aryan"? Or some other approach?

Given that Jews in general do not actively seek to convert non-Jews to Judaism (it's against Jewish beliefs), I'm guessing that the number of such converts would have been relatively small. To convert to Judaism (or at least orthodox Judaism), one must be pretty determined. But there have always throughout the centuries been a pretty small but pretty constant trickle of non-Jews actively seeking to join the Jewish people (and succeeding in getting accepted by them), so logic suggests they would have been at least a handful in Nazi Germany too. I'm also speculating that it would have boggled the average Nazi's brain that anyone would voluntarily choose to become a Jew. But do we have any actual historical records of how the Nazis treated such converts, either in terms of official policy - or even anecdotal stories of a Nazi encountering a convert to Judaism, and how the Nazi in question reacted? Eliyohub (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so easy (since a lot of sources are about Nazis or descendents of Nazis who converted to Judaism after WW2 and many of the rest are about how Jewish converts to Christianity and their descendents were treated), but again a search for 'jewish converts under nazi germany' should find [35]. This perhaps isn't the best source but it does mention another source. The same search should also find [36]]. And even worse source but again it links to [37]. P.S. The only followups to the first post appear to be [38] and [39]. Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a difficult question to answer. Thanks for those links, Nil. More here at mischling. Perhaps more info via asking a research question of the curatorial staff at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum? Submit a Research Question-- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazi position was that Jews were genetically inferior, so in that case having converted to Judaism obviously wouldn't change your genes. On the other hand, they also made the argument that there was a vast Jewish conspiracy to undermine German interests, and I suppose they might have imagined that converts would have joined in to that conspiracy. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some source for that StuRat? I mean, the bit of converts being treated as part of a conspiracy thing.

Long story short, German court cases of individuals' status did declare at least some German converts to Judaism, to be "Jewish" with all the persecution that entails.

The "Nuremberg Laws" had some complex spots. Interpretation was decided over time on more obscure combinations. That is, the German state could decide who was Jewish, too Jewish, or kind of Jewish.

Also it was illegal for a German to have personal relations with a Jew - which most, if not all, converts did. So that law could be used too.

"The Law for the Protection of the German Blood & Honor" prohibited marriage or sexual relations between Aryans and non-Aryans, among other things. Llaanngg (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I suppose they might have imagined" means I am not claiming it as fact, only suggesting the possibility. StuRat (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK EU Membership referendum

In the June 23rd UK referendum on EU memberships, and in UK elections more generally, what requirements are there to be eligible to vote - do EU migrants and asylum seekers automatically get the right to vote, or do they have to attain citizenship or naturalisation first? --Andrew 17:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be 18, a UK citizen or qualifying Commonwealth or Republic of Ireland, and not subject to any legal incapacity to vote. So Asylum seeker and EU citizens, not covered from a Commonwealth county or Ireland, cannot vote. Dja1979 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the only other EU citizens who can vote in the referendum are Irish, Maltese, and Cypriot. [40]. Residents from other EU countries can vote in local council elections and European Parliament elections, but not General Elections. Unlike in an ordinary general election, members of the House of Lords and Commonwealth residents of Gibraltar will also be eligible to vote in the referendum. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Child soldiers photo

Are there any sources on this photo? The first caption I saw said these are Viet Cong child soldiers in 1967. A Reddit thread says they have M1 carbines and American WWII helmet with net cover, and the photo maybe from the early 50s. Perhaps they captured trophies. Brandmeister^talk 18:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More likely an american photojournalist gave two South Vietnamese kids a couple of cigarettes (where 's the lighter?). The helmets where in service until 1985 M1_helmet. The rifles could have been borrowed for a few minutes – and they are not welded to ones hand so why are the kids holding them in a nicely composed shot (M1 are heavy and a burdern to keep hold of all the time). The background shows tarps coverings – were did the Viet-Cong import those from? Maybe the photographer thought he could get more money by suggesting he ventured into Vietcong held territory and risked getting staked over and anthill to get these shots but forgot to swap the neckerchief for a Vietcong black and white check and Vietcong garb. Call me skeptical if you like. --Aspro (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to observe that it's the cigarettes which are the horrifying element today, not the rifles... Tevildo (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned about the helmetless kid. Did Jacques Plante teach them nothing? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, March 5, 2016 (UTC)

The suggestion that the photo dates from the 1950s is possible. this photo shows a French soldier during the First Indochina War with a US helmet and M1 Carbine. A large amount of French Army equipment fell into the hands of the Viet Minh at that time. I also found this photo of a South Vietnamese Army child soldier in 1968, so it wasn't just the Viet Cong who employed them. I drew a blank on finding any sorces; a TinEye search only brought up a lot of blogs and image sharing sites. Alansplodge (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of death

A serious question, based on the above. Have cigarettes killed more people than rifles? I suspect that figures for rifle deaths may be difficult to disentangle from war casualties in general, but order-of-magnitude numbers might be available. Tevildo (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to disentangle smokers who got deadly cancer, emphysema or heart disease from something else (spinach?) from those "killed by cigarettes", too. Nobody only smokes. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, March 5, 2016 (UTC)

But if you want to make things simple, just go with half of the cancer. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, March 5, 2016 (UTC)

That's a mixed metaphor. For better comparison, the question should be, "How many people kill themselves with tobacco, as compared with rifles?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that "rifle" typically doesn't include pistols, and as it's quite awkward to shoot yourself with a rifle (pulling the trigger would be quite hard if the rifle's pointed at your head or other vital sections), the number of people who kill themselves with rifles is rather small. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to try to answer the question, rather than adding other irrelevant information. The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in the US alone, there are more than 480,000 deaths per annum attributable to smoking. Wikipedia has a page List of wars by death toll. If we take all the wars since 1560 and take the highest estimates of deaths, there are almost 335 million in the approximately 450 years, or about 750,000 per annum. Many of those will be by means other than firearms. In the USA there are about 12,000 firearm-related deaths per annum, so in the grand scheme of this question (though not for the individuals involved) this figure can be ignored. So it would seem likely that the number of firearm related deaths in the world is significantly less than the number of smoking related deaths, since the smoking figure for the USA alone is around half of all the deaths in war by all causes.--Phil Holmes (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with that approach is that the population of the world was very much smaller in 1560 than it is now. So the average number of deaths due to war over 450 years is necessarily much lower than the average number over (say) the last 200 years. On the other hand, the period when cigarette smoking has been commonplace is over a period when the world population has been much higher - and includes the two bloodiest wars in human history. So the number of war deaths is being severely under-estimated by your approach. This is a very tricky problem, statistically speaking. If we instead suppose that tobacco smoking has only been common over the last (say) 100 years, and to be fair, we only look at war deaths over the same period, then the number of war deaths become severely biased by the fact that 100 years back from 2016 is 1916 which includes half of the first world war (16 million deaths)...if you ask the same question over the last 110 years (all of WWI), or the last 90 years (none of WWI), you'd get a wildly different answer for average deaths per year from warfare.

This entire question only makes any kind of sense at all if you carefully delineate the years over which you're asking it. If you say "Were there more cigarette-related deaths than rifle-related deaths over the past 10 years?" - you'll get a drastically different answer than if you ask it over the past 100 years, or the 10 years between 1940 and 1950 when there were maybe 80 million deaths due to warfare.

Without such a delineation - I call "bullshit" on any more general answer. I bet you can make the answer come out either way by picking the right span of years to support your claim. Have more people been killed by rifles than cigarettes during the past 5 minutes while I've been typing this answer? No, I very much doubt it. Were more people been killed by rifles than cigarettes during the American civil war? Almost certainly, yes. SteveBaker (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One confounding aspect will be that, generally speaking, rifle deaths tend to occur when the person is at a younger age. The effect of this would be that many people who would likely have died of smoking related illnesses end up getting shot to death before that had a chance to happen. I was thinking of WW1 and WW2 in that regard, but taking it even further, the countries where a lot of people die from getting shot also tend to not have great social nets, again skewing results. Matt Deres (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is the total killed by cigarettes and by rifles, so we shouldn't attempt to make the time periods match up. Rifles have been popular since the Napoleonic Wars (although during those wars they resulted in only a fairly small minority of deaths), while cigarettes have been popular since the 1880s; for whatever reason, the OP is not asking about deaths caused by guns other than rifles, or by tobacco other than cigarettes. I suspect that we would find that the absolute number of cigarette-caused deaths is higher, but that more years of life are lost to rifles, since cigarettes tend to kill the aged and rifles disproportionately kill the young. John M Baker (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

madrasas at Sultan Hassan's Mosque in Cairo

Hello, I am researching a project about Cairo in 1900, and cannot find specific information I need about the madrasas at the Hassan (Hasan) mosque: Were they still being used as schools in 1900? Are they in use currently? Any help you can give or steer me to will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Smsbooks! (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry no one has leapt to answer this intriguing question. I notice that our article Mosque-Madrassa of Sultan Hassan doesn't offer much in the way of references. Do you read Arabic? The parallel article here might provide some ways forward. Have you tried contacting the mosque itself? Presumably it has some sort of archive. Or there's always the modern "Great Library of Alexandria", more properly Bibliotheca Alexandrina. (Wikimania 2008 was held there.) They offer "library information services" at infobib@bibalex.org. There's also the Arab World Institute in Paris - I can attest that their staff are trilingually helpful. The website is here, and then you need to go to the "bibliotheque" (because "librarie" is a false friend meaning "bookshop"). The library has a reference desk: ask a question here in French or Arabic, but I'd be surprised if they'd reject out of hand a thoughtful question in English. Good luck! And when you find the answer, please come back and tell us here, or add it to the article, so future readers can benefit. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

State-Founding Conference in Mongolia

In this book (https://books.google.it/books?id=rHainkH7pdEC&pg=PA378&dq=Hsilinkuolemeng&hl=it&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Hsilinkuolemeng&f=false) it is reported that in April 1936 Prince De, Li Shou-Hsin and Japanese Special Service Chief Tanaka met the rapresentatives of varius places in a “State-Founding Conference”. I’m having trouble identifying most of the lands they list:
Mengchenhui, Hsilinkuolemeng, Tsakmarmen, Ulanchapmeng, Tumetechi, Alashan, Koshimouchi, Ikechiameng, Tsinghai and Outer Mongolia.
In another book (https://books.google.it/books?redir_esc=y&hl=it&id=nnkNAAAAIAAJ&dq=Mengchenhui&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Ikeehiemeng) the same list is given with slightly different names:
Mengchenhui, Hsilinkuolemeng, Tsakharmen, Ulanchapmeng, Tumotechi, Alashan, Koshimouchi, Ikechiemeng, Tsinghai and Outer Mongolia. --151.41.143.52 (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tsinghai seems to be Qinghai. DuncanHill (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hsilinkuolemeng is Xilinguole-meng, and Ulanchapmeng should be Ulanqab. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mengchenhui is Mengcun Hui Autonomous County; Tumotechi must be Tumd Youqi (or Tumd Zuoqi?), Alashan must be Alxa Left Banner or Alxa Right Banner, or maybe Alashankou; Tsakharmen is the old Chahar Province (which seems to be the current Chahar Right Front Banner, Chahar Right Middle Banner and Chahar Right Back Banner). I'm not sure about Koshimouchi or Ikechiemeng...I could be completely wrong based on my extremely rudimentary understanding of how to map these sounds into any modern transliteration, but maybe Koshimouchi is East Ujimqin Banner or West Ujimqin Banner? (Assuming that "Koshimouchi" is "Wuzhumuqin"?) My best guess for Ikechiemeng is Heshigten Banner. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these are former Leagues of China, of which only 3 remain, the rest having been subdivided or converted into other administrative units.

I think Tumotechi is probably Tumd Youqi and Tumd Zuoqi together - the former is presumably "Tumd Banner", the latter two are "Tumd right-banner" and "Tumd left-banner" respectively. Tumd was never a league in itself, but see Tumed for the people.

Alashan is now Alxa League - again the left-banner and right-banner are subdivisions.

Tsakharmen is most likely "Chahar League" or "Chahar Meng" - again now divided into banners.

My best guess is Ikechiemeng is Ih Ju League, now Ordos City

I'm drawing a blank at Koshimouchi too. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a list of Administrative divisions of Mongolia during Qing that might help us figure it out... Adam Bishop (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a list of the administrative subdivisions of the Mongol Local Autonomy Political Affairs Committee, which was the semi-autonomous entity directly preceding the military government declared in 1936, and couldn't see anything that sounded like Koshimou-chi.

There's also the possibility that Koshimou is a transcription based on Japanese pronunciations of Chinese characters which are themselves transcribed from Mongol names... The original source text in Japanese would be quite helpful here. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put the link here, in case I never get to this and someone else has the language ability, patience, and internet connection to finish it: the OP quoted from the majority judgment of the Tokyo International Military Tribunal for the Far East. It's in Section 3 of Chapter V. A fairly authoritative Chinese version of the judgment is available, here, but is accessible via a clunky interface. If anyone has a better internet connection and/or more time than me, you can click through the pages of Section 3 to get the actual Chinese text. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay found it via a different version. According to the translation of the judgment anyway, "Alashan Koshimouchi" is one place - "阿拉善'额济纳旗", i.e. Ejin Banner. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Marshall Islands' case against the Nuclear powers

I read this story in yesterday's paper (or rather, the same story in a different paper), and something baffles me.

The Marshall Islands is apparently suing (in the International Court of Justice all nine nuclear powers for breaching their obligations under article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which states "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament."(emphasis mine). They apparently don't realistically expect any of the nine to be forced to cease their nuclear weapons programs, but they want to bring attention to the issue.

Now here's my question: I can understand them potentially having standing to bring such a case against the five nuclear weapons states who are members of the treaty. I'm not saying they'll win the case, but they have standing to bring it. They might have a case against North Korea, if they can prove that it breached the treaty in some fashion whilst it was still a member, despite it having since withdrawn (though this may be tricky), or by arguing that its' withdrawal was invalid (the treaty only allows "legal" withdrawal from one's obligations under it in limited circumstances, and it involves following specific procedures). But how on earth could they bring a claim under the treaty against the three nuclear weapons states who never signed it?

Israel, India and Pakistan never signed the treaty. Wouldn't they be perfectly entitled under international law to legally build and possess nuclear weapons in perpetuity? How does the Marshall Islands intend to frame its' case in the ICJ against these three, in legal terms? Or are they simply bringing a case for P.R. purposes, but don't have a legal leg to stand on (regarding these three)? EDIT: Reading the application on the ICJ's website, the Marshall Islands is arguing that the treaty, by virtue of its' widespread adoption, has become customary international law, thus binding even non-members. Is there any chance of this argument holding legal water? Eliyohub (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before I got to your third paragraph, I was about to say, if I were the Marshall Islands I'd frame the case against the other nuclear states in terms of customary international law. So I'm glad that your description of their case has confirmed my initial thought.

It is an accepted doctrine of public international law that some principles of international law, which might have their origin in treaties, may become so widely accepted that they become customary international law that binds all states, even if not parties to the treaties. The UN Charter is an example - the principles enshrined in the charter are often regarded as customary international law which binds all states, even non-UN member states. Alternatively, one might argue that there is some fundamental principle which is merely codified or recorded in a treaty, and it is applicable anyway as customary international law. Have a look at "jus cogens" and "Sources of international law" for a start. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting the Franco-Prussian War

What if Bismarck's gamble had failed: France declares war on Prussia, but none of the South German states join in, so it's just a contest between the Norddeutscher Bund and France. How did Bismarck and Moltke propose to invade France? Some sort of pre-Schlieffen invasion of Belgium and the Netherlands, or just fighting on the tiny border between Prussia and France? Or were they planning just to wait for a French invasion? The French navy was vastly superior to the Prussian (470 warships to five), so a seaborne invasion was impossible, and I can't imagine a master politician like Bismarck not developing at least a contingency strategy. Nyttend (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Because this is an alternate history question, I'll speculate. Looking at the later German Schlieffen Plan, the planners depended on "buffer states" simply allowing the Germans armies to march through their territories, in return for cash compensation afterwards. Luxembourg acceded without much fuss, but it seems that the Germans were genuinely surprised that the Belgians refused. Because the Germans didn't win straight away, the Luxembourgoise had to endure four years of occupation, which wasn't in the original script. I can't imagine the King of Bavaria or the Grand Duke of Baden wanting to start a war with Prussia by refusing transit.

However, I'm not certain about the premise of your question, because according to this map, Prussia did indeed have a substantial land border with the French department of Lorraine, which seems to be the Prussian Rhine Province (south of Luxembourg). It was this border, together with the Bavarian Palatinate which was actually the start-line for the Prussian invasion in July 1870 (see File:FrancoPrussianWarFrontierJuly1870.jpg). Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That map is drastically wrong; it doesn't even depict Luxembourg! I've just added a much more accurate map at the top of this section; you'll see how narrow the Franco-Prussian border was. See also File:Rheinland 1905.png, which demonstrates that the distance between Luxembourg and the Bavarian-controlled Pfalz was less than 60km. You note that the invasion began partly from the Pfalz — but that's irrelevant because had the southern states stayed neutral, that corridor wouldn't have been available. Please reread the question: I'm asking for references about prewar plans for such a scenario, not for alternate-history speculations about what happens in such a situation. Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was only trying to help, Alansplodge (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of two Prussian armies in the Palatinate is surely a clear indication that Bavaria (at least) was already committed to taking the Prussian side in the conflict - so there was no need for any alternative plans. You are unlikely to find written sources about what was agreed: it was de rigeur in 19th century diplomacy to keep such agreements completely secret. The best you will find are the guesses of various historians 109.150.174.93 (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this actually real propaganda or just satire? (Mussolini)

Long ago I saw a few seconds of song that went "Mussolini!" dadadadadada (da's are instrumental, not sung) and it's so catchy that I can't read Mussolini's name without that playing in my head. It didn't sound especially militaristic like might be expected and wouldn't be out of place in a US parade or newsreel or something of the era. The music is so cartoonish for something fascists made that I wonder if it's real. Then again until Führer asked the deranged Ron P.* zealot looking youth where he's from I didn't notice anything fascist-feeling in Hitler propaganda either. So maybe it's real. *not BLP? Maybe the song's even fairly well known (at least to Duce's citizens) and I'm just ignorant? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Bugs Bunny music what you remember? If so, here's an article. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it was one of the numerous anti-Axis films by Loony Toons. Tokio Jokio was the first Google result but it wasn't that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

Contents of the casket

What was in the casket Phyllis gave to her husband Demophon that so horrified him? (A library ~~book~~ scroll Demophon forgot to return before setting out for the Trojan War?) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhea was all about the dead babies. They're pretty unsettling, so make a good (bad) final jab in lover's quarrels. Mostly a guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Another Demophon was a dead baby himself. Almost eternal. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

No one ever recorded what was in it. It's the original MacGuffin. What's in the booooox? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! Stupid! You so stupid! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sure wasn't no stinking badgers. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

"Still, some feelings will be familiar. We know what it’s like to fear. We know the courage necessary to protect our loved ones. But there are some things we’ll never fully understand. That ignorance is why we read, why we look. Sometimes, it’s why we play games." InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

If the mythology doesn't say what it was, then we don't know. We are compelled to use our imaginations. My first thought was that maybe it was his own wife. Or, even scarier, a pre-nuptial agreement. Or worse, an insurance salesman. Hitchcock used to say that what the MacGuffin specifically is does not matter. Its purpose is to drive the story, so it can be anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least anything that fills the brain with the wildest chimeras. So not tin. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:22, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Malingering and faking a mental illness

This question is about malingering. (The Wikipedia article does not provide any answers.) The question arises in the context of someone who commits a crime and then "pretends" to be crazy, in order to avoid prison. But, my question is not really limited to that scenario. I assume that some mental illnesses are easier to "fake" than others are. And some individuals are better "actors" than others are. So, my questions. (1) How exactly do doctors distinguish the real from the fake? How do they know when someone is faking? And (2) Is the determination subjective? Or objective? In other words, are there some set of strict criteria that need to be observed? Or is it simply an "opinion" and one doctor might conclude that the patient is faking, while another doctor might disagree? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no psychiatrist, but looking at someone's history (from sources other than the "patient") can often provide clues. He's "suddenly" lost his mind? Most mental illnesses don't work that way (though there are exceptions). They last over many years. So the first obvious clue is probably to look at how the person has behaved in the years leading up to the crime. (e.g. Jared Lee Loughner had a long history of bizarre and nonsensical outbursts at university, so was clearly no fake. Ditto John Hinckley, Jr. had a clearly establish-able history of mental problems in the years leading up to his attempt to assassinate President Reagen). Some actors such as Borat could stay "in character" for days at a time, but very few people have the ability to put on an "act" which spans years.

In fact, the real scary and dangerous ones are the exact opposite - the genuinely insane who can keep a convincing mask of sanity for years, behind which lurks a very dangerous mind. Anders Behring Breivik may be the perfect example of a man with paranoid and grandiose delusions who hid them very well - plotting silently and meticulously until his day he let his pent up well-planned evil insanity explode. NOTE that he fiercely argued in court that he was perfectly sane, as many mentally ill defendants do.

That said, some issues do inevitably arise. People who have experienced combat or other life and death situations seeking disability pensions for post-traumatic stress disorder can be a tough one. Once upon a time, it was generally assumed that all PTSD was "just acting" to get money. Militaries nowadays accept that PTSD is very real, but yes, there is inevitably an issue there with the potential to fake one's symptoms, and difficulties in verifying the claimant's claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyohub (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know who are great at playing crazy for years on end? Wrestlers. They can also pretend to be fine. Or actually be Kamala and The Wizard. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough, three years after that Kamala match in Boston was the first National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women in Montreal. Experts still aren't sure how crazy that guy might have been that day. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

At least in Nebraska, "the weight and credibility of an expert's testimony are a question for the trier of fact, and triers of fact are not required to take opinions of experts as binding upon them". So if you can convince the judge, you can be legally insane. And psychiatrists who actually know the patient/defendant best are advised to not testify, for ethical reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Expert witness and trier of fact might be useful. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Question one assumes that they can. They cannot. See Rosenhan experiment. In response to question two; subjective, although there usually is a list of things to check for, check out a DSM-IV or DSM-5. And "doctors" often disagree with each other. So, in theory, if you wanted to fake a mental illness, and you did a bit of research beforehand to get a realistic list of symptoms and you claim that you have those problems then you could fool everyone. Well, almost everyone. In the article about the Rosenhan experiment it is mentioned that 35 of the total of 118 patients expressed a suspicion that the pseudopatients were sane... So patients are probably better at detecting fakery than "doctors". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but imagine if a patient simply read the DSM and claimed to his or her local forensic shrink to have those symptoms in an attempt to evade justice. Wouldn't a simple "background check" with others who know the patient and who have no reason to lie on the patient's behalf (assuming you could identify such individuals) readily reveal the "symptoms" as a sham? As I said in my earlier response, wouldn't you need to establish a plausible "history" (involving others willing to lie on your behalf that they heard you express delusional ideas, for example), given that most mental illnesses don't suddenly develop out of the blue, at least not without some significant triggering event (in which case you can try to independently verify whether the "event" did in fact occur, and the patient was present or involved)? A bit similar to the difficulties in establishing the "authenticity" of a counterfeit painting? IMHO, for many of the total shammers, some pretty simple detective work would quickly unmask their lies. It's more a job for an investigator (police or private investigator) than a Psychiatrist. Eliyohub (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eliyohub: A witness who says that this person used to be sane at some point in the past is not evidence that that person has faked his current insanity. Some forms of mental illness can occur without any warnings, and are quite difficult to predict. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was as obvious as the nose on your face that Loughner was mentally ill, but he was still found competent to stand trial. The legal definition of "insanity" is a lot narrower than just being mentally ill. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to faking it, Vincent Gigante is an interesting study. Was he insane? Was he faking being insane? Was he faking being sane in order to fake being insane? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a famous experiment, the Rosenhan experiment, analyzing the validity of psychiatric diagnostics.

On the legal side, I doubt that many criminal would benefit from being considered mentally ill. That could imply even a longer time locked away. Having a good lawyer convince the court that you were temporarily insane is another thing. Llaanngg (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally true, a successful insanity plea can result in an indefinite incarceration in a psychiatric facility, potentially many times longer than a prison sentence may have ever been. But one group are a glaring exception: those potentially facing the death penalty. They have every reason to attempt to persuade the judge or jury that they are insane. Their life may well depend on it.

Also, lawyers do regularly attempt to raise defendants' mental health issues (either genuine ones, exaggerated ones, or sham ones) as a mitigating factor in sentencing. In many jurisdictions, psychological or psychiatric reports on the defendant are regularly tendered at sentencing hearings. Eliyohub (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason that most legal rulings use the phrase "a history of mental illness". Suddenly claiming to have some condition when a crime was committed, and never previously, is unlikely to get you off the hook. Having evidence of a significant past history of that illness is what is needed. Of course there is still no guarantee that justice will prevail, but it's fairer than having someone who has been arrested to suddenly start faking symptoms and thereby attempt to circumvent punishment. It's also a fairly dangerous route to travel in a trial since it basically requires you to accept evidence that you committed the crime, so if the "insanity" defense doesn't work, it's too late to deny involvement. SteveBaker (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a temporary insanity plea, which seems like a rather convenient way to claim they were insane at the time, so not responsible, but they are all better now, so we should just let them go free. StuRat (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crime of passion is another useful link here. SteveBaker (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with getting accurate mental illness diagnosis in court is the adversarial system, which virtually ensures that the prosecution will hire whatever doctors they think will find the defendant sane, while the defense will hire whatever doctors will give them the diagnosis they need. The idea that the truth can be found midway between two opposing lies is highly questionable, and the side which spends the most money to hire the most convincing paid "experts" often wins. StuRat (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why the "history of mental illness" test is more convincing. If the person can be shown to have been diagnosed with a problem over a matter of years - and perhaps had even been treated for it (albeit unsuccessfully), then that body of evidence would stand up well in the face of "experts" examining the persons' current state of mind. But if you have to resort to duelling experts looking at the person after the fact (when, let's face it, being arrested and locked up weeks or months pending the trial could drive anyone crazy!) - then it's a crap-shoot. SteveBaker (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One problem at looking at their history of treatment is that those records are often sealed, so how does the jury know if they were treated for their fear of spiders or for wanting to kill everyone they meet ? StuRat (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bible translation

There was a particular Bible translation project that I'd look into off-and-on every few years, but then kind of lost track of during college and forgot the name of.

It's a fairly literal translation, though it attempted to indicate puns and similar literary devices where possible. What I remember of what they had of Genesis, Adam was translated as something like "earth-man," "clay-man," or something along those lines. The "birds" and "fish" of the fourth day are directly translated as just "flying things" and "swimming things." As I recall, it also stuck to the Masoretic, though they said they were considering adding notes from the LXX later on.

It was not finished in 2010, to my knowledge. Any ideas? Thanks.

Ian.thomson (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Literary Bible: An Original Translation, by David Rosenberg - perhaps? 109.150.174.93 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of English Bible translations might be of some help in tracking it down. SteveBaker (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Bible's not it, though I may have to look into that one as well.

Already checked the list. It wasn't exactly a notable project. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I know I just asked this, but in my own searches I'm starting to suspect that the project (which wasn't the largest) fell apart and was overshadowed. If it was out by now, it'd be the perfect companion to the Comprehensive New Testament, but the Amazon page for that doesn't link to this. So I'm thinking it's either not finished, or never was.

On the off chance someone happens to remember the name of the project and/or can direct me to the website (which would have been well designed in the 90s) or its remains, I'd be glad to know. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...Miscellaneous_English_Bible_translations suggests the Original Bible Project...and thence to: http://originalbible.com - which claims (Dec 2015) to be under redesign...but it's a bizarre redesign that hides all of the old content during redesign! (That's pretty inept!) - however, you can look on The WayBackMachine and you'll probably be able read the website before the content was removed/hidden.

http://biblegateway.com has a LOT of translations available. One of those, perhaps? --Jayron 32 16:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could be the recent translation by Everett Fox. He uses lots of awkward hyphenated expressions. The Torah was published in 1995, and "The early prophets" (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) was published in 2014. Staecker (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of info for UK referendum.

I'm a British citizen, living in the USA. I don't generally vote in UK elections because (a) I'm not usually sufficiently well informed to make a good decisions and (b) It seems wrong to impose my preference when I'm unlikely to be very much affected by the results.

However, for the referendum in June on whether the UK should remain in the EU or not - I feel that I may be significantly affected by the decision - and so I need to understand the ramifications, point them out to British friends and family and cast a considered vote. I have a completely open mind on the matter right now...I have no idea what the best thing would be.

Can someone point me to some reasonably unbiased pro- and con- arguments online? Preferably somewhere with links to facts and statistics that I can check up on?

TIA SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could start at BBC News EU Referendum coverage. As well as news stories, towards the bottom of the page you will find a selection of features and analysis. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I recommend starting with the BBC's regularly updated Q&A, which seems relatively neutral although possibly slightly and subtly pro-Remain, then have a browse of recent Telegraph and Guardian coverage of recent topical issues (read both, for balance). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) BBC News has some pages on the subject, which are probably going to be reasonably fair to both sides. There's also some information from The Guardian. And of course there's United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. You might not be eligible to vote, though, depending on your exact circumstances, as you have to be (from the Guardian page) a British, Irish and Commonwealth citizen over 18 resident in the UK; or a UK national living abroad who has been on the electoral register in the UK in the past 15 years (I don't know if that means "continuously" or "ever"). Not that that should stop you taking an interest, of course. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For information about voting as a UK national overseas, see About my vote - overseas voters. DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - that might be a problem - I'm not currently resident, but I think I voted less than 15 years ago. Well, either way, I want to be well-informed, if only so I can harangue other Brits into voting "intelligently". :-) SteveBaker (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC pages include a Reality Check - where they have technical experts looking at all of the claims to see if they add up or not. Very informative. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388 109.150.174.93 (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times editorial board has weighed in on the "remain" side, which might interest you as a British national living in the States. See here. Neutrality^talk 19:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria for Template:Mayors of the largest cities in the world by GDP

Don't know if this is the right forum, but can anyone see what the inclusion criteria is for {{Mayors of the largest cities in the world by GDP}}? Hack (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template was created by User:Lucas Landin, who is still somewhat active, his last edits were about a month ago. You could ask him what he was doing when he created the template. --Jayron 32 17:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commercialisation

Is the NHS the only organisation in the UK that hasn't become increasingly commercialised and about cost recovery, and is still about its core values and outputs? 82.132.246.0 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an essay question which would require people to give their opinions. That's not really the purpose of this desk. --Jayron 32 19:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I'm asking for facts, not opinions. An organisation is either commercially driven or not. 82.132.246.0 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about the military and Anglican Church ? StuRat (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, military, Anglican Church and I suppose police and fire brigade. Are those, including the NHS, all what we would call paramilitary organisations? 82.132.246.0 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is British socialized medicine a "paramilitary" organization? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Ok, let me rephrase that so the NHS and Anglican Church are the only non paramilitary/military organisations that are not financially driven but driven by its core values and outputs? 2A02:C7D:B907:6D00:898:57DD:C11F:36F3 (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have non-profit organizations in Britain? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but many are commercially driven as they have to recover their costs and don't receive funding from government. 2A02:C7D:B907:6D00:898:57DD:C11F:36F3 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does that make them "commercially driven"? In America, non-profits typically cover their costs by donations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(three times) Unfortunately, the NHS has become increasingly commercialised, though I agree that most employees are still concerned about its core values and outputs. There are many other organisations (including lots of not-for-profit ones) in the UK that are more concerned about their core values and outputs than about commercial matters, but most of them have charitable status. Why pick out the Church of England? Dbfirs 21:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because they have to think about how much they're spending and will cut corners etc to save money or they will try business tactics to get donations. This seems to apply to most charities. Really? The NHS is commercially driven? Is that management? 2A02:C7D:B907:6D00:898:57DD:C11F:36F3 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, management, but that now includes local GP practices who have delegated budgets. Dbfirs 22:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you look in to art collective, communal living, cooperatives, and maybe some Anarchy_in_the_U.K. (more seriously, we don't have an article on Anarchist organisations in the United Kingdom but we do have List_of_anarchist_communities). Things cost money, even charities have to keep the lights on. We do have an article on Social_and_psychological_value_of_money. You don't have to like living in a capitalistic consumerist, commercialized society: lots of people don't like it, but searching for organizations that don't care about money at all puts you into the domain of organizations that are often considered WP:FRINGE though we might just say marginalized to keep it more WP:NPOV ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which European nationality group votes most Democratic in US elections?

I know that Jews as an ethnic/religious group, are among whites the most pro-Democratic by far. I was wondering what number 2 was? Which non-Jewish white ethnic group is the most relatively Democratic-leaning?

Among Christian-majority European ethnic groups in the US I was wondering which has the most Democratic voters? --Gary123 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]