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.

April 16

Word

Hi, what is a word for someone who says he is something, but his actions say others? Like a revolutionary in words but not actions, that sort of thing. Thanks

Hypocrite is the word you want, I expect. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also deluded, which is a term commonly applied to false prophets (and their followers). -Modocc (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English agricultural collapse

One reason for the closure of the Old Iron Works, Mells was "the collapse of English agriculture in the 1870s". The source for this statement refers to "the catastrophic collapse in English agriculture in the 1870s". What happened? Nothing in agriculture in England, and I don't know where else to look. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ehs.org.uk/dotAsset/10ebf43b-ad22-4b6e-afc6-24f5f3d24e22.pdf 81.132.106.10 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Has An Article On Everything!: see Great Depression of British Agriculture - "...is usually dated from 1873 to 1896. The depression was caused by the dramatic fall in grain prices following the opening up of the American prairies to cultivation in the 1870s and the advent of cheap transportation with the rise of steamboats". Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a brief note to our "Agriculture in England" article - gosh, that needs a lot more work if anybody's bored. Alansplodge (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dating a globe

My sister-in-law and I were passing our time on a car trip by trying to figure out when a specific globe was produced by the countries that were labeled on it. There was no copyright/printing/manufacture date that she could find. We were able to come up with a date somewhere between 1962 and 1965. This was a few days ago and I've forgotten specifically which countries that helped us narrow it down to those three years. Were there any events in that time that would help us narrow it down even further? I don't have the globe in front of me anymore.

If you're wondering, the globe had been her father's and we had just taken it out of his parent's home while cleaning personal items out before selling the house. Dismas|^(talk) 13:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the label on the future country of Zaïre? In 1964, it changed from "Republic of the Congo" to "Democratic Republic of the Congo", although of course it may be labelled simply "Congo-Léopoldville", which would apply before and after 1964. What's the label on the next country farther south? It changed from Northern Rhodesia to Zambia in 1964. Also, Tanganyika and Zanzibar consolidated into Tanzania in 1964. Malaysia was formed in 1963. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cameroons merged with the former French Republic of Cameroon in 1961. Ruanda-Urundi was split between Rwanda and Burundi in 1962. Nyasaland became Malawi in 1964. Congo actually became the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1965. Guyana replaced British Guiana in 1966. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't have it in front of me but I do remember seeing Nyasaland. This stuck out to me as I'd never heard of it before. Dismas|^(talk) 17:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How Old Is Your Globe? shows seven changes in 1962 and four in 1964, but none in 1963. (It appears to get Malaysia wrong.) —Tamfang (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia was set up 16 Sept 1963 - perhaps a bit late to be included on globes manufactured that year. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That list's only entry for Malaysia is in 1957. —Tamfang (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then that list is, unfortunately, wrong! Malaya became independent in 1957. It united with Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo to become Malaysia in 1963. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore was expelled from Malaysia on 9 August 1965. So if Singapore is on the globe and the globe is from no later than 1965, that would date it to 1965. Loraof (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore wasn't expelled from the Malaysian Federation. She thought she could do better on her own. The other states were sorry to see her go. 86.166.222.195 (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, see Singapore in Malaysia#Expulsion. It's generally accepted that the leadership of Singapore (particularly Lee Kuan Yew) did not want to leave although there was negotiation before hand (and of course afterwards). It's sometimes suggested (or normally accepted, not totally sure) that the leadership of Malaysia didn't really want Singapore out of Malaysia either but thought that Singapore wouldn't be able to survive on their own, so would be forced to come back to Malaysia under their (the Malaysian leadership's) conditions. From Singapore POV whatever they wanted, after expulsion, they obviously tried to make the best of it. Despite these complexities, expulsion is the word most commonly used as the seperation ultimately happened at the behest of the Malaysian government including with a vote in the Malaysian parliament rather than something Singapore had publicly requested which was then approved by the Malaysian government (including parliament). See [1] [2] Nil Einne (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all! Especially Tamfang. With that link, my sis-in-law was able to verify that it was 1964 when it was produced. Dismas|^(talk) 01:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on how globes were designed and manufactured in 1960s, but it seems to a bit risky to conclude such a definite production year based solely on what countries were and weren't present as I would guess the time between the globe being designed and produced could be over a year, particularly if it wasn't someone who prided themselves on accuracy and decided the stuff that happened in 1964/1965 weren't that important. Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Though considering we're not using it for navigation or any scientific purposes, I'm happy enough with the result. Dismas|^(talk) 12:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made the point the last time we had a date-a-map question: given that changes in reality take time to get onto maps, you can pretty reliably date a map to after a certain date if it shows a change of that date, but you cannot reliably date a map to before a certain date if it does not show a change of that date. How reliably (or unreliably) depends on the specific change. So if a map shows "USSR" instead of "Russia", you can pretty confidently date it to after the founding of the USSR because there was no way any map maker would have labeled it "USSR" before it was created. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J Blackmun

The US Supreme Court's decision in Ohio v. Kentucky, 444 U.S. 335 (1980), had its majority opinion written by "Blackmun, J.". What's the "J" stand for? Harry Andrew Blackmun hadn't a "J" in his name, and it's seemingly not "Justice", or why would it be BRENNAN, STEWART, etc. instead of "BRENNAN, J., STEWART, J.", etc.? Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. is for Justice. Burger is Chief Justice ("C.J.") and Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, and Stevens are Justices ("JJ."). John M Baker (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a bit on this.

"BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE and REHNQUIST, JJ.".

If this was read out aloud, it would be:

"Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Burger, and Justices Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, and Stevens joined. Justice Powell filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices White and Rehnquist joined."

It's just one of these odd bits of legalese you get so used to you don't notice, like saying "A v B" as "A and B" (but not in the States, of course.) ~~I suspect the reason why "Justices" is abbreviated as JJ is something to do with Latin, as (plural)species is abbreviated to "spp"~~ no, cancel that, just found out it's the abbreviation of species pluralis.

There are other judicial titles which are written after a name. Lord Denning was Master of the Rolls for so long that "Lord Denning MR" is the way he is ubiquitously referred to. (Indeed, it's a redirect to his article.) Closer to my jurisdiction, the higher-up members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have abbreviations written after their names: Apple DP is Deputy President Apple, Banana SM is Senior Member Banana, and so on. I'm sure someone else will have better examples.

(This is just pure anecdote, but in less formal discussion, it is quite common to say, for example, "Kirby J" or "Brennan CJ" just as written: heck, the lecturers at Law School did, we're just following their example!)

--Shirt58 (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial titles in England and Wales has a comprehensive list of the English abbreviations - we don't appear to have similar articles for other jurisdictions, but I'm sure someone with access to appropriate reference material could create any that are needed... Tevildo (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that there are other abbreviations in English that pluralize by doubling the last letter. The ones that immediately come to mine are from the study of literature. In bibliographies you may see "pp." for "pages" and "ff." for "and the following pages". If a "manuscript" is abbreviated "MS", the plural is "MSS". At Abbreviation#Plural forms is a table listing more of these, with a note saying that the practice is copied from Latin. I'll add "JJ." to the list. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are also f (forte = loud), ff (fortissimo), fff ... ffffff (fortissississississimo), and similar for volume intensity in music. Similar for p (piano = soft). And in case you think these are made up, Tchaikovsky did use pppppp in his Pathétique Symphony, and György Ligeti went so far as to specify ffffffff and pppppppp. See Dynamics (music). Of course, these are not plurals as such, but the principle of multitude still applies. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roman temple of the Clemence

The article Santa Maria Maggiore, Bergamo has the line 'Roman temple of the Clemence'. I've searched for what this is in reference to and can not find any info on this term. There's a Saint Clement, clemence definition, origin, and use (mostly French). What does 'Roman temple of the Clemence' refer to? - 24.16.201.133 (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clementia, the Roman goddess of forgiveness and mercy. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also the entry for Clemence, equating name with Clementia, in the Chaucer Name Dictionary. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sect of Islam Muhammad Iqbal had followed?

Looks like that he was a Shia Muslim, but I didn't find anything on his article. Could you please tell me what branch of Islam he had followed? Thanks in advance. 46.225.3.56 (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In our article Works of Muhammad Iqbal, the third item in the Further reading section is ^[1]

^ Annemarie Schimmel (1989). Gabriel’s Wing: Study Into the Religious Ideas of Sir Muhammad Iqbal. Pakistan: Iqbal Academy. ISBN 978-9694160122.

The title looks promising. Loraof (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 17

Does Wikipedia have an article about transgender people and bathroom laws?

There is some new controversial law, I believe in North (or South) Carolina. Something about transgender people can use whatever bathroom they want to use. So, if someone is biologically male but identifies as female, they can use the female bathroom. And vice versa. Do we have an article about that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course: Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro this law actually has the opposite effect of what you've described. It criminalizes transgenger people who use the bathroom that fits their gender, by mandating that the sex indicated on a person's birth certificate is the only one that matters. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. And that's controversial? Good God. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is controversial. Any law that mandates and formalizes state sponsorship of hatred and discrimination is bound to upset people who think that treating people with due decency and respect should be the proper course of action.--Jayron 32 17:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandating that someone use the "anatomically correct" bathroom (for lack of a better word) hardly amounts to "hatred" and "discrimination". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about "pigmentally-correct" seats on a bus? In any case, the North Carolina legislation requires those persons who _have_ had their anatomies aligned with their genders to use the wrong bathroom. If one was born with a penis, one is required to use the facilities for men, even if one is no longer anatomically male. Tevildo (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pigment has nothing to do with this issue/question. You are throwing in a red herring, which is completely irrelevant. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. You might argue that such discrimination is justified (I'm sure, for instance, that most people would agree that discrimination against young people is justified when it comes to buying alcohol), but I don't think you can argue that it's not discrimination. But this is not an appropriate forum for debate. Tevildo (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even in cases of necessity, a not-infrequent situation in the context of bathroom usage? Is it now illegal in North Carolina for a cisgendered, heterosexual man to use the ladies' loo when circumstances require it? Our article doesn't make this clear, and it would be interesting to know if this issue has ever come before the courts. Tevildo (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your comment. What does "necessity" mean, in the context of using a bathroom? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a crime (not merely a violation of local bylaws or a civil trespass) to use the wrong bathroom, someone accused of committing the offence might be able to raise a defence of necessity in court - namely, that he was faced with a choice of using the illegal bathroom or defecating in the street (presumably also a crime). See this BBC article (and our article on Nick Freeman) for a real-life example of this particular defence in action. Tevildo (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now I see what you mean. But, "necessity" is a defense to all laws. The law in question does not have to specifically state that "necessity" is an available defense. Plus, even if it were not, no prosecutor would seek to bring charges in such an event of necessity. "Real necessity", that is. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not murder. See R v Dudley and Stephens. Tevildo (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that could come up in the US, which is the place under question. Any place catering to users of both genders is legally obliged to provide toilet facilities for both genders in proportion to the expected number of users (the exact ratio varies by state), so unless the hypothetical man had somehow found himself in a building which was ordinarily used only by women, the "I couldn't find a men's room" excuse could never come up (except in a few extreme hypotheticals like every mens toilet being damaged). More than you ever wanted to know about US toilet ratios here. ‑ Iridescent 09:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think this happens rather often, actually. For instance, every time one of the bathrooms at a gas station is out of order, everyone would have to use the other bathroom (if there were two). This happened to me a couple months ago when a local station had closed their men's room for repairs. People, including myself, ended up using the women's. Dismas|^(talk) 12:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At events there often is quite a long queue at the Lady's, while there is none at the Men's (because men can pee with less overhead). It's not uncommon for women to use the Men's room in that case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Men can also pee with more overhead. One of the riskier pissing contests, but a sight everyone should see live at least once. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this is a stupid question. But if this is such a "big deal", why can't bathrooms just be generic / unisex? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the pearl-clutchers making this a big deal (read: the ones who made the law), anyone with a penis is just itching for a chance to molest women in bathrooms, therefore penis-havers and vagina-havers must be kept separate at all costs. Of course, they seem to overlook the fact that a "women-only" sign is hardly going to deter a determined rapist. clpo13_(talk) 19:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is much more space-efficient to have urinals than cubicles, and it's more space efficient to have cubicles in a single room than separate rooms. And the same people who object to trans people using the toilet appropriate for their gender identity would object to having either of those types of bathroom be unisex. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would "they" (or anyone) object to having either of those types of bathroom be unisex? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, women might object to sharing a single occupant bathroom with men because:

1) The bathroom may be left in worse shape, from urine on the toilet seat to more foul odors, to a messy sink.

2) They may be subjected to graffiti left by the men.

3) There is more opportunity for men to hide and retrieve hidden cameras.

As for multi-stall bathrooms, those also add the danger of assault and hearing and smelling more unpleasant sounds and smells from the men. At least here in the US, shared multi-stall bathrooms only existed on Ally McBeal, AFAIK, but single occupant bathrooms are often unisex, especially in homes or locations too small for two bathrooms, or with handicapped bathrooms. There are also sometimes "Family bathrooms", designed for a parent and small child, of any genders. StuRat (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Your three or four points above are misogynist in the extreme. I could just as easily preface your bullet list with "men might object because women might do the following offensive things ... leave a mess; make it stink; place graffiti; put a hidden camera; etc.". What makes you think that men have a monopoly on those behaviors? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. They're all home-wreckers. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

If a lady just wanted to see random wangs there's easier and less weird ways than sneaking a spy camera into a bathroom. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The media and the protesters seem to have missed the point of what this law is about. The bathroom thing is only one issue. The other parts of the law have to do with mundane stuff like minimum wage. What the law is really about is the Republican-controlled legislature asserting its authority over local governments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the title to include the actual Q. StuRat (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill and bombing of London

Is it true that he provoked the Germans into bombing London during ww2? If so, what would have been his reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.36.123 (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if he deliberately provoked Germany (or rather Hitler), but the RAF did bomb German cities during the Battle of Britain, and in particular bombed Berlin in late August 1940. In reply, the Nazis started to bomb London, reducing the pressure on RAF airfields in favour of increased attack on the civilian population. Older, more dramatic histories often consider this a pivotal event, as it allowed RAF Fighter Command to retain usage of the airfields in the southeast of England, and to recover somewhat. However, if I understand the currently predominant opinions, Fighter Command was never as close to defeat as Germany, the US, and many early historians of WW2 believed, so the significance of this event may not be that high. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the question makes me think they're referring to the Coventry Blitz and the associated myth that Churchill intentionally let Coventry burn to safeguard the secret that the Allies could decode Axis messages. Some good links here as well. Matt Deres (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the evening of 24 August 1940, some German bombers intending to bomb the docks at Rochester and Thameshaven, accidentally dropped their bombs on central London (they were 20 and 50 miles in error) and against specific Luftwaffe orders not to bomb the capital. According to this article (near the bottom of the page), 24 Londoners were killed and 1,200 houses were destroyed or damaged. Churchill ordered a retaliatory raid on Berlin on 25 August by 70 RAF bombers, operating at the limit of their range and without electronic navigational aids. No Germans were killed; see Britain bombs Berlin. This book; Cooperation under Fire: Anglo-German Restraint during World War II by Jeffrey W. Legro (p. 137) says that Churchill was "looking for an excuse to start city bombing". Unfortunately, I can't see the next page, but I suspect the motivation was that Britain had a large strategic bomber force, which could only operate at night and still stand a chance of getting back again. As seen above, the RAF hadn't mastered the art of hitting anything at night, so trying to bomb a specific factory was a waste of time, while there was a good chance that they might be able to hit a whole city. According to this page, 1,000 British civilians had already been killed in air raids before London was bombed, so whatever the effect on the Germans, Churchill would be able to claim that Britain was giving as good as she was getting. In retrospect, this was obviously a mistake on Churchill's part, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

As User:Stephan Schulz says above, traditional historians have said that the change in German bombing from RAF fighter stations to bombing London gave the RAF a chance to recover their strength and win the Battle of Britain. It is not credible that Churchill foresaw this as a possible outcome, nor I suspect, did he foresee the devastation which the Germans would bring down on nearly every British city. Since Churchill would never have admitted intentionally provoking The Blitz, it's all speculation. Alansplodge (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it "not credible that Churchill foresaw this as a possible outcome" ? StuRat (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many variables. For it to be a deliberate ploy, Churchill would have had to be able to foresee that: 1) The Luftwaffe would completely switch from precision bombing of airfields and aircraft production facilities to the blanket bombing of London, 2) That heavy bombing of London and other cities would not lead to a total collapse in civilian morale, when the received wisdom was that it would, 3) That the bombing of British cities would not seriously impair British war production, when the received wisdom was that it would. Churchill was renowned for making impetuous decisions and his decision to bomb Berlin on 25 August has all the hallmarks of one of them. Alansplodge (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Churchill did it to decrease German morale and increase British morale, similar to the goal of the Doolittle raid of the US against Japan early in the war there. StuRat (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that was exactly what Churchill had in mind. I suspect that he thought he was initiating a tit-for-tat round of retaliatory nuisance raids rather than prompting the devastation of British cities. Nobody is going to be able to prove that however. Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, evidence of a deliberate ploy would be a much larger mission against Berlin and for it to have been repeatedly carried out. That doesn't seem to be the case. That plus the discussion below on the origins of this idea make me inclined to dismiss it as no more than conjecture without evidence. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well,I remember seeing David Irving say somewhere that Churchill did in fact provoke Hitler into bombing London121.44.36.123 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We've learned to distrust David Irving, even if he says "1 + 1 = 2". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Study the historian. An English court found that Irving "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence".^[1]. Note also that Irving has a special interest in the topic of city bombing - our article details how in his first book, he gave an estimate of the number of dead in the Dresden bombing as between 100,000 and 250,000, figures that have been debunked and are now believed by historians to have been between 22,500 and 25,000. See David_Irving#The_Destruction_of_Dresden. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Hitler historian loses libel case". BBC News. 11 April 2000. Retrieved 2 January 2010.

April 18

jamatv

Is there an article (here or at es:wp) about a TV station known as "jamatv"? Some of the figures in File:Casa en Ayacucho y José Mascote colapsó.jpg are using TV equipment labelled "jamatv", but aside from a guess that it's a station in Guayaquil (where the photo was taken), I know nothing about it. After making some fruitless searches, I just now asked at the es:wp help desk, but most of the recent archives haven't gotten any responses, so I doubt that I'll get anything useful. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an enormous image, but doesn't tell the whole story. Move the blonde woman's face a quarter inch (0.635 cm), and "jamatv" becomes GamaTV. Here's our article. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:22, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

A (Forced) Farewell to Arms?

Some books/sites claim Ernest Hemingway was court-martialed for fighting the Germans in France, and got acquitted only by lying.[3][4] I find this difficult to believe, as he was a war correspondent, not a soldier. What's the scoop? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what the Wikipedia article says: "Of Hemingway's exploits, World War II historian Paul Fussell remarks: "Hemingway got into considerable trouble playing infantry captain to a group of Resistance people that he gathered because a correspondent is not supposed to lead troops, even if he does it well".[18] This was in fact in contravention of the Geneva Convention, and Hemingway was brought up on formal charges; he said he "beat the rap" by claiming that he only offered advice.[109]" It doesn't say court-martial, probably because only military personnel actually face a court martial, but it would certainly have been some sort of military tribunal. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This lengthy account of the proceedings says; "Hemingway, who had come to France as a civilian newspaperman (albeit under the jurisdiction of the US Army) - had 'borne arms against the enemy.' For this - and because he was under army jurisdiction - he could only be court-martialled. He did not come under French jurisdiction because there wasn't any, he could not be sent back to the States to be tried as he had not committed a crime there. An American Army military court was the only solution, and if found guilty Hemingway could be sentenced to a long stretch in a military prison, or, at the very least, be sent back to the US in disgrace, with his passport withdrawn".

Hemingway was summoned to a preliminary hearing, officially described as a "military investigation and interrogation of Ernest Hemingway, commencing this day, the 6th of October, 1944, in the American occupied sector known as S.H-2, Nancy, North Eastern France, and in the temporary HQ of the Inspector General, US Third Army (Rear), with Inspector General Colonel Clarence C. Park, presiding."

In the end, "the case against Hemingway [was] effectively found un-proven. There can be little doubt that Park simply went through the motions and that Hemingway had been coached – probably by the military – in his replies to Park's questions. Hemingway continued as a correspondent, covering the Hurtgen Forest campaign, and some of the Battle of the Bulge." Alansplodge (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's in the first link I already provided. I'm looking for something more reliable, one way or the other. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Select device manufacturers have not been willing to provide Gorilla Glass model verification."

This page[5] says:

   The devices on these pages have been verified by the manufacturer and Corning as using Corning Gorilla Glass. The manufacturers and devices detailed on these webpages are the only manufacturers authorized to use the Corning Gorilla Glass trademark in their device promotions. Select device manufacturers have not been willing to provide Gorilla Glass model verification. In those cases, please ask the manufacturer directly or contact Corning here and we will do our best to help you.

What does "Select device manufacturers have not been willing to provide Gorilla Glass model verification." mean here? Doesn't Corning know exactly who they sold their Gorilla Glass to?

I must be missing something here, because the currently the situation reads to me like: "I lent my BBQ grill to Bob. But I don't know whether Bob borrowed my BBQ grill or not, you'll have to ask him. Only he would know."Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They may have obtained the glass through intermediaries: companies supplied by Corning who have sold on surplus stock, or who have just acted as wholesalers. Manufacturers who say that they have used Gorilla Glass, but have not allowed Corning to test it and check that it is genuine, are not going to be on Corning's list. It doesn't mean that the glass is fake - just that Corning will not guarantee that it is genuine. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Like many manufacturers they sell their products via a huge network of distributors and wholesalers who are independent of Corning.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it may be known that a manufacturer bought gorilla glass, but that doesn't tell anyone which device models use it. StuRat (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone.Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The difference between these two cases of disagreement

What is the difference between these two cases of disagreement?:

1. Person A claims that people with six-pack are sexually attractive because she (person A) is sexually attracted to that characteristic, but person B disagrees because she (person B) is not sexually attracted to that characteristic.

2. Liberals and conservatives disagree on the subject of which policies are best for the nation.

70.95.44.93 (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Meta-ethics in general and Emotivism in particular. Tevildo (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) This seems to be a case of a faulty generalization.

2) I think I see where you draw the comparison with case 1. That is, for fiscally conservative people who happen to be rich, it may be better for them to have low taxes and low benefits, while for fiscally liberal people who happen to be poor, it may be better for them to have high (progressive tax bracket) taxes and high benefits. So, if they both jump to the conclusion that whatever is best for them must be best for the nation, then yes, this is also a case of a faulty generalization. However, I am rather skeptical that they really believe this, but rather I suspect it's merely a rhetorical argument they make to try to get their way. StuRat (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Experience Project

Since The Experience Project is now for read only, I was wondering if there are alternatives. --إلياس الجزائري (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think Wikipedia is for "read only". Anyone can edit the vast majority of pages on Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: by "This website" I meant "The Experience Project" website. --إلياس الجزائري (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of anyone as ignorant as me, a social media platform, Experience Project is now a defunct social media platform. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC) As there are lots of social media platforms out there, what aspect/s of Experience Project did you most enjoy/like to replicate? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, support, its goal was to let people know that "they are not alone". A place to be yourself and ask for help if you ever need it without being judged. —إلياس الجزائري (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Countries changing names

The question above about Dating a globe got me thinking -- especially since, a few days ago, we were all instructed to update our map terminology when the Czech Republic declared its wish to be known as Czechia. Is there a chronological list of national name-changes? Or indeed of subnational administrative divisions (not towns and cities, but counties, provinces, oblasts, etc)? I know the 1960s were busy with decolonisation, but which decades before or since were most active in name-changing? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are: Timeline of country and capital changes. 184.147.128.57 (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, another list, including subnational entries, at Geographical renaming. 184.147.128.57 (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd never come across either of those. It looks like the 1870s were relatively quiet. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What actually happened a couple days ago was that the Czech Republic asked the UN to update its geographic database to include the name "Czechia" for the geographic area. The political entity, the republic, is still formally known as the Czech Republic, though it can be referred to by the geographic name. See Czech Republic#Etymology. Loraof (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the best analogy here is that the Czech Republic wants the nation to be known as Czechia and the state to be known as the Czech Republic. The best analogy with another nation I can think of is how Frances the nation, but the state is formally the French Fifth Republic and how Iran is the nation, but the Islamic Republic of Iran is the state. When the Czech Republic came into being, it lacked a name for the nation (as distinct from the State that governs it). Interestingly, it's former partner Slovakia had as national and state name (Slovak Republic). It sounds like a semantic matter, but in the case of long-standing nation states, a single "nation" can have a series of successive "states" which have ruled in, i.e. France has had at least two periods as the Kingdom of France, two distinct times as the Empire of France, and five different French Republics. Even the USA has had two distinct states (That under the Articles of Confederation, and that under the United States Constitution) that has been in charge of the American nation. --Jayron 32 21:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Timeline article: The Czech Republic votes to adopt Czechia as its official short-form name in English. What I don't quite get is how any country can vote, decide, deem, decree or otherwise assert that the name of their country or any part thereof, in a language that they do not use, shall be whatever they say. They can request people use a certain word, but they cannot decide. Otherwise, what's to stop Belgium, Belize or Baluchistan from "deciding" that the English word "house" will henceforth be "szbenfbkwbckw"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but if they use this form in all their dealings with the outside world such as their football team and their tourist information, then sooner or later the rest of us will fall in line, unless we wish to appear ignorant or boorish. Take Mumbai for example, which I still call Bombay at the risk of sounding like a relic of Empire. Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still talk (and write) of Lyons and Marseilles, Leghorn, Elsinore, and Jutland. If I were speaking (or writing) French or Italian or Danish, I would of course use the French or Italian or Danish versions of those names. When I speak English, I use the English form. The French talk of Londres and Edimbourg or some such, and jolly good luck to them. DuncanHill (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I've been waiting several decades for a chance to bring Leghorn up in a conversation, but it has so far eluded me. My favourite is Flushing which sounds vaguely lavatorial. Alansplodge (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It surely can't be long before we start hearing people (sports commentators, most likely) refer to "Czechians". Mark my words. The Rio Olympics are not far off. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. We already have a perfectly workable adjective, Czech. A few years back, India decided that the English names of some of its cities needed to be updated, so Bombay became Mumbai and Calcutta became Kolkata. These things happen, and there's no pressing reason for us to refuse to use the new term, excepting our own stubbornness. --Jayron 32 01:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you do not share my infinite confidence in the penchant, partiality, predisposition, predilection, proclivity and proneness of sports broadcasters to invent new usages, usually in total ignorance that they are bypassing perfectly fine existing usages, and sometimes even seeming to be unaware of the rudiments of their own native language, as paradoxical as that may seem (but then, Elvis famously said "I don't know much about music. In my line you don't need to"). I can see the wheels of their brains clunking along already: "He's from Czechia, so he must be a Czechian". Again, mark my words. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And lo, they have a basis - [6]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US (external, foreign, public, intragovernmental, total etc.) debt

Question	Remark
Expain please why don't numbers of external debt fit. What is actually external debt? To whom USA does owe its total debt?	https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Pages/ticsec2.aspx > https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt > Grand Total 6148.1 (Dec 2015) https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Pages/external-debt.aspx > https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/debta2015q4.html > Gross External Debt Position 17,564,382 (December 31, 2015) http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=01&startYear=2015&endMonth=01&endDay=01&endYear=2016 > Debt Held by the Public 13 672 522 257 291,59; Intragovernmental Holdings 5 249 656 752 129,30; Total Public Debt Outstanding 18 922 179 009 420,89 (12/31/2015) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html > DEBT - EXTERNAL $17,260,000,000,000 (31 December 2014 est.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt#cite_note-10 > http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/debtd2015q3.html > Gross External Debt Position Total 6,693,241 (Sept 30, 2015) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt > External debt 19,136,052,433,969

37.53.235.112 (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explain please which numbers you're referring to that don't, in your opinion, fit with something else you've not defined
WP:WHAAOE: External debt
Lots of different creditors. Not my area of expertise, but National_debt_of_the_United_States#Foreign_holdings looks a good place to start.

Hope that helps --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

>>Explain please which numbers you're referring to that don't, in your opinion, fit with something else you've not defined -- external debt numbers.

I have read articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States ($6.2 trillion or approximately 47% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt (Country United States External debt US dollars 19,136,052,433,969 Date 31 December 2015). I think numbers of external debt are too different even in wikipedia articles. Why? In some articles external debt almost equal total debt. 37.53.235.112 (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm no expert, but it looks like you're comparing apples with oranges. In your own quotes, you've compared "debt held by the public" and overall debt. The difference is explained in a very prominent pair of bulletpoints at the top of National debt of the United States --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I asked to explain what is meant by external debt in articles (it seems definition differs official). So

(PUBLIC DEBT) = (TOTAL DEBT) - (INTRAGOVERNMENTAL DEBT);

(EXTERNAL DEBT) = (PUBLIC DEBT) - (INTERNAL DEBT) .

Correct?

Then we have (PUBLIC DEBT) > (EXTERNAL DEBT). Why do we have in articles (EXTERNAL DEBT) (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt) much bigger than (PUBLIC DEBT) (see http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=01&startYear=2015&endMonth=01&endDay=01&endYear=2016)?

37.53.235.112 (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer just this part of your question: you fail to make a distinction between debt owed by the treasury and total external debt (which includes foreign debt by the treasury, but also includes foreign debt by banks and other corporations).

(Total Public Debt Outstanding) = all money owed by treasury = around 18 tn
(Debt Held by the Public) = (Total Public Debt Outstanding) - (INTRAGOVERNMENTAL DEBT) = around 13 tn - that's what US treasury owes to public (including US public and foreign holders, such as foreign governments)
(EXTERNAL TREASURY DEBT) = (Debt Held by the Public) - (INTERNAL DEBT) = around 6 tn - that's what US Treasury owes to all foreign debt holders, including governments
(Gross External Debt) = (EXTERNAL TREASURY DEBT) + (Foreign Debt Owed by Anyone Else in the US) = around 17 tn - that the sum of what anyone in the US owes to anyone outside the US.

No longer a penguin (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So

(TOTAL TREASURY DEBT) + (EXTERNAL NON-TREASURY DEBT) =
= (TOTAL TREASURY DEBT) + (Foreign Debt Owed by Anyone Else in the US)
= 18 + (17-6) = 29 trillions.

Correct?

What debt is meant in article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt : (EXTERNAL TREASURY DEBT) or (Gross External Debt)? In any case it equals neither 17 nor 18 , but = 19. Why?

37.53.235.112 (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reformatted your question to make it easier to read, I hope it's OK. There is no need to quote anyone here.

You calculation seems correct, although I don't see the meaning for the resulting 29 tn, since it is a weird mix of intra-government debt (which is an accounting measure at least to some extent), internal debt (but only by treasury) and external debt (by everyone).

As for the 19 tn figure, I suspect that it is simply bogus. It was introduced by an editor a month ago without citing any source. The only source for such number that Google finds is Wikipedia itself and sites quoting Wikipedia. From the description on the page, it is clearly the 17 tn figure (Gross external debt) that should be in that article. I will change it accordingly. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the meaning for the resulting 29 tn -- (EXTERNAL NON-TREASURY DEBT) is potentially (EXTERNAL TREASURY DEBT), as when corporations will become bankrupt, government will buy them. Yes if the question about US default will arise , then Treasury can execute netting of intragovernmental debts. Then potential US debt before default we must calculate as 29 - 5 = 24 trillion. 37.53.235.112 (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"when corporations will become bankrupt, government will buy them". That is somewhat of a stretch - there is no reason to expect the US government would buy all the corporations that would go bankrupt. Corporations are (usually) limited liability companies that are independent of the government and when they go bust (hundreds every year) - the government does not bat an eyelid. Even in those cases where it did (i.e., financial sector during the crisis), the government did not assume the debts - it usually provided enough capital for the company to stay afloat, but the debts were still on the books of the company.

The only reason why Gross External Debt is of any interest to anyone is that is shows the overall exposure of the country's economy to international credit markets. No longer a penguin (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are MSM so highly at risk for STDs?

MSM is a high-risk group for contracting STDs. But why are they so high, compared to MSW or WSW? 140.254.77.156 (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(answer is partly copied from a recent section which got deleted) If you compare MSM with heterosexuals, the following reasons apply: 1) HIV is already more prevalent among MSM, so the chance of meeting a sexual partner with HIV is far larger if you are a MSM. This is of course a self-perpetuating problem. 2) Homosexual men have more different sexual partners on average than heterosexuals. 3) The impossibility of pregnancy means that there is less incentive to use condoms, and thus more risk of infection. 4) Intravenous drug (ab)use is more common among homosexuals than in the larger population.

I suspect WSW are at a lower risk because they do not exchange bodily fluids in the same way or to the same extent as MSM/MSW. They also don't have as many sexual partners on average as MSM. - Lindert (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for like, any of that? This is the reference desk, not the "Tell people stuff I think I remember" desk. Not saying you're wrong, just saying that references are what we do here. --Jayron 32 21:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that stuff was common knowledge, but it is easily documented. See e.g. this article which mentions all four factors I gave: the large number of sexual partners, the prevalence of STDs in MSM currently, frequent injection drug use and (anal) sex without condoms. - Lindert (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it wasn't your wrongness, it was the lack of references. Anything which is common knowledge enough that it doesn't need a reference, it doesn't need to be said at all, because you're presuming the OP would have already known it, and thus doesn't need your answer at all. If they don't know it, then that's why they asked the question, and as such, the knowledge is apparently not common enough, so they probably need solid, reliable sources to answer their question. Thus you have two choices 1) the OP already knows what you're about to say, so you don't have to say it or 2) the OP didn't already know what you are about to say, and thus you should probably provide them a reference, because this is the reference desk, and that's what we do here. Thanks for the NIH article. That's the sort of thing that should always be provided in the first response to any question. --Jayron 32 01:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So that I can follow what's being discussed, can someone explain what MSM, MSW, and WSW mean? I'm guessing that the S is sexual and the final M/W is Men/Women but am lost on what the initial letter could stand for. Dismas|^(talk) 21:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had to Google it, too. Apparently, they were invented in 1994 to dispel this sort of stigma. Wasn't the most logical plan. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:33, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Men who have sex with men, for our article. The term was coined as many such men would not consider themselves homosexual (see Situational sexual behavior, for example). Tevildo (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I do a lot of my WP reading these days from work, so didn't feel comfortable Googling it. Dismas|^(talk) 12:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe that it's almost 20 years since Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men was published. In it the gay activist Gabriel Rotello tackled epidemiology and sociology to try to understand the HIV/AIDS epidemic. From our article on the book:

Rotello's central argument derives from the epidemiological concept that sexually transmitted epidemics are the result of three factors, sometimes called the Triad of Risk: 1. the ‘infectivity’ of a sexually transmitted disease (STD), or how easily it spreads, 2. the ‘prevalence’ of that STD in a particular group, and 3. the ‘contact rate,’ or the average number of sexual partners that people have within a particular group.

His thesis has been challenged, but it remains a significant book - see the legacy section. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with no smoked sausages in chippies in London and is there one that does?

London chippies don't seem to do smoked sausage, in my experience. Sausage, yes. And often saveloy, but this is a different thing (and can't really be battered as effectively as a proper smoked sausage). What's up with this and does anyone know where to get a smoked sausage in a chippy within the M25? Don't fail me Wikipedia. 81.98.14.109 (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the chippy you refer to is "A shop serving the traditional British dish fish and chips". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of smoked sausage did you have in mind? DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See this forum thread for a photo of a proper smoked sausage. Largely a Scottish delicacy - Google isn't coming up with anything south of Carlisle, let alone in London. But let's hope someone has the local knowledge to help the OP. Tevildo (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Pic is about 2/3 down the page.) That looks a lot like a Polish kielbasa. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, smoked sausage is an east European thing, smoking is strictly for kippers and haddock for us Londoners. My mum is Scottish and square sausage is the traditional variety up there as far as I know. I'd never seen or eaten smoked sausage until I went to Finland as a teenager in 1975. Alansplodge (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back, see The Complete Rebus Collection by Ian Rankin; "In Blairgowrie he stopped for fish and chips, which he ate at a Formica topped table in the chip shop... Red, white and black puddings, haggis, smoked sausage, sausage in batter, steak pie, mince pie, chicken pie... with pickled onions or pickled eggs on the side".

I've still never seen it in a chip shop though (even in Scotland). Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This thread suggests that there are NO Scottish chip shops in London (the OP had a yearning for deep-fried battered white pudding - good luck with that). Alansplodge (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only sausages I've ever seen in English chippies are pork sausages (battered and deep fried) and saveloys. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. For those who wish to keep up with trans-pondian food analogs, Scottish square sausage seems very similar in concept to the scrapple eaten in parts of the USA. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought scrapple was the stuff Americans mended cracks in the plaster with. DuncanHill (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in shape but scrapple's ingredients are a bit different! Rmhermen (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 19

The difference between these two cases of disagreement (redone)

What is the difference between these two cases of disagreement? It should be noted that just because we disagree on something does not imply that there is no absolute.

1. Person A says blonde hair are sexy because he/she (Person A) is sexually attracted to it. Person B disagrees because he/she (Person B) is not sexually attracted to it.

2. Two scientists disagree on which theories better explain a phenomenon.

If you think that there is no absolute for #1 but there is an absolute for #2, I would like to know why?

70.95.44.93 (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is not really that clear, but: #1 is a subjective determination (De gustibus non est disputandum...), while #2 is capable of objective determination, at least in theory. In other words, #2 deals with theories that are falsifiable, which is a hallmark of science. See also demarcation problem. Neutrality^talk 05:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the first case, the can both be right, but they cannot both be wrong. In the second they cannot both be right, but they can both be wrong. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Countries named after their rulers

Watching A Hologram for the King, I was reminded what an odd name Saudi Arabia is ("Arabia of the Saud family"). Are there (or have there been) other countries officially named this way? Obviously there are places like Bolivia and Rhodesia, but these were named in honour of someone else, rather than after the people who actually ruled them. Smurrayinchester 08:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Empire named after Osman b. 1258.
Sleigh (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Habsburg Monarchy was never an official name, but it's widely used. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleonic Wars wasn't a country as such, but about the imperial ambitions of a country as expressed through the will of its leader Napoleon. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seleucid Empire named after Seleucus Nicator b. 358 BC.
Sleigh (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Saudi Arabia is only odd now because it's anachronistic. If we are looking at historical examples there are many - the Carolingian Empire or the Timurid Empire or the Sasanian Empire for example, or the Cao Wei or Yi Joseon in Asia. Contemporary examples are more difficult. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne was King of the Franks, and then Holy Roma Emperor. Talking about the Carolingian Empire is anachronistic: historians may well call it that, but Charlemagne certainly didn't. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it's also not named for him, but rather for Charles Martel, an ancestor of his. --Jayron 32 12:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippines, for Philip II of Spain. Rojomoke (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swaziland has a habit of being named after its rulers. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more might be found in WP's list of places named after people. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is similar to the Saudi example. Not countries, but Georgia, Carolina and Virginia were named in honour their titular rulers (or their supposed attributes!). Alansplodge (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking at US states, add Maryland and Pennsylvania (not even named for the monarch, but for the man who obtained royal permission to found the colony). 81.132.106.10 (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add Queensland and Victoria, both named (as British colonies) for their queen. However, the British monarch reigns, but does not "rule". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They probably ruled a bit more when those colonies were named. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

China is sometimes thought to have been named after the Qin dynasty, although there are other theories of the name's origin. John M Baker (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But "Qin" is the name of a regime or state, not the name of a person or a family. If it was named after the ruler or ruling family it would be "Yina". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at our article: the Qin dynasty (Wade-Giles: Ch'in) was named for the Qin state. Thus, if this theory is correct, China was named for the Qin state only indirectly. If you are asserting that China would instead have been named "Yina" if it were named after the Qin dynasty, well, I don't speak Chinese. However, note that "China" is not the Chinese name, which apparently is Zhōngguó or Zhōnghuá. John M Baker (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein is named after its ruling family. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europe Travel describing

Il Milione by Marco polo describe a travel to Asia, are there Asian book that describe a travel to Europe?--87.16.178.64 (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two suggestions: of similar antiquity to Marco Polo, Rabban Bar Sauma travelled from Beijing to Paris and left us some writings. A bit later, Fan Shouyi also wrote an account of his travels to Europe. Fan Shouyi is regarded as the first Chinese person to travel to Europe, return, and write about his travels (as Rabban Bar Sauma settled in Baghdad after his journey to Europe and did not return to China). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Battuta travelled to a bit of what is now Russia, Ukraine, Turkey...not really Europe proper though. And he was from Morocco, not Asia. Ibn Jubayr and Benjamin of Tudela also travelled throughout southern Europe, but they were from Muslim Spain. Non-Europeans weren't really all that interested in Europe, which was kind of a backwards and dangerous place for them. A crusader knight invited Usama ibn Munqidh to travel to Europe, and he, ah, politely declined. There were some Ethiopian representatives at the Council of Ferrara in the 15th century, but they were Christian so things were a bit safer for them. I don't think they left any account of their travels though. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a fictional account of Oriental travellers finding themselves in the middle of the Wars of the Roses, I do recommend Julian Rathbone's Kings of Albion. DuncanHill (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isles of Scilly & Lord Lieutenant

The Lieutenancies Act 1997 places the Isles of Scilly in the ceremonial county of Cornwall for the purposes of the appointment of a Lord Lieutenant. That seems clear enough. I am searching for reliable sources for the position of the Isles with regard to Lieutenancy before then, for the periods (1) 1974 - 1997 (according to our article, "At this time, Lieutenancy was redefined to use the new metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties directly" but the Isles of Scilly were not part of the non-metropolitan county of Cornwall), (2) the period 1888 - 1974 when "areas that were part of an administrative county would be part of the county for all purposes" but the Isles of Scilly were not part of the administrative county of Cornwall, and (3) for the period before the Local Government Act 1888 (which established the administrative counties). DuncanHill (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

[1] Annemarie Schimmel (1989). Gabriel’s Wing: Study Into the Religious Ideas of Sir Muhammad Iqbal. Pakistan: Iqbal Academy. ISBN 978-9694160122.

[2] "Hitler historian loses libel case". BBC News. 11 April 2000. Retrieved 2 January 2010.

[1]

[1]