Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 47.138.165.200 (talk) at 21:56, 12 October 2016 (→Cholera in Haiti). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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


Ready? Ask a new question!


How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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


October 7

Caesars Entertainment Corporation earnings 2015

This can't be right. Cgx8253, stated that the Revenue is US$ 4.654 billion, Operating income is US$ 573 million and net income is US$ 5.92 billion. Net income cannot be higher than revenue, can someone please correct this? Their 2016 earnings are here, but I am not sure how to interpret it can someone help? As far as I can tell the casino is losing money not earning 5 billion a year. Valoem talk contrib 01:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how gambling establishments do their accounting. For example, if we just consider slots, do they call the total amount of coins (or value of tokens) plunked into slot machines as their revenue, or do they only count that total minus what they paid out as revenue ? (After that, they have all the overhead expenses of any other business to subtract, of course.) StuRat (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I listed the balance sheet but I'm not an accountant, I am not sure which one is operating income and which one is net income. Valoem talk contrib 02:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here comes the long and boring accounting response. First of all, you're looking at the wrong report. The 2015 annual report is here and the figures seem correct. Net income can definitely be higher than operating income and even than revenue. Between operating and net income is net financial income. That's negative for a typical company that has more debt than cash, but can be positive. In this case, however, there was a specific item in net financial income that led to a very high net income - deconsolidation of a subsidiary, which I will try to explain.
Basically, the consolidated annual report, such as this one, shows the assets and liabilities of all the consolidated companies. Consolidated companies are those that the parent company has effective control over. In 2015, one of the subsidiaries of Caesar, CEOC, entered restructuring and the parent company considered that it had lost control of the subsidiary to its creditors (details on that are in Note 3 of the report). As such, it removed its assets and liabilities from the consolidated figures. It just so happened that the assets of CEOC were 7bil. USD less than liabilities (it had negative net value), thus removing both created a positive effect on the consolidated balance sheet and, thus, the income statement. Of course, these are "paper" or "accounting" profits and do not represent any actual gain for Caesar, but it's consistent with accounting standards. That is exactly why no analyst just uses stated profit figures for share valuation, without digging into details. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh they sold assets for net income. Valoem talk contrib 12:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. They removed a subsidiary from the valuation because it no longer had effective control over that subsidiary. --Jayron32 13:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they basically said "we don't consider this to be part of our company anymore". And since "this" had a massively negative value, it showed up as a profit. No longer a penguin (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there no Masses in the Roman Catholic Church in the USA for certain October 2016 dates?

Two things recently happened that lead me to ask this question. One: A family friend recently died, a day or two ago. I was told: The family cannot have the funeral anytime before the 12th of October, because the church will not allow that. The church will be "closed" until then. I thought that was a bit odd, but then I forgot all about it. I assumed that the church building had some problems or some renovations or whatever. Then, the second episode occurred. Two: I just looked at my weekly church bulletin and it says "No Masses" for October 10, 11, 12, and 13 (Monday through Thursday). The date for Friday, October 14, 2016, is not listed at all. (Perhaps this is a typo or some error?) So, is there any reason why Catholic churches do not have any masses -- or other functions, such as funerals -- on these particular dates? I have never heard of this in all my years. What's going on? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am referring to two completely different churches in my above question. The church mentioned in incident "One" (above) is the church of the family of the recently deceased person. The church mentioned in incident "Two" (above) is a totally separate and different church. But, both are Roman Catholic churches. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your userpage says you're in Connecticut, so presumably your church is a part of the Diocese of Norwich, the Diocese of Bridgeport, or the Archdiocese of Hartford. For one thing, why don't you check the episcopal website? Perhaps your bishop or archbishop has decreed something throughout the diocese for these specific dates. For another thing, it's your church after all: why don't you contact the parish office? Surely the priest would have an idea what's going on, and if your parish has lay employees or lay volunteers who work a good deal of time for the parish, they'll probably be able to help you as well. Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Norwich website doesn't mention anything (I couldn't find an events page there) except for recent events like the Red Mass last week. The Bridgeport website's calendar has lots of events, but most are for individual parishes, e.g. ten days from now, someone from a water company is giving a talk to the women's group at Christ the King Parish in Trumbull. And I didn't see anything on Hartford's calendar. It may still be a good idea to contact the office for your (arch)diocese, but contacting your pastor or a lay official for the parish is probably the best route. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This may simply be that the local priest is away on those dates, and there is no-one else able to take services. The Roman Catholic church has an increasing problem of a shortage of ordained priests, and some things can only be done by a priest. Wymspen (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the Archdiocese of Hartford. Naturally, I would have telephoned my church to ask "what's up?". But the offices are closed on Fridays. So I posted here. I thought there might be some "national" or "universal" reason of some religious significance. Also, it's possible that the local priest is unavailable. But, typically, they would bring in another priest from somewhere else (as opposed to cancelling masses for the entire week). And, they would probably put some notation in the weekly bulletin (e.g., "Father Jones is very sick and in the hospital. Unfortunately, a substitute priest was unavailable. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Etc. Etc. Etc."). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the 10th is Columbus Day ... I suspect it's just a question of the church staff taking some well earned vacation time. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the Roman Catholic Church doesn't shut down immediately after Christmas. How effective are these public holidays in America? In England and Wales many businesses observe them but in Scotland and Northern Ireland many businesses don't. Good Friday has become an ordinary shopping day. Also, in this country registrars provide an emergency service for Jewish and Muslim deaths over public holidays (because burials must take place within 24 hours). Do American registrars offer this facility? 2A02:C7F:BE2B:5600:D502:6BDB:165F:5F44 (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can see some random examples of I think all Catholic churches in different places (not all in the US) with no masses sometime in October (not all this year) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Most of these do mention the reason but the last 2 don't seem to. Where the reason is mention, it's generally because the priest is away on some professional duty, although in one case it's attending a nephew's wedding and in another cases recovery from minor surgery (actually there are two different periods of cancellation there). As mentioned by others, it's likely attempts will be made for another priest to fill in but particularly with the churches problems attracting sufficient priests, this may not always be possible. Even more so when there's a reason for multiple priests to be away like an event or course. Notably in one of the cases (the wedding one) there apparently is a priest filling in, but there's still no masses on the festival of All Saints and All Souls, I presume because the person filling in isn't able to for that. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When the Catholics reformed the calendar in 1582 the dates they left out were 5- 14 October, that being the sequence with the least number of holy days. For much the same reason, the Orthodox jumped from 30 September to 14 October in 1923. The exception was the Greeks - they jumped from 9 to 23 March in 1924 because Independence Day (25 March) was already on the New Style and it traditionally coincided with Lady Day (also 25 March, as it is here). 2A02:C7F:BE2B:5600:A89E:AAC0:EA7:6596 (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean when you say that they "left out those dates"? What does "left out" mean, exactly? "Left out" from what? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the old Julian calendar was that it had too many leap years - it needed refinement. They could have cancelled leap years for a period to get back on track, but instead they just decided to remove the excess days at one fell swoop. So in 1582 the Catholic calendar went

1 October, 2 October, 3 October, Thursday 4 October, Friday 15 October, 16 October, 17 October and so on.

When the Orthodox Church got round to changing the excess days had risen to thirteen. So the calendar went

28 September, 29 September, Sunday 30 September, Monday 14 October, 15 October, 16 October, 17 October and so on.

When the Greek Orthodox Church made the change in 1924 their calendar went

8 March, Sunday 9 March, Monday 23 March, 24 March, 25 March, 26 March, 27 March and so on. 2A02:C7F:BE2B:5600:8133:3A40:7144:75C5 (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be left out, we Anglicans left out Thursday 2 September to Wednesday 13 September 1752 - see Calendar (New Style) Act 1750. Alansplodge (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. OK. So, now I "get" all of the calendar manipulation. But what does that have to do with the original question? Due to these manipulations, Catholics decide (in 2016) to not hold Masses on these dates? Is that the idea? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps the fact that these dates have few holy days makes them a tempting time for a parish priest to take a holiday! MChesterMC (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article again. It says

Wednesday 2 September 1752 was followed by Thursday 14 September 1752.

That legislation of course encompassed the American colonies and the whole of Ireland. Before its passage, Irish Catholics calculated the date of Easter according to the old style, being nervous about revealing their religion by concelebrating it with Catholics elsewhere. I wonder if they observed Old Christmas Day for the same reason. 2A02:C7F:BE2B:5600:C104:51BD:2846:2A97 (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're all wrong. It's all Roberto Duran's fault. He decreed, "No mass", and it was so. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

Is "pussy" one of the words banned by the FCC?

I was watching CNN earlier and one of the panelists used the word "pussy" (from the infamous Trump quote) and to my great surprise, it wasn't bleeped out. Was this just a technical error or is "pussy" not one of the words banned by the FCC?

This was around 6PM so presumably the prime time restrictions would be in place.Pizza Margherita (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The FCC guidance clearly says that there is no list of banned words - as it does depend on time and context. It would be very difficult to ban words which also have common inoffensive meanings, and which are only offensive in certain contexts. Wymspen (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Time: 6PM. Prime time.
Context: the "pussy" in this case unambiguously refer to women's genital, as in the infamous quote I referred to above:"grab her by the pussy". Pizza Margherita (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Seven dirty words and FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. There is no official list of such words (although all of the words that George Carlin used are prima facie indecent), so whether or not "pussy" is indecent will depend on (a) someone making a complaint, and (b) that complaint being upheld. This is an official FCC document regarding a complaint in 2001, where a (slightly) more offensive utterance than Trump's, including "pussy" and "bitch", was originally ruled to be acceptable: the ruling was subsequently overturned. Whether or not a similar complaint regarding Trump's words would be upheld takes us into the territory of legal advice. Tevildo (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The FCC has no power to regulate non-"free-to-air" stations for content. CNN is not a free-to-air station. Yes, this means CNN and any other cable/satellite channel could show hardcore porn 24/7 if they wanted to. The issue is that few advertisers would want to pay for it, and cable/satellite carriers would stick their channel behind parental controls, or drop them. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The word was also used in a sketch on Saturday Night Live on October 8, 2016, with Alec Baldwin as Donald Trump saying it. Of course, that show airs at 11:30 p.m. ET, so the rules are different.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 05:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking generally and not specifically about the US, my understanding is that news producers vary their standards of censorship according to significance, with serious journalism much less subject to restriction if there is no practical way to cut the obscenity. See for example the My Lai, self-immolation and napalm photos from Vietnam, all of which ran uncensored even though they involve extreme violence and child nudity. Here in the UK, I've seen a high school textbook about Vietnam intended for 14-16 year-olds which included all of those uncensored too. If you just got interviewed as a vox pop for broadcast at 4pm and it wasn't an irreplaceable part of the segment, it would probably get cut. If it's a serious contender for the presidency discussing his approach to interacting with women...it could easily be argued that bleeping it would be equivalent to covering it up. Blythwood (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WHAAOE - the three main meanings of pussy, the many double entendres, and thus why it would be impossible to ban the word. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zsa Zsa Gabor was a frequent visitor to Johnny Carson's Tonight Show. As the tale has it, she once came on carrying a cat, which she held in her lap. She is said to have asked Carson, "Would you like to pet my pussy?" His fabled reply: "I'd love to, but you'll have to remove that damn cat." http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/zsazsa.asp

Joblessness rate in 1933 compared to1936

Does anyone know how much the unemployment rate in Germany was reduced by from 1933 to 1936?Hot-n-ready (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be difficult to ever know for sure, as the Nazi Party was in charge by then, and would have no moral constraint on falsifying the figures, if it would help them control the population. Here is Joseph Goebbels, being refreshingly honest about lying: [8]. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, a brief Google search brought up Weimar and Nazi Germany by Fiona Reynoldson (apparently a school text book), which has on page 63 a table referenced to Grunberger, Richard (1971), A Social History of the Third Reich, as follows:
  • 1932 - 6.0 million
  • 1933 - 4.8 m
  • 1934 - 2.7 m
  • 1935 - 2.2 m
  • 1936 - 1.6 m
  • 1937 - 0.9 m
  • 1938 - 0.5 m
It's best to avoid information posted by the Institute for Historical Review which will tell you that Hitler was an economic genius and a very nice man but a bit misunderstood. [9] Wikipedia has an article Economy of Nazi Germany which I admit that I haven't read. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Colin Morison and the First World War

I have written an article on the Royal Automobile Club Volunteer Force, a group of wealthy and adventurous motorists who set off with their cars to France in 1914 to act as chauffeurs for the General Headquarters of the British Expeditionary Force. I am trying to expand the list of Notable Members but have become rather bogged-down as it were. Does anybody know if our Oscar Colin Morison is the same chap as the "Oscar Morrison" (note the different spelling) mentioned in this article as a "well-known racing driver"? Our article mentions air racing but not motor racing. Our article also says that at "the outbreak of the First World War, Morison was commissioned in the Royal Flying Corps as a Second Lieutenant" but doesn't mention him driving around France as a civilian beforehand. Any help with this conundrum would be greatly appreciated. Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Abernethy Coleman, American citizen, "was one of the twenty members of the Royal Automobile Club who put themselves and their cars at the army's disposal in 1914" [10],(+[11],+[12]). He has a note about "Oscar Morrisson" in his account From Mons to Ypres (;;), 1916. Not mentioning a Second Lieutenant, and belongs to the R.A.C. Corps ( not the Royal Flying Corps ). --Askedonty (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[afterthought] No guarantee that Coleman is a reliable source. I couldn't get to the previous pages, and radiators ( the object of the circumstance )were the usual piece in automobiles that was easily damaged. If ever Coleman did allow himself a convivial joke, Motor Sport Magazine could have innocently extrapolated after it. --Askedonty (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Faculty (division) in non-Western countries

How do countries like China, Japan or Korea divide the fields in their universities? Western divisions seem to come from one single source (University of Bologna). According to the source linked above everything is miscellaneous, divisions are kind of arbitrary. and what looks absolutely like this-is-obviously-the-only-way in one part of the world could sound crazy in other parts.--Llaanngg (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That all medieval universities in Europe modeled themselves after Bologna is just one editor's unsourced opinion. Basemetal 18:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question remains, how can we divide universities into faculties/colleges? That European universities influenced each other seems obvious to me, although here there might be some differences too. --Llaanngg (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look also at University of Constantinople that clearly couldn't have modeled itself after Bologna. It would be the other way round if at all. (See also Byzantine university) Basemetal 18:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really answer your question in general but you can find many specific examples. Take a look at the faculty division of the University of Tokyo and you'll see that it is modeled very much after Western universities. The division of fields at the University of Delhi similarly looks more like what you find in a Western university than, for example what you could find at the ancient Buddhist university of Nalanda (for the latter see sections on curriculum, administration, etc; the modern Nalanda University seems to have gotten some inspiration from the ancient university since its faculty division doesn't seem to mirror the usual Western one). Even the University of Tehran in a country that proclaims itself anti-Western looks very much like a Western university and very little like the ancient universities or schools of the Islamic world. You can find many many other specific examples here on WP. In summary: it seems to me, after examining this admittedly very small sample, that the whole world is following Western models in this case. Basemetal 18:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, spam. Llaanngg (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Incidentally, any user can do this (for an article that isn't semi-protected) - WP:ROLLBACK just performs the reversion at the server end. See WP:REVERT for details. Tevildo (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that there's variation within western universities. Some separate cognitive science like psychology and linguistic from social sciences like sociology and economics. Others just throw all of them into the philosophy faculty. Sometimes biology is bundled together with psychology. John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.156.30 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

founding fathers and demagogues

how did the founding fathers become so knowledgeable about demagogues? was it just reading Greek philosophy? were there recent demagogues that they had heard of or had had experience with? what other literature did they use? thanks173.174.122.119 (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's Oliver Cromwell. Catholics, in particular, might fear such a leader emerging in the US to persecute them, and thus wanted Constitutional protections against it. StuRat (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come along now Mr StuRat, people who fight for independence under a flag marked "NO POPERY" would not be too worried about Catholic rights would they? Perhaps we could try to find some helpful references instead? Alansplodge (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather the point. See Catholic Church in the Thirteen Colonies. There was extensive discrimination against Catholics, which could easily be envisioned rising to the level of violence seen under Oliver Cromwell, and we did therefore end up with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, protecting minority religions. Of course, all minority religions were protected, not just Catholics. StuRat (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent link. The situation for Catholics in early America was actually worse than I had thought. Note that some states had a "religious test" for public office, which was likewise made unconstitutional at the federal level. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oliver Cromwell is not an example of a demagogue. (Maybe Stu should take a look at that article to understand what a demagogue is). Oliver Cromwell was a military dictator who gained power as a result of his military skill. And he certainly wasn't the one that initiated restrictions on Catholics in England. I'm fairly certain Oliver Cromwell is not the kind of person the "Founding Fathers" had in mind when they used the term "demagogue" (assuming they did, which the OP's question seems to imply). The OP's question remains substantially unanswered and that's partly his or her fault because it is just too vague: what mention of demagogues in what document does he (or she) specifically have in mind? Basemetal 10:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He retained power by supposedly getting votes from Parliament (although he put a lot of pressure on them to do as he wanted). And others also persecuted Catholics, but that doesn't eliminate the precedent showing that a nominally "democratically elected" body could severely persecute religious minorities. Some of his "democratic accomplishments":
  • "He was elected Member of Parliament for Huntingdon in 1628 and for Cambridge in the Short (1640) and Long (1640–49) Parliaments."
  • "...he dominated the short-lived Commonwealth of England as a member of the Rump Parliament (1649–53)."
  • "On 20 April 1653, he dismissed the Rump Parliament by force, setting up a short-lived nominated assembly known as Barebone's Parliament, before being invited by his fellow leaders to rule as Lord Protector...".
So, like Joseph McCarthy or Hitler, he started out getting votes, before seizing power (McCarthy's power was not absolute, of course). StuRat (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that none of the above mentions the English Civil War, which Cromwell and the Parliamentarians eventually won, nor does it mention the Regicide. He got power by defeating the opposition in a war, not merely by seizing power. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A demagogue subverts a democracy (or tries to at any rate) by appealing to the populace and using its support to carry out illegal actions, which allow him to seize power and finally all but destroy that democracy. There has to be this element of appealing to the populace above the heads of the institutions in place. To the contrary Cromwell rose to prominence because of his value as a military leader, and was chosen by his fellow leaders, not brought to power by a populace above the heads of those leaders, and those, the Parliamentary party, had gained power by defeating the other guys, the Royalists, on the battle field. "Cromwell was a democratically elected member of parliament" So what? That's not what brought him to power. That is in no way comparable with Hitler and the Nazi winning a "plurality" (not a majority) in a general election (which then led Hindenburg to pick him as Chancellor, even though Hindenburg had grave misgivings about Hitler; I'm simplifying: for details see Nazi seizure of power) which was essential in Hitler gaining power. Stu's just grasping for straws. If Stu is not able to see that the way Cromwell gained power has more to do with the way Napoleon I, Lenin, Mao, and Franco did it, than say Napoleon III, Mussolini and Hitler, then I think he can't be helped. Basemetal 19:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for what has been written so far. I am one-third of the way through the Hamilton biography and the author repeatedly mentions how important it was that the founding fathers understood so well the threat of potential demagogues. I would like to know how they knew this. Was it from their education- Greek and Roman literature. Or did they have more firsthand experience. I am not aware of any demagogues in the pre-revolutionary colonies.173.174.122.119 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If will be very hard to answer that if the author of that biography of Hamilton has nothing more concrete to say than that the founding fathers understood so well the threat of potential demagogues. At least he should tell you how he knows what the founding fathers understood, in other words point you to some concrete statements by those founding fathers. Basemetal 19:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of Saint Francis of Assisi standing on a globe on this picture?

http://i64.tinypic.com/2zpqvdz.jpg

157.157.90.195 (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought: It looks like a cannonball. Could it be symbolism for conquering violence and war ? Or does the painting predate the use of cannons ? StuRat (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's Saint Francis Of Assisi Embracing The Crucified Christ by Bartolome Esteban Murillo. See if you find an analysis of this painting somewhere that explains that ball. I couldn't. There definitely seems to be a symbolic meaning to it. And yes it does look like a cannon ball but I think it is a bit too big to be one, at least for 17th c. cannons. Basemetal 04:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the 20 inch cannoballs at Mons Meg. StuRat (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is Saint Francis embracing Christ on the Cross by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo (on commons at File:Stfrancisembrace1668.jpg). Our articles about the painting on both the Spanish language Wikipedia (es:San_Francisco_abrazando_a_Cristo_en_la_Cruz) and Italian language Wikipedia (it:San_Francesco_abbraccia_Cristo_crocifisso) give the use of the ball as symbolising Francis' rejection of the earthly world. Nanonic (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been nice if they had some sources for that statement, as without them it looks awfully like just some editor's opinion. The Polish article has a link but I get an HTTP 500 so I don't know if I would have gotten anything more there. Basemetal 04:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; however, there seems to be little discussion of the work available online, except some Catholic devotional tracts which don't mention the globe. Apparently the bizarre subject of the painting is a vision experienced by the saint. I did find a Murillo chalk drawing on the same theme, called St Francis Rejecting The World And Embracing Christ, so it is plausible that he is symbolically "rejecting the world" by putting his foot on it. It makes more sense than the cannon ball theory at any rate. Alansplodge (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also The Embrace of St Francis of Assisi of The Crucified, Francesc Ribalta, 1620.—eric 00:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And not mentioned yet, the cherubs have opened to Luke 14:33. Nina Ayala Mallory. (1990). El Greco to Murillo: Spanish Painting in the Golden Age, 1556-1700.—eric 01:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

Victorian literature

A book I am reading says "In some Victorian novels the deep attachment of the father to the son, sometimes in an unhealthy way, is very evident". My Google Fu has failed me. Is anyone able to suggest examples please?--Shantavira|feed me 13:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This question belongs at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. One example is the titular characters in Dombey and Son. jnestorius(talk) 20:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Was the question moved? --69.159.61.230 (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: [13] [14]. As a reminder, it's polite to make it clear you've moved a question if someone has left a response based on it being somewhere else. Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Now, back to the question? --69.159.61.230 (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters so much that you leave something in the original place if the OP is the one doing the moving, at least if there were no substantive responses although there's also no harm in it. Just that you don't leave the reasonable response looking silly. (The same as when you make a mistake in your response and someone points it out, if you're going to fix your original response you should make it clear you've done so.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanity Fair is a good - if not entirely straightforward - example: the father-son (and father figure-surrogate son) relationship drives quite a few of the storylines, but like all forms of love in the novel, gets very twisted (Rawdon Crawley's love for his son blinds him to his wife's blatant cruelty, Dobbin becomes a devoted foster father to Georgy (in place of his deceased cad of a father), andOld John Osborne pushes his son to marry a rich heiress for his sake, disinherits him when he finds he has instead married poor Amelia, and as a grandfather starts trying to avoiding making the same mistakes twice.) Smurrayinchester 08:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions regarding John Thurloe

Is it true that a portrait of John Thurloe hangs at the headquarters of one of the UK's secret service agencies (can't remember which one)? And is it true that the Venetian ambassador to England at the time wrote back home regarding John Thurloe and the English secret service under the Protectorate that (I'm paraphrasing) "no nation is as good at discovering the secrets of others and at the same time at keeping its own"? Could someone also provide the exact wording (assuming the ambassador really wrote that of course)? I seem to remember hearing those two bits of information once in a radio program but I haven't been able to confirm them now on Google. Basemetal 11:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Financial Times - Lunch with the FT: Sir John Sawers (19 Sep 2014) a journalist interviews Sir John Sawers, head of MI6 until November 2014: "I ask whether it is true that a portrait of John Thurloe, Oliver Cromwell’s spymaster, hangs in his office. “There is one, and, actually, my predecessor John Scarlett used to revere that particular picture. His office... had all sorts of historical artefacts and letters up on the wall. My style is rather modernistic. I have modern art on the walls and modern furniture to keep the clutter down to a minimum.”
The Government Art Collection - The seventeenth century spymaster at M16 says it was was purchased in 2007 and hung in Sir John Scarlett's office. Thanks Gordon Brown, nice to know you were making sensible use of our money. Alansplodge (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alan. Good to know you subscribe to the FT . When I try to read the article I hit a paywall. Nothing on the Venetian ambassador? I don't even know how I would even get started on that one. Anyone knows the name of the Venetian ambassador to England under Cromwell? Basemetal 16:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It must be an overseas thing with the FT. A pop-up dialogue box just asked me if I had children under 18, and when I clicked "no" it let me in. No luck with the Venetians yet. Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it was easier than I thought, it was a chap called Lorenzo Paulucci (Wikipedia clearly doesn't have an article on everything!) - see THE COMMONWEALTH THROUGH VENETIAN EYES. Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No luck with the quote although I did find in Oct 12, 1654 - Lorenzo Paulucci, Venetian Secretary in England, to Giovanni Sagredo, the Ambassador in France: "..the English consider parliament the soul of their government and may be said to worship it. They are as jealous as possible of its ascendancy which they consider the palladium of their liberties". Quite right too. If you have lots of time on your hands, you could wade through Calendar of State Papers, Venice. Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another diplomat called Giovanni Sagredo seems to transfer from being Ambassador to France to Ambassador to England during 1655. [15] Alansplodge (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep that in mind. Thanks a lot for your help Alan. Basemetal 18:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also Francesco Giavarina from April, 1657.—eric 12:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Representative Men of Honolulu

Is there anyway to identified who are the men pictured here? I've tried to identified most of them with notes on commons.wikimedia.org but there are lot of holes and the writing on the bottom are hard to read.

Here is also a high resolution versions of some the ones I have been unable to ID. They are also noted in the larger image with ??? and their links.

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to check out Committee of Safety (Hawaii) for names, photos &c ... they seem to be much the same group of people? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Striking the one I was able to ID with the above information. There may be some of the same individuals on there but for the most part this one is more centered on the businessmen in Honolulu in 1898. That's why you have chief of the fire department or the president of the Hawaiian Electric Company. There are still nineteen unidentified persons.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried contacting the State Archives for assistance? archives@hawaii.gov is given at their front page, or you can phone them with the information provided in the same section of this page. Having done a large deal of work for two different digital libraries of photos, I can assure you that sometimes I've been familiar enough with people's appearances that I can identify them without a caption: yes, I put in the names whenever I noticed them, but if I were to be consulted on images from a third collection with no names, there's a good chance I could identify people without needing captions, and perhaps the folks at the HI State Archives would be able to do likewise. Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've written to them, not so much to ask for information as to ask what (the hell) they think they're doing posting images without identifying the subjects, in a situation in which (per the page titles) they know fine well who the individuals are. It is far beyond my comprehension why an archive, the managers of which have even half a brain-cell, thinks that it is good practice to post a catalogue of images with zero subject identification. Even after considerable AGF, the conclusion remains WTF. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

Prince Alfred's Visit to Hawaii in 1869

Are there any existing photographs, illustrations or depiction of any kind of Prince Alfred's visit to Hawaii (the Sandwich Islands) in 1869? I've seen a photograph or two of him Tahiti with the Brandee-Salmon family but none of his visit to Hawaii. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No luck I'm afraid, but I did find The memoirs of Admiral Lord Charles Beresford,. Chapter IX, The Cruise of HMS Galatea (Ciontinued), III. Tahiti and the Sandwich Islands, HMS Galatea (1859) being the ship on which Prince Alfred toured the South Pacific. I bring this to your attention only for his Lordship's amusing account of surfing in Tahiti, which he says is "one of the most exhilarating pastimes in the world". I thought we might have more luck with The Cruise of H.M.S. Galatea, but it doesn't seem to mention the Sandwich Islands in the "contents".
BTW, Prince Alfred would have been referred to as "the Duke of Edinburgh" at that time, lest anybody else fancies a search. Alansplodge (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This source list some watercolors done by Nicholas Chevalier: [22.] Native mode of travelling in the Sandwich Islands; the 19th of July 1869. N. Chevalier. [23.] Native female riders at Hawaii, Sandwich Islands; the 20th of July 1869. N. Chevalier. [24.] Bathing at Hilo, Sandwich Islands; the 20th of July 1869. N. Chevalier. [25.] The Island of Molokai, one of the Sandwich group; the cliffs rising abruptly 700 feet above the level of the sea; passed on the 21st of July 1869. N. Chevalier. [26.] View from the verandah of the residence prepared for, and occupied by, the Duke of Edinburgh, while staying at Honolulu; the 30th of July 1869. N. Chevalier. [27.] Waterfall near Honolulu, on the property of the late Queen Kalama; the 31st of July 1869. N. Chevalier. [28.] The Pali or precipice near Honolulu; the 31st of July 1869. N. Chevalier...Is it possible to find these?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No year

This is a followup to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2015 July 1#No seasons, at which I asked if there were any locations with no real differences (other than stellar movements) in meteorological phenomena from year to year, and at which it was noted that the climate of Singapore really didn't vary significantly throughout the year.

Do we know of any primitive cultures that historically lacked a concept of a year, because they lived in locations such as Singapore in which the natural world was basically the same year-round? In the temperate zones in which I've always lived, plants other than conifer trees have an easily observed year-long cycle, but I'm not sure if this is a response to the weather or if this is something virtually all plants do — i.e. do most tropical plants have year-long life cycles, with many plants consistently lasting one year, and others consistently producing fruit once per year? Nyttend (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell the age of a tree by counting the number of annual rings in its trunk - as far as I know that's common to all trees wherever they are. Sufficient water is vital to the reproduction cycle. Singapore is on the equator but I have been in Malaysia during the monsoon season, and that's when it really rains. I doubt that any culture lacked the concept of a year, because they were agriculture based and followed the growing seasons. There are plentiful references to this in the early books of the Bible. The seasons were marked by the position of the sun or the full moon against the stars. The annual inundation of the Nile was marked by the appearance of Sirius. This was known as the "rain star" (Tir) in Persia, and one of the months was named after it. 2A02:C7F:BE2B:5600:C104:51BD:2846:2A97 (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tree rings are also season-based - trees grow fastest in the spring and early summer. According to our article on dendrochronology (telling age from tree rings), "The rings are more visible in temperate zones, where the seasons differ more markedly." It stands to reason that where there is little or no seasonal variation, trees always grow at roughly the same rate and you see no clear rings. Smurrayinchester 09:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here, [17] it is *claimed*
It should be noted that though the Waiana tribe was studied, this is *not* a work about their culture or concepts of time, it's about "adreanal rhythms".
This [18] paper about musicology of a tribe in PNG says
I don't know who the Waiana are, it seems we don't have a page or they are now known by a different name. That name only appears in our article on Uncontacted_peoples.
The refs are both paywalled but I can provide them to interested parties upon request. My WP:OR is that the second claim rests on better authority as it is more recent, and the author is at least a humanist of sorts. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The month (cycle of the Moon) may be more significant to a primitive culture near the equator that makes it's living from hunting and fishing, versus agriculture. This is because full moonlight allows them to hunt or fish at night, to catch prey not normally available, and the cycles of the Moon are more obvious there than solar cycles. StuRat (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As 2A02:C7F:BE2B:5600:C104:51BD:2846:2A97 mentioned, even in the tropics, the seasons do change during a year. In most places, even if the temperature does not change, the rain / dry seasons follow annual patterns (even in Singapore), and over thousands of years that is bound to be noticed by any group of people that live off agriculture or hunting-and-gathering. I think it's more plausible that their concept of long term time is different - that is, they see the annual cycle but their philosophy does not recognise a sequential concept of the year as time-marking. (It is somewhat analogous to the traditional Chinese way of marking years - which went in 60-year cycles, rather than sequentially like conventional Western year-marking.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The dry season is caused by the Intertropical Convergence Zone moving. However, see Andagoya, Colombia. A place with hardly any seasons. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When they say things like the average car in America was age 11.5 on 1/1/15?

Is the car age 0.0 on the assembly line or when the dealer gets it or when it turns from new to used when the buyer drives it off the lot? (which could be well over a year after the dealer got it). Do they ask when the event that starts the clock occurred to the day or month or just to the year? Or do they just ask what model year it is then subtract that from the current model year and average those? (if so that is probably why they chose 1/1/15 to do the survey) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked in car sales in the UK I'm not familiar with the age of a car being expressed like this. It might be uniquely American. Can you provide an example of this usage in context? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From a consulting firm that does an oft quoted survey
The US "Ministry" of Transportation website
New York Times
Fortune (the Fortune 500 Fortune)
Forbes (the Forbes 400 Forbes)
[19] Los Angeles Times
[20] cars.com
[21] USA Today
Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and my apologies. Your question was actually clearer than I had been making it in my head.
So, as to the main question, when does the car start aging, the standard date to count from in the UK (and I'd imagine elsewhere too) is the date of first registration. That is the date on which the dealership selling the car provides details of the car and its new owner to the registration authority (the DVLA in the UK) and would normally be a couple of days to a week before the customer drives their new car away. Sometimes the dealer will pre-register a vehicle before they have a customer lined up. In this case a customer buying the 'new' car will get one that could be 6 months old and have had one previous owner (usually the dealership, the manufacturer or some associated company (I used to work for a company that registered vehicles in the name of a 'shell company' that didn't exist other than on paper in order to have cars registered in its name)). The benefit to the dealer of doing this is that they can a) spread out the work of registering vehicles throughout the year, rather than having a rush at traditional busy times (such as, in the UK, March 1st and September 1st, when new registration numbers are released), and b) it allows them to hit sales targets - if the dealer needs an extra 10 sales by the end of the month to hit the target given to them by the manufacturer then it will be cost-effective to take a small hit on the value of each of those vehicles in order to make what might be a 6-figure sum in bonuses from the manufacturer.
I wasn't able to find a methodology for the survey you quoted (and which all the following articles seemed to be using for their information), so I couldn't tell you exactly how they count the age of vehicles, but I suspect that yes, they are counting from the exact date of first registration. This would normally be 1-6 months after the car rolls off the assembly line (depending on how long it takes to transport), and in the case of pre-registered cars, as above, might be 2 days to 6 months before the customer drives away. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. When the Great Recession happened the TV commercials were selling at least 2 model years simultaneously and not just soon after the model year changes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My mechanic says a car starts "aging" when it is being used for the purpose it was designed for. So a car starts aging when it is purchased by a buyer who intends to use it for the purpose it was designed for. IE an ordinary person and not a car dealer. 175.45.116.99 (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

List of dance moves

Last night, I went dancing at a nightclub. I'm wondering if there's a list of dance moves that I can use to impress other people the next time I go out partyingUncle dan is home (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://findyourinnergeek.ca/2016/04/dance-moves-party-songs-know-2016/ --Jayron32 01:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's [22] some cool moves, using a form of dance notation. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The competitors of the Gutenberg Bible: scribal bibles

It is easy to find images of what a typical page of the Gutenberg 42-line Bible (B42) looked/looks like: File:Gutenberg bible Old Testament Epistle of St Jerome.jpg. But what about bibles (or other books) that were being produced by other methods (by scribes, or by woodblock printing) at the same time (15th century Europe)? Are there any references online to what they looked like? Shreevatsa (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Bible of Mainz
Commons has many images of 15th century manuscripts including several Bibles (commons:Category:15th-century illuminated manuscripts). Wikipedia has category:15th-century biblical manuscripts. The Giant Bible of Mainz was probably created near in time and location to Gutenburg's press.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmhermen (talk • contribs)
Thank you! My searching skills were poor today. Thank you very much for these pointers. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend a book for spiritual succour - meaning of life needed

I have a friend going through some tough times, and it is clear that he is searching for answers to the big questions. He has begun looking through the internet for things and has begun dallying in the conspiracy websites. He has begun talking about how the Egyptian pharoahs may have been gods from somewhere in Orion's Belt, for instance, due to the placement of the pyramids.

Before he goes off the deep end and starts believing in a flat earth, I am looking for recommendations on popular science books that have a spiritual bent to them - basically a book grounded in facts and observable reality that also could lend a hand to someone looking for wider meaning. To me, scientific reasoning is the meaning in and of itself, but it isn't that way to everyone.

Failing that, really good books for the layman on anthropology, timelines of ancient history, language development, that kind of thing. Thanks FreeMorpheme (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Jay Gould's popular science books do not shy away from spirituality. Without prescribing or proscribing any specific strain of spirituality, they do argue for a human need for spiritual direction and guidance as well as scientific understanding. Rocks of Ages is probably his best known, but his other works in the area, such as The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox. --Jayron32 20:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very good as anthropology by modern standards, and the complete text does get a little turgid at times, but I can still recommend The Golden Bough as an antidote to unreflective spiritual mushiness. Tevildo (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not addressing exactly the same side of the request, here is an interesting complement to the usual view our culture(s) builds it/themselve(s) of the Pharaos' own. --Askedonty (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

Cholera in Haiti

I read that lots of people have been drinking bad water since the hurricane. Why don't they boil it first? There's lots of wood debris everywhere. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions that begin "Why don't..." are almost impossible to find good reliable source references for. However, if you want to learn more about some of the causes of Cholera outbreaks in Haiti, This article seems to be useful. --Jayron32 11:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the practicalities of boiling all your water and keeping hands and utensils clean, while living in a makeshift shack with a large family. Not so easy even if you understand the issues. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ever tried to light damp wood? Also I doubt many of the dwellings of Haiti's poor have well-engineered fire pits and good ventilation, which means fires are dangerous. And finally, boiling will kill pathogens, but it won't remove other pollutants which can make water "bad". --47.138.165.200 (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article covering a potential transition to a cashless society?

There is quite a bit of media coverage about the possibility/potential/process for modern societies to transition to a cashless society (eg based on electronic only money, or with legal tender limited to some small amount), and significant views on it. But if we have an article covering this, I can't find it. I've looked at:

  • Digital economy - more about the economy that exists in the digital world rather than the implications of a "real-world" digital economy" or transition
  • Cashless society
  • Legal tender

Any help appreciated! FT2 (Talk | email) 14:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that cheques are not cash, but there is some stuff on this general subject at Cheque#Declining use. --Viennese Waltz 14:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cashless society sounds to me like a suitable topic for an article. Some of the information scattered about in other articles could perhaps be folded into it. Note that today most money is already electronic. Bank accounts are entries in bank computers. Cash only represents a small fraction of the global money supply. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US representatives to the UN in Geneva

According to our article, Pamela Hamamoto is the 18th and current Permanent Representative (Ambassador) of the United States of America to the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva, assuming this office in May 2014. Apparently, the 17th Permanent Representative was Warren W. Tichenor. But the article on Tichenor says that he left office in January 2009. So who held this office between 2009 and 2014? --Viennese Waltz 16:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of the United States to the European Office of the United Nations says it was Betty E. King. However, both articles say that Ms King (number 18 by my count) is the current incumbent, so need a bit of updating if anybody is bored. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=744062425"