Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 15

Hillary Clinton and the Merrick Garland supreme court nomination

Has Hillary Clinton expressed any plans or views as the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme court? Has she said whether, if she wins the Presidency, she intends to stick with the nomination? Surely some media interviewer would have asked her the question at some stage, given that the issue will inevitably end up in her presidency's lap (barring an unlikely Trump victory, or the almost equally unlikely event of congress actually acting on Obama's nomination of Garland)?

If she's been silent or noncommittal on the issue, have any analysts of note expressed any opinions as to whether she will once again nominate Garland, or will she nominate someone else? And if the answer is the latter, whom do they think are the most likely candidates? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The speculation in the press (I heard an NPR discussion to this effect) has been that Obama nominated him because he is somewhat moderate, and in this way he hoped to get a hearing. Hillary, on the other hand, could elect somebody more liberal, with the confidence that Republicans, even if they still have a majority, won't block a nominee for another 4 or perhaps 8 years. Republicans might see this coming if Hillary wins, and quickly approve Garland before Hillary gets in. However, if they don't do this and do refuse to consider any Hillary nominee, we could have a Constitutional crisis, where neither party will consider a nominee from the other party, so that no Supreme Court judges can be replaced until Congress and the President are of the same party. I suppose the Court could continue to function until it drops to 1 justice, but not with 0 (however, it seems to function better with an odd number of Justices, as then there can't be any ties). StuRat (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Per Title 28 of the United States Code, a quorum of 6 is required for the US Supreme Court to hear a case. -- ToE 17:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder if Congress and the President would strike that down, in the event that they couldn't agree on replacements. Or you could have the bizarre situation where it is struck down by the Supreme court as unconstitutional, if it has the effect of dissolving the Court. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Has the constitutionality of the quorum position ever been seriously tested? As a co-equal branch of government, I have had the impression that the Supreme Court took a dim view of the other branches telling them how to conduct their business. Dragons flight (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Mike Lee explains why the GOP will block Garland even if Clinton wins ^{WaPo, 13 Oct. 2016}

Clinton has carefully avoided committing to renominate Garland, and it seems likely that she would appoint someone who is younger and has a more progressive track record. Indeed, many activists on the left would go apoplectic if she stuck with the chief judge from the D.C. Circuit. There is a widespread feeling on the left that Obama squandered a big political opportunity by going with someone who he thought could get confirmed in the lame-duck session.

Not mentioned in that article is that the Republicans might be more inclined to approve Garland if the Democrats also win control of the Senate, as now seems somewhat more likely than not. Here is FiveThirtyEight's senate control forecast. -- ToE 20:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Does the nomination survive into the new presidency?

The bit of the Constitution where it talks about nominating Supreme Court justices says that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint" them. Is it obvious whether or not a nomination by one president can lead to an appointment by another? I don't think it's obvious. Assume that nothing happens until after the elections; is the new Senate required to vote on Garland's nomination before the new president can consider nominating someone else? If so, could they accept Garland at that time even if the new president would rather cancel the nomination? Is there any sort of case law on this point? (The same wording applies several other offices besides the Supreme Court; perhaps there has been a case regarding those other offices.) --69.159.61.230 (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

See What happens to Merrick Garland’s nomination in December?.^{WaPo, 6 Oct. 2016} The nomination will expire when congress adjourns -- likely in December, but necessarily before noon on 3 January. President Obama could then renominate Judge Garland sometime before he leaves office on 20 January, and this nomination would survive into the next presidency, though the next president could withdraw the nomination. -- ToE 13:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that covers everything except the question of whether there's case law. --69.159.61.230 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect U.S. courts would regard the internal procedures of the Senate as a political question not reviewable by the courts. Congress's procedures for conducting its own business aren't laws. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v. United States ruled that the judicial branch has no power to review impeachments. (Note that case didn't involve Richard Nixon, but a completely different person who happened to have the same last name.) You are correct in observing that the Constitution is silent on the exact mechanics of a nomination, which is really why things are in the situation they are in. Technically there ain't no law that says the Senate must hear a Supreme Court nomination, so the Senate Republicans are pushing at the limits of precedent to placate their far-right base that thinks Obama is an evil dictator. This is the kind of thing that leads to constitutional crises. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Archibald Forbes decorations

Archibald Forbes

Can anyone identify the decorations worn by Archibald Forbes, the war correspondent, in this picture of him? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Top row is allegedly Order of St. Stanislas from Russia; the Iron Cross 2nd Class for Non-Combatants; the civil class of the Pour Le Mérite; and the French Legion of Honor. [1] --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

And others have walked this way before: Archibald Forbes: Medal ID Exercise and this article. With some judgement, that might account for 12 or so of them. It would be interesting to complete the matrix on this page ... and I note that the forum age seems to disagree with the cigarette card page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah thank you, will have a close read of those and see if I can sort them out. DuncanHill (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What is the name of this kind of fallacy?

What is the name of the fallacy type that works like this:
Thing A has characteristic B
PS: More than one stuff stuff can share same word/name, and so some words can have multiple meanings. B is one example of that and the definition used for B was C.
Thing D apply to everything that has characteristic B.
PS:Now, the definition of B on this new case is E.
So D must apply to A.
201.18.142.36 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Equivocation is the technical term. The example from our article is:

A feather is light.

What is light cannot be dark.

Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

Tevildo (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

(ec)Your question is a bit hard to parse for me. The general scheme $B(a)\wedge \forall X:(B(X)\Rightarrow D(X))\vdash D(a)$ is sound - indeed, the classical example for this syllogism is "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal". Do you want to suggest that the "B" is different in both cases? As in "All stars are giant balls of hydrogen. Patrick Steward is a star. Therefore Patrick Steward is a giant ball of hydrogen"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tevildo , Equivocation is the one. Yes your patrick exemple would be one example of what I was thinking.201.18.142.36 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, if we miss out the B term and go straight from C to E, we get the quaternio terminorum fallacy - to adapt an example from above:

Hitler was a National Socialist.

Socialists are left-wing.

Hitler was left-wing.

The conclusion may (or may not) be true, but the logic is invalid. Tevildo (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That particular case would also be caused by an underlying etymological fallacy which leads to the equivocation which leads to the quaternio terminorum. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The one I remember was "Nothing is better than everlasting love. A ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than everlasting love". 50.0.205.96 (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Joint dormitories for men and women in army

Not long ago I heard that a certain army, possibly the Belgian Armed Forces, once faced issues of sexual harassment of female soldiers and decided to resolve them by increasing the social interaction between males and females, particularly by creating joint dormitories, and that it worked. I'd like to check this claim and see how specifically it was implemented but I couldn't find any reference in Google. Has anyone here ever heard of it? Thanks, 84.108.121.108 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure you're thinking of the Belgian Armed Forces? I don't know if the Belgian Armed Forces have mixed/unisex dormitories but the Norwegian Armed Forces or at least the Norwegian Army seem well known for it including the finding it appeared to reduce sexual assaults & harassment, and also increase unit cohesiveness. [2] [3] [4] [5]. [6] is an English report of the study. See also [7] [8] [9] [10]. BTW the first four links were found with a search for 'armed forces reducing sexual harassment dormitory' after 'Belgian armed forces reducing sexual harassment dormitory' didn't find anything useful under the assumption that the country involved is something easy to misremember & perhaps the most likely thing of the details that you mentioned. In retrospect 'belgian armed forces unisex dormitory' or 'belgian armed forces mixed dormitory' both work. In fact even '"belgian" armed forces unisex dormitory' and '"belgian" armed forces mixed dormitory' find stuff about Norway. Nil Einne (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW 'belgian armed forces joint dormitory' and '"belgian" armed forces joint dormitory' don't work, although 'norwegian armed forces joint dormitory' does. If you try searching for 'joint dormitory' or '"joint dormitory"', you'll find it's not a very common term in English for what you're referring to. Also I probably should link to [11] and [12]. Nil Einne (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Virgin Mary Parades

• http://specphotos.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Festival-of-the-Virgin-Mary3031.jpg

How do people call the parade platform and statute of Virgin Mary? -- Toytoy (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The "statute" is just a statue. The platform could be called a type of litter, though "litter" normally means it carries a person rather than a statue. An Italian word is it:fercolo, which is specifically a platform for a saint's statue in a procession, but may be carried by people, animal, cart, or motor vehicle. More ornate ones are called it:cereo. jnestorius^(talk) 01:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, see Wiktionary:litter, definition number 1: "A platform mounted on two shafts, or a more elaborate construction, designed to be carried by two (or more) people to transport one (in luxury models sometimes more) third person(s) or (occasionally in the elaborate version) a cargo, such as a religious idol." Catholics would be offended by "idol" and may prefer "image" or "icon" although the latter is usually applied to paintings in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Our Aniconism in Christianity article has more details. Alansplodge (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia coverage of this type of event is a bit slim, we have Marian devotions#Processions, which only mentions one example in Los Angeles. Alansplodge (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Christian procession has more; it's any saint, not just Mary. commons:Category:Processions has subcats commons:Category:Processional carriages commons:Category:Processional litters and commons:Category:Processional canopies though all, especially litters, are underpopulated.
• Here's a user on WordReference.com giving terms used in Spain.

jnestorius^(talk) 12:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added "see also|Procession#Christian processions" to the Marian devotions article. Alansplodge (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised the cult statue article doesn't mention processions with litters, nor have a section on the ancient Near East, where such processions were a standard part of religious life and features of major festivals like the Akitu. (See, for example, this Assyrian relief.) Ushumgal (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

October 16

Popish Plot

Line 4: Church in England read: Church of England — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.242.152 (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The church Henry VIII took over was the (Roman Catholic) Church in England. By doing so he turned it into the (non- RC) Church of England. Before the reformation it was accepted that there was a single church in communion with Rome, and that more local structures were that single church IN a particular country. Wymspen (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the article is Popish Plot. I concur with User:Wymspen - perhaps there is scope for an article Pre-Reformation Church in England, but that will have to wait for a rainy day (well, even rainier than today!). PS: I've already found a source: The Pre-Reformation Church in England 1400-1530 by Christopher Harper-Bill (1989). Alansplodge (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

North Korea.

I have a question. Why has North Korea been deemed such a threat/problem for regional stability in East Asia? --Poing-PoBongino (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Please start by reading North Korea–South Korea relations and Japan–North Korea relations. Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The two Koreas are still technically at war, as a peace treaty has never been signed, only an armistice that halted the fighting. Beyond that, see Korean conflict. North Korea has one of the world's largest militaries, regularly threatens to restart the fighting and engages in various provocations, is trying to build nuclear weapons and delivery systems for them, and since the end of the Cold War and thus food aid from the Soviet Union and other friendly countries has been unable to adequately feed its population. Many commentators consider North Korea a near-failed state; when Kim Jong-un succeeded to the leadership there was some speculation about a collapse of the government or civil war, as some felt Jong-un would be inexperienced and unable to maintain effective control over the military, but it turns out he may actually be more ruthless than his father in eliminating perceived disloyalty. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens is also interesting. Although it happened decades ago, they still deny most of the kidnappings ever occurred. The axe murder incident is another reason they are considered a rogue nation. But, to take the big picture, their continued threats against South Korea and Japan may ultimately make each nation feel they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves from NK nukes, causing a new round of nuclear proliferation. StuRat (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Short answer: because it's Kim-possible to predict what they'll do next or what boundary they'll cross. They're like the Donald Trump of nations. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Their current god-emperor is the third of a dynasty of sociopathic nutcases. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

October 17

Malcolm Lowry eating Harriet Lane

WHile researching James Johnston Abraham, the author of a book I've just acquired, I ran across the following quotation from the Malcolm Lowry novel Ultramarine "Now I was telling you about this hungry ship. We were carrying a cargo of Crosse and bloody Blackwell's plum puddings and tinned chickens and all sorts out East for the Christmas season. Ruddy murder it was to think of all that food under the hatches and us poor twats forward eating Harriet Lane all the time. What did he mean by "eating Harriet Lane"? DuncanHill (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This post from the Gutted Arcades of the Past blog explains it:

"Harriet Lane" refers to sailors calling canned meat by that name after a famous murder in 1874. Henry Wainwright was a brushmaker who murdered his mistress Harriet Lane in September 1874 and buried her body in a warehouse he owned. When he was declared bankrupt the next year, he disinterred the body in September 1875 and attempted to rebury it with his brother Thomas and another brushmaker, Alfred Stokes. Stokes was suspicious of the contents of the parcels he had been given to carry, and opened one, revealing human body parts, which he immediately reported to police. The crime was given more publicity at the time than those of Jack the Ripper. Henry Wainwright was sentenced to death and hanged on 21 December 1875.

Might be worth mentioning the Harriet Lane-canned meat connection at the Henry Wainwright article. There is a shanty about Harriet Lane at www.shanty.org.uk/pdfbox/andy_mckay/HarrietLane.pdf and an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang here --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Splendid work, many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Rebury it where? Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Royal Navy slang often repurposed the names of famous murder victims to describe unpalatable food - Fanny Adams is the most famous example, but there's also the generic Jane Shore (rhyming slang for "whore"). Smurrayinchester 12:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It occurs to me, based on the initials, that perhaps the language is also suggestive of Hellish Leftovers. Bus stop (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Dark magic in kabalah

Can any dark magic be found in kabalah?AndrewAngel1024 (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That would depend entirely on your definitions of dark magic and Kabbalah, as well as which authors you consult. Concerning just the latter two issues, do you mean just Jewish Kabbalah, or are you including Hermetic Qabalah? If you're including Hermetic Qabalah, are you restricting yourself to just its adherents who also identified as members of Abrahamic religions, or are you including Theosophists, Neopagans, Thelemites, and Chaos Magicians?

Someone like Isaac Luria might deny that real Kabbalah has practical magic (and that any practical magic is not truly Kabbalistic). Someone like Samael Aun Weor or Helena Blavatsky might say that true Kabbalah can only lead to some kind of white magic that brings enlightenment and maybe some sort of parapsychological benefits but not any sort of practical rituals. Someone like Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, Aleister Crowley, or Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers might say it depends on how you use it or that it's unrelated but still necessary for understanding practical ritual magic. Someone like Malaclypse the Younger might instruct you to find the answer by dancing like a turkey. Someone like Thomas Karlsson, Andrew D. Chumbley, or Michael Howard might say that if you're not using Kabbalah for black magic, you're not doing it right. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't provide a source, but as a jew, I've heard that in Jewish kaballah, there is a concept of "practical kaballah" - calling upon the angels to do your will, or using certain holy divine names to make things happen. An actual example, according to the authorities, is Moses killing the Egyptian who was beating the Jewish slave - according to some, he uttered the holy name of god, and the Egyptian dropped dead. However, Jewish teaching is that to actually make use of "practical kaballah" is to play with fire, and those who do such things have bad things happen to them, such as their children going astray from Judaism (or other horrible things perhaps). Generally, assuming you have these skills, it's something you just don't do if you know what's good for you. Also note, that according to Jewish teaching, most people should be extremely cautious about studying kaballah at all - many who do so die at a young age. Notable examples from different eras would be Isaac Luria (The "Arizal" - died aged 38), Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (the "Ramchal" - died aged 39) and, in recent times, Aryeh Kaplan (died aged 48). None, to my knowledge, dabbled in "practical kaballah". They stuck to teaching how to get close to god, and how god runs the world. They never tried to manipulate god or the angels. But nevertheless, all were noted kaballists (and the first two were extremely holy people, according to Jewish teaching), and all died relatively young. So basically, if you want a long life, stay away. To study this stuff is to enter the presence of the king (i.e. god) himself, so to speak, and judgement of those who do so can be harsh. The ONE famous exception in Jewish teaching was Rabbi Akiva - Jewish tradition is that he entered the most sacred realms, and was alone in being allowed to leave unscathed. Others who tried his path in his time either died, went mad, or abandoned Judaism. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Why's Australia much less conservative than America?

Australia: "No American republican would stand a chance in any other developed country except maybe a moderate republican in maybe Australia. Maybe. But I doubt it." - (Ashley John Land)

US: 43% of Americans tell pollsters they'll vote for Trump. He's winning most non-coastal states. [13]. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

See Conservatism in Australia. In Australia, the conservative movement has historically been dominated by liberals (in the European small-government, free-market sense) which meant that there was less room for social conservatism. That's changed a bit recently, as Australian politics has adopted more European/American ideas - the left has shifted to a pro-market Third Way position, which has meant that the liberals had to take a more conservative standpoint to differentiate themselves - and, as it came to rely on fossil fuel and mineral exports, under John Howard the government took a very US-Republican attitude to environmental issues. Smurrayinchester 3:55 pm, Today (UTC+8)

Not sure about your reference to Europe: the Conservative Party (UK) has been pretty small-l liberal in recent years, in terms of concrete policy positions in many ways it's significant further left compared to the Liberal Party in Australia. I'm not sure there is any major Western European country where the conservative party is as far on the spectrum as the US Republican Party. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I more was talking about the Australian left picking up Clinton/Blair-style social democracy, which then necessitated a corresponding shift from the Liberals. Nevertheless, most European countries have a socially-conservative, anti-liberalism Christian Democrat-type movement which fuses moral conservatism with social democracy (including the British Conservatives pre-Thatcher - see One-nation conservatism - and even when Thatcher came along, she didn't really change the back-to-basics morality). The British Tories remained old-fashioned (and increasingly out of touch) on social issues through the leadership of Hague and IDS, started to modernize under Michael Howard, but only really became liberal on social issues under Cameron post-2005, which is after John Howard lost power in Australia. There's never been an a major analogous movement in Australia - see Christian democracy#Australia - but under John Howard the Liberal/National alliance did start to become Thatcherite (as our article notes, John Howard is the first Australian PM to call himself "conservative" instead of "liberal"). Of course European and American conservatives aren't the same, but that there is a common thread of social conservatism that was less significant in traditional (pre-90s) Australian conservatism. Smurrayinchester 10:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(Also, it may be more pertinent might be to ask why America is so much more conservative (or at least, why American conservatives are further right) than other European and Commonwealth countries, which America's political system is otherwise quite similar to. As Conservatism in the United States says, US politics actually followed a similar trajectory to Australia, but social conservatives did a better job of taking control of the formerly classical-liberal party. Maybe it helped that the US has a stricter separation of powers than Australia, and between 1980 and 2000, the two main branches of government were almost always opposed (Democratic House of Representatives until 1994, then a Republican House but Republican Presidents until 1992, then a Dem President), which created the governmental deadlocks that allowed culture war to thrive. In Australia, the PM always controls the House, so political polarization matters less.) Smurrayinchester 10:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

[Banned user's contribution deleted]

A conservative paper supporting Brexit suggests the Tories have moved further to the right? How does that compute? Does the fact that the Lib Dems were the strongest Remain supporters suggest they are now further left than Labour? By all accounts there were more Brexit supporters amongst Tory voters than amongst Labour voters, and given that a majority of the country ended up voting for Leave, it should not have been surprising that the Telegraph endorsed "Leave". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

For about the 25,926th time, a majority of the country did not vote for Leave. 37% of the electorate voted for Leave, 35% voted for Remain, and 28% did not vote at all. Those figures should be engraved on every Brit's heart. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

An optional voting system gives you the option to abstain, and those who abstain, like the insane except voluntarily, don't count as part of the body politic for the purpose of counting this vote. 52% of the body politic voted for Leave. This is the same in every British election or referendum, it seems to me that your beef should be with the optional voting system rather than anything to do with this particular referendum, so I'm not sure why 35% is any more worthy of engraving on body parts than 48%. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

My boeuf was the fact that you claimed that "a majority of the country ended up voting for Leave", which is untrue - unless you regard people who didn't vote, children, etc., as not "of the country". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

One must also factor in that the "Bible Belt" phenomenon is uniquely American. No other country has a significant population of gun-toting bible bashers. The types of hot button political issues for this sector of American society such as gun rights, opposition to abortion, creationism, etc. barely feature in the political agendas of any other western democracies. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a good point, although it's interesting that until the 70s, this community wasn't all that influential in the political mainstream (they were just another brick in the New Deal Coalition). But when the Democrats went desegregation, the Republicans swept in with the Southern strategy to pick up the alienated white working-class Southerners, and Moral Majority picked up from there. Smurrayinchester 11:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

My sense is that it wasn't until the US started to experience its now-regular mass shootings that the gun lobby became so powerful. After people began to argue for much more stringent gun control in order to limit the possibility of more shootings, the gun lobby argued that defence of life and limb in the face of the shootings was exactly why ever more guns were needed. While ever one side sees the ready availability of guns as the cause of the problem and the other side sees it as the solution, there will be no resolution. After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, Australians by-and-large willingly agreed to surrender their guns for destruction. Twenty years on, there has been no repeat of such an event here. Otoh, Category:Mass shootings in the United States by year tells a radically different story. Just 2016 alone in the USA has had more mass shootings than Australia has had in its entire history. Whether this difference in approach/outcome can be characterised by different levels of conservatism in our respective countries is an open question, but it must play some role. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I wonder what role geography plays. Those on the coasts (primarily the US East and West coasts, not as much the Gulf coast) had constant exposure to new immigrants, and their ideas, so the more recent liberal ideas may have made more inroads there than far from the coasts, as in Iowa, which kept to the old ways. Comparing with Australia, isn't it true that the Outback has a low population, and thus little influence on the politics of the nation ? The US interior, on the other hand, has a larger population, and even more political power than their numbers would indicate, because every state gets 2 Senators, regardless of population. And Australia, being an island, has coasts on all sides. StuRat (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that all US immigrants come from the sea via the coasts and none of the come from the Canadian or Mexican land borders? Wasn't this question partially relating to Trump? Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

All, no. Most, yes. And the more liberal immigrants tend to come from Europe, not so much from South of the US (Hispanics tend to vote Democratic not because they are liberal, but because Republicans like Trump make them feel most unwelcome in that party). Canada does tend to be more liberal than the US, but the immigration from Canada is fairly small, and it might tend to favor conservatives, as liberal Canadians should be happy to stay put. StuRat (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

About Hispanics not being liberal. I didn't see evidence of conservative values in the people I went to school with (mostly Hispanic). In church sure, one likely wouldn't go to Catholic Mass every Sunday if one was liberal right? Is there a regional difference in this? There's probably also a generational difference. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You're missing my point. You've implied that Australian being all coastal somehow makes immigration easier or more likely which flies in the face of many immigrants come from the land borders, especially in recent times, in the US. (In modern times many immigrants who aren't coming by land don't come by sea, they come by plane.) Further, you've muddied your point even more by now bringing up politics. How many European immigrants are going to be coming by boat to the West Coast of the US? Speaking of Australia although coastal a lot of it is actually not very close to any land where immigrants are likely to come from. While I'm not an expert on the sea currents and ocean voyages, I'm pretty sure I'd be easier for immigrants to make it to the northern part of Western Australia or the Northern Territory or Northern Queesland or in some cases even Perth, then it would be to make it to Melbourne or in some cases even Sydney. However the later 2 are where they tend to go. Of course the White Australia policy was only completely dismantled by 1973, by which time it's likely most were arriving by plane rather than sea. In a place like Australia with limited transport over land, travelling to Melbourne or Sydney by boat is generally easier than over land, but still talking about "Australia being all coastal" but the US isn't "all coastal" but instead has land borders is clearly excessively simplistics. The differences between population distributions could be a factor but there are many reasons for this and putting it down to Australia being all coastal is again too simplistic. Nil Einne (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Asiatic Barred Zone.png

The Asiatic Barred Zone of 1917-1952

The US had a similar policy from the early 1920s to 1965. A series of laws were passed with names like the Emergency Quota Act. They set low annual immigrant quotas which were very low for non-white countries. A correlation with settling in or near port cities and Mexico continued even after the disappearance of oceanliners. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There are conservative values that go along with being Catholic, like opposition to Roe v. Wade. StuRat (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Even my mother's very devout 70 year old Polish Catholic friend didn't say did you vote, she said did you vote for Kerry like it was a no brainer. She was the kind of person who thought morals had gone so bad that Revelation might happen within decades and hopes God will make the world like the old days before electricity. She told us if she had Bill Gates' wealth she'd use nearly all of it to build a cathedral 2 or 3 times as tall as the Twin Towers (so 1/2 to one mile tall and long basically) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As for your first point, sure and that re-enforces the view that making a big deal over the coastline is confusing. As for the second point, yes there are reasons why this can occur but it's complicated, e.g. Dallas isn't a coastal city [14]. (This is even clearer if you look at other countries. E.g. London isn't coastal.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. In retrospect Lyon or even Paris is probably a better example than London. I'm sure you can come up with even more inland examples though. Of course the geography, nature of transportation in Europe, freedom of movement, etc means as we've seen a lot in recent times that immigration over the land borders was and remains a decent prospect for France or much of continential Europe. Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I was in a bit of a rush when writing the above so I should clarify I was of course primarily thinking about immigrants from Asia, although I expect immigrants from Europe are likely to find the listed places easier to get to too if going by sea. Immigrants from North America may not find Sydney too bad although I expect North Queensland is still better. NZ is one of the few places from which immigrants by sea may find the coasts of Melbourne or Sydney a good target, but even if the entirety of NZ's population migrates to Australia it would only increase the Australian population by 20%. A big amount for sure, but this does indicate there are ultimate limits to migration from NZ. Also I should mention that despite the increaing migration from Asia and the weird view of those opposed to migration, the UK and NZ are still the biggest source for the resident population born overseas (Immigration to Australia#Country of birth of Australian residents). Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The part of the coastalness that matters is presumably whether passenger ships let you get off there and whether they're one of the bigger cities in the industrialized portion of the continent after passenger ships get replaced by airplanes. People often want to go big for some reason. Los Angeles is a popular destination even though San Diego's in the way and close enough to walk in one day (before they built fences everywhere). Many Puerto Ricans weren't content to fly to the closer Miami but settled in the largest city in America instead. I've heard of someone South American immigrating by flying to Miami then sitting on a bus for over 2,000 kilometers just to get New York (though the bus was pointless as the extra food equaled the fare saved). Dallas is the biggest US city without a port by metro population (#7). It's the biggest city by metro pop in Texas which has a border with Mexico so if there's a lot of immigrants there that's not a surprise. Immigrants will be less and less correlated to port metro areas and border zones as time goes by. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Immigration patterns suffer from a social form of the founder effect. There isn't always a logical reason for a particular group to settle, in a concentrated way, in one area excepting that there were a few pioneers from that particular group that settled there. Some settlement patterns make total sense (Latin Americans in New Mexico and California and Texas, French Canadians in New England) because of proximity effects. However, if you have to cross an ocean to get somewhere, there isn't any inherent rational reason why one city or area of a country is better than another excepting "they have jobs" and/or "there are people nearby who are like me", which is the biggest such factor. Consider places like Dearborn, Michigan (Middle Eastern), Lowell, Massachusetts (Cambodian), Morrisville, North Carolina (South Asian). There's nothing particular about, say, Lowell that would indicate it to be a likely locale for the Cambodian diaspora; and yet outside of Cambodia, there are more Cambodians in Lowell than any city in America except Long Beach, CA, which is a much larger city in a much larger coastal port town. Why Lowell? Because some refugees showed up in the 1970s, probably rather randomly, and then more followed. That's about it. It isn't a port town, it isn't on the West Coast, it isn't otherwise a major city for immigrants in general. --Jayron32 19:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

We can be more specific than "Middle Eastern" when describing the population of Dearborn. It's largely Arabs Americans: Dearborn,_Michigan#Arab_Americans. Not many Israelis there, for instance. They live in other Detroit suburbs. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

(StuRat beat me to it) The states on the Mexican border are indeed turning Democratic. California hasn't gone Republican in a presidential election since the Cold War, New Mexico hasn't gone Republican since 2004, Arizona could go Democratic for the first time in a while this year and Texas probably has too many conservatives for newcomners to dilute them quickly enough for the Democrat to win by 2016. 27.5 million people live in Texas and only 18% of white Texans voted Obama last time. They'll be a swing state by an Olympiad or three.

Most of the states bordering Canada are liberal but many would still be liberal without Canadians and most are coastal anyway (many immigrants got off the boat on the western tip of the Great Lakes). Canadian immigration is not a big factor. Only 2% of foreign born residents are Canadian and only 1% of Americans claim Canadian descent or birth. The interior states bordering Canada are cold like the other side, have pretty Rockies like the other side, are less rich than Alberta, have oil like Alberta, have prairies and farms like Saskatchewan, have rural life like the other side, have rivers and lakes like Manitoba, play similar sports .. there's not much the interior border states have that Canada doesn't besides.. Republican-strength conservatives. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The Canadian emigres include the good, the bad and the ugly. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another element is the migration of British industrial workers to Australia, who brought their values with them. "Trade unionism began to take root in this country [Australia] in the 1850’s following the abolition of convict transportation. Tradesmen and mechanics coming from Britain established craft unions in the building and engineering trades.... From 1860 to 1890 the young unions displayed great militancy and won many concessions from the employers. Seamen, waterside workers and other sections formed unions. Up to 1890 conditions favoured the unions; capitalism was expanding and it was cheaper for employers to grant concessions rather than face lengthy stoppages". This quote is admittedly from the Marxist Internet Archive but seems to hit the nail on the head. Mass British working-class migration continued into the 1970s, see Ten Pound Poms. Alansplodge (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Menzies Dickson

I am trying to corroborate Menzies Dickson obituary which said he served in the navy during the American Civil War but after searching the list of enlistment of men from Massachusetts who served in the Union Navy I can't find his name. He also lived in Cincinnati but I don't think he was there until after the war. Can someone help to find more sources speaking about this individual? Also a possible obituary for him in Massachusetts or New England newspapers?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Google says he was an acting Master's mate [15]. Nanonic (talk) 2:47 pm, Today (UTC+8)

October 18

Why there is no article about Antisemitism or racism in Iran?

I wonder why there is no separate article about Antisemitism in Iran. Antisemitism in Iran is actually a redirect to Antisemitism#Iran. And Racism in Iran is again a redirect to Racism_in_Asia#Iran. Is there something wrong here? 46.225.10.109 (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

These are not long enough for separate articles, so it's more appropriate to include them in something of more suitable length. IBE (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As for why there isn't much info about antisemitism in Iran, that's probably due to the lack of a free press there, so any reporter or citizen talking about that might end up in prison. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The concrete structural reason why there is not a separate article is an insufficiency of text at the two articles you point to. (Though there is also Holocaust denial in Iran). The operational reason why there is no article is that no-one has got around to writing it yet. I suggest that if you are concerned, your time would be better spent in writing the artice than in arguing the toss here. As you might expect given the contentious nature of the subject-matter, references to reliable sources will be required for claims made on the page. I very much look forward to reading your work. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Look at Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#Israel and Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#India to see that Iran is strongly anti-Israeli. So, it's hard to believe they aren't anti-Semitic at home. Here's a Washington Post article about anti-Semitism in Iran: [16]. StuRat (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

As for lack of freedom of the pres in Iran, here's a source for you: [17]. Note that the actual charges aren't going to be "saying something we didn't like", the authorities will make up some false charges. StuRat (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Name of the weapon

What is this weapon held by two figures flanking the woman? Looks like some sort of club, rather than bladed. A vajra? --Brandmeister^talk 08:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The story - Tilottama - just says clubs. Wymspen (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

J. A. B. van Buitenen uses "horrible clubs" in his translation of the Mahabharata. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

If anyone finds a specific name for it might be worth adding to this list Club (weapon)#Types. MarnetteD|Talk 15:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

One that's missing on that list is the gada, but most depictions of gadas show a weapon with a more bulbous head compared to the shaft we see in Brandmeister's example, even in the example of this sculpture (see Kaumodaki). Then again, maybe the gada doesn't belong on that list as it's also considered a mace, and it does feature in our article on mace along with the shishpar. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be similar to a Japanese Kanabō, but no luck finding an Indian equivalent. Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

But I have just found in this forum an Indian octagonal-section iron mace called a sonta. Alansplodge (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Parable or story referring to a red harness on a white horse, or something similar?

I'm trying to think of a saying or parable or quote I read years ago, to the effect of "(something) is as unfitting to (someone) as ..." and the closest I can remember it is, something like "...like a red bridle on a white horse" or something like that.

I think it could be a well known quote. Any hints? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There is "Poverty befits Israel like a red trapping a white horse" in this translation of the Hagigah (and other translations do use "bridle")---Sluzzelin talk 10:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

A red bridle on a white horse sounds quite striking, to me. StuRat (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Climate in the Upper Midwest (USA), agriculture, arable lands, opportunities etc. around year 1900

I'm doing a school assignment, writing about this here fictional Norwegian immigrating to USA. For obvious reasons, it is only natural that I place the story in Minnesota or surrounding states (Wisconsin, the Dakotas or Iowa), as that is mainly where Norwegian immigrants settled.

There was a lot of poverty in Norway back in the late 1800s / early 1900s, and agriculture was always hard in such a Northern climate, with lots of mountainous regions, not to mention the lack of agricultural technology that we have today. With Norway being a winter-nation, the search for arable lands was one of the main things that lured Norwegians across the Atlantic.

So I wonder about Minnesota and nearby states around year 1900. It seems to me that the climate in Minnesota ain't that different from Norwegian climate, with proper winters and all, which begs the question; how was agriculture in the Upper Midwest back then?? Were the lands truly arable? What work-opportunities did people have to sustain themselves? I reckon the worst of the Gold Rush was over by then, right. I'm not asking for answers for free, because I will need to find sources to confirm my findings anyhow.

I'm looking for articles that might be helpful to me. If you have information/knowledge to add beyond that, then that's a bonus, and might be helpful

Krikkert7 (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Norwegian diaspora has scant detail, but Swedish emigration to the United States has lots of relevant links to what they got up to in the New World, and a lot of that would roughly apply to Norwegians as well. History_of_Minnesota#Early_European_settlement_and_development has some info. Here [18] is what looks like a very nice and detailed description of Euro-American farms in MN in that time period. This [19] looks to be a great resource on Norwegian immigration in that time/place too. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

(ec) While some parts of Minnesota are similar to Norway (e.g. the Mesabi Range), there is also lots of land suitable for farming in the state, and it was opened up to settlement just as Scandinavians began to emigrate in large numbers. Here's an interesting study on the history of agriculture in the state [20]. You may also want to look at Vilhelm Moberg's classic novel The Emigrants, which explains the lure of the Midwest for poor Swedish farmers in the mid-19th century: it was a veritable land of milk of honey compared to what they were leaving behind. Look also at Swedish emigration to the United States (remembering that Norway was apart of Sweden at the time). --Xuxl (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Norway was a part of Sweden. Today it is apart of Sweden. Isn't the English Language fun! --Jayron32 15:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Norway was in a union with Sweden, but was a separate country. Moberg would still be useful. --Hegvald (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And if reading Moberg's books is too hard, you could watch the two movies. Deor (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys. That gives me lots to work with. Krikkert7 (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Number of people killed at auschwitz

Accord to the article on Auschwitz, the number of people that died at Auschwitz was 1.1 million people. I thought the death toll was 4 million.162.246.17.125 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source or reference for that 4 million figure? Wikipedia's article is cited to these works for the 1.1 million number:

• Rees, Laurence (2005). Auschwitz: A New History. New York: Public Affairs. ISBN 1-58648-303-X.
• Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-00239-9.

If you have a source for the 4 million number, perhaps we could understand what the difference is. --Jayron32 16:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It was in Final Solution:Attempt to exterminate Jews in Europe.162.246.17.125 (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

And was it specifically about Auschwitz, which was only one of many killing centres? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it was about the holocaust in general.162.246.17.125 (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember the page number from the top of my head.162.246.17.125 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think it was page 500162.246.17.125 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This book? Maybe you just misremembered the number... --Jayron32 17:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes that's the book.162.246.17.125 (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

According to The review on this page here, "Reitlinger describes the extermination of Jews in great detail, arriving at a probable range of 4.2 to 5.7 million murdered Jews (p. 501)" That's total across the entirety of Europe, not merely just at Auschwitz. Your confusion seems to be total genocide vs. those killed at just one complex. Also please note that Reitlinger's book is 55 years old; his numbers are in range of the current accepted scholarship, but a bit lower, which gives about 6 million Jewish people killed among 11 million total deaths in The Holocaust. --Jayron32 18:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no confusion. The plaque at Auschwitz said 4 million until 1992; the number was inflated to suggest that non-Jewish Poles were the primary victims. [21] --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

An identical question was posted on 27 June 2016, possibly by the same person. The answer then (as now) was: "On May 12th, 1945, a few months after the liberation of Auschwitz, a Soviet State Commission reported that not less than four million people were murdered there. This number was displayed at the Auschwitz State Museum until 1991, when it was lowered to 1.1 million. The total death toll for Jews in the Holocaust, however, stayed at about six million". [22] Alansplodge (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Our article on the author of the book, Gerald Reitlinger, covers this perfectly:

During the 1950s he wrote two books about the Holocaust: The SS: Alibi of a Nation and The Final Solution, both of which achieved large sales. In the latter book, he alleged that Soviet claims of the Auschwitz death toll being 4 million were "ridiculous", and he suggested an alternative figure of 800,000 to 900,000 dead; about 4.2 to 4.5 million was his estimate for the total number of Jewish deaths in the Holocaust.[3] Subsequent scholarship has generally increased Reitlinger's conservative figures for death tolls, though his book was still described in 1979 as being "widely regarded as a definitive account".[4]

Happy to help. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Unease due to lack of mountains

The above question about Scandinavians immigrating to farms in the USA reminded me of a claim I've read about numerous times: people in this group had high incidence of mental illness, which was supposed to be related to seeing expansive land in all directions, i.e. a relatively distant and unbroken horizon, compared to the mountainous views of their homeland. I thought they called it something like "missing mountain sickness", but I've been unable to find much of anything about it today.

The question: What is this phenomenon called? Note I am not at present interested in the veracity of the claim, only in verification that the claim was made, and possibly getting some names for it. Thanks! SemanticMantis (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it not just an instance of home-sickness? It's not so much the absence of mountains acting like kryptonite, as it is distress at the absence of the once-familiar and an inability to reconcile themselves to their current environment - two things that would seem to be hallmarks of that condition?

Agoraphobia is used for a number of different phobias, sometimes cited as "fear of crowds" but also for "fear of wide-open spaces". --Jayron32 19:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Mmm, that's interesting. I dimly recall something I listened to on Radio 4 a while back, about iirc Erving Goffman doing post-doc research on a hebredian island, and working out that the population was anxious because there was no tree cover, which meant that they were all observable by others from long distances away ... it was commonplace for the inhabitants to carry pocket telescopes so that they could periodically check whether anyone was approaching their crofts. Our article suggests that would be found in Communication Conduct in an Island Community (1953) - Erving Goffman#Early works --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but no, I recall a phrase specific for this instance, not a general term applied to a case. This blog [23] calls it "horizon sickness", but apparently nobody else does, or it's too swamped with motion sickness, much like mountain sickness is swamped with altitude sickness. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I apparently only had to ask and wait a bit before it hit me: "prairie madness" is the term I'd read about before, and yes, it is related to home sickness and agorophobia. Other accounts focus on the mountain/flat distinction more than our article. Perhaps User:Krikkert7 will find that of interest as well. Still interested in other terms for this if anyone happens to find one. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the scene in Fargo, where Steve Buscemi's character buries the ransom money along the road, at a fence, then looks around, and everything seems identical as far as the eye can see, in both directions. So, the point is that a lack of landmarks could be disorienting for some. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Joan of Arc was not French. Lenin was not Russian.

QI#Culture has this line: "Joan of Arc was not French. Lenin was not Russian." I'm confused. The Joan of Arc article says she was born in the "French part of the duchy of Bar", which makes her French. The Lenin article says he was born in the Russian Empire, to two parents who were both born in the Russian Empire as well.

What am I missing here? Pizza Margherita (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity vs. nationality, in Lenin's case; some argue he had no Russian blood in him at all. The duchy of Bar was in Lorraine, which didn't join France until 1776. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Duchy of Bar says that "From 1480, it was united to the imperial Duchy of Lorraine.", and Joan of Arc was born in 1412, so what you said about Lorraine doesn't really apply here. Pizza Margherita (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Why not be pissy with people trying to answer your question. That always helps. JPGs point was clear - that Lorraine was not part of France at the time of her birth. Lorraine joined France, afaik, after a) it was united with Bar and b) Bar integrated itself with France. If you have sufficient time to mine for quotes in the Bar article you have time to mine Lorraine for " In 962, when Otto the Great restored the Empire (restauratio imperii), Lorraine became the autonomous Duchy of Lorraine within the Holy Roman Empire until 1766, after which it became annexed under succession law to France, via derivative aristocratic house alliances" ... which amounts to nothing more than JPG expailined. The Reference Desks are not a punch-bag. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Restauratio Imperii - great name for a burger joint. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you not understand what I wrote or what? Joan of Arc was born in 1412 in Bar. She was not born in Lorraine. In 1412, Bar and Lorraine were completely different places. If I'm asking about Joan of Arc, who was born in Bar, how does all this stuff about Lorraine help?

I can only explain this to you; I can't understand it for you unfortunately. Pizza Margherita (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, Hence Do-Re-Mi; I see: my mistake ;). Yes. Is a Fief of France France? Yes & no, probably. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Duchy of Bar said part of the duchy became a fief of France, the other part remained Imperial and was joined to Lorraine in 1480. Not that it matters for the ultimate question - Joan of Arc's birthplace was in the part of the Duchy that was a French fief. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

QI is very entertaining, but often perpetuates myths and legends or is just plain wrong. In Joan of Arc's case, they are purposely obfuscating things, and things are already confusing enough when Joan was born in 1412. She was born in the territory of modern France, certainly. But what was "France" in the 15th century? Territory personally controlled by the King of France? What about Burgundy? Champagne? Brittany? Were they "France"? They were also technically independent, like Bar. But an independent territory could be linguistically and culturally French. The ruler of the territory could be a vassal of France, paying money or giving military service to the king of France. Bar is strange because it seems to be a vassal of both France and the Empire, but it's definitely culturally French...more or less. (Tagishsimon says above, "Is a Fief of France France? Yes & no, probably", and that is exactly the point.) With hindsight we can distinguish a clear line of French kings, and maybe there was a definite king of France in 1412, but this was the middle of the Hundred Years' War, and a few years later everything fell apart. When Paris was ruled by the English, was there even a "France" at all? The kings of England were culturally French too, so if Bar is French, is England also French? The problem is, the question of whether something is French or not just doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the 15th century. There were no passports, there were no border checkpoints, the modern concept of a nation-state didn't even exist. No one is worried about jus soli and jus sanguinis. Pretty much all we can do is ask what people considered themselves to be. Did Joan think she was French? Did other people think she was French? Clearly, yes. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The two examples are actually opposites of each other. While Joan of Arc was, undoubtedly, ethnically French, there is some uncertainty about whether she was a French citizen (though in saying that we are applying a modern concept of citizenship which did not apply in the messy, feudal society of the Middle Ages). Lenin was certainly a citizen of the Russian Empire, but his father was of Chuvash and Kalmyk descent, and his mother is described as "Russian-Jewish." That might mean that he was, at least in part, of Russian ethnic descent - if Russian-Jewish means of mixed ethnicity, and not simply Jewish but living in Russia. Wymspen (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but that would ALSO imply that one can inherit an ethnicity (a purely cultural concept) in a genetic manner. That makes no sense. "Russian blood" is meaningless. Either he considered himself, and was considered by those he interacted with, as Russian (in which case he was so) or he wasn't. We can't deny his ethnicity based on a post-hoc genetic analysis because ethnicity is not genetic. --Jayron32 18:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That's mostly but not entirely correct according to most orthodox views of ethnicity. The more widely accepted views of how to assess ethnicity encompasses three elements: (1) biological inheritance; (2) self-identification; and (3) identification by other members of the ethnic group. The biological inheritance element refers to inheritance from someone else who fits the criteria, so to a degree the definition is circular and ultimately resolves down mostly to a social one (as you might expect). Nevertheless, if someone has no "Russian blood", in the sense that they have no biological relationship with anyone who is accepted as ethnically Russian, a claim that they are ethnically Russian would, I think, be fairly controversial. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Biology holds only insofar as the culture itself identifies biology as a necessary component. But it is not necessary in all cultural contexts. There are many cases of people with little to no genetic relationship to a culture still being fully accepted as that culture. --Jayron32 12:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you are confusing culture and ethnicity. I don't disagree that ethnicity is fundamentally a social characteristic, and like all social characteristics it is capable of supporting different perspectives. But the concept as it is understood in most contexts, is a kind of social identity that carries a biological element. This is true in mainstream Western cultural discourse, and it's also true in the East. I can't think of any culture I have come across, where a person who has absolutely no biological connection to an ethnic group would be widely regarded as a member of that ethnic group. Even in the US, which probably has some of the most open cultural conceptions of legal and cultural nationality, a claim to membership of an ethnic group by someone with no biological connection is controversial. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

In that one case, we're talking race and not ethnicity, which are different ways to parse culture. Also, that's because the way race as a social construct is defined carries a biological component. Which is exactly 100% what I said: the culture in question picks which biological factors it considers important, and identifies cultural relationships based on that biological construct. But the reverse isn't true. Staying, for example, with the examples given above. Which gene(s) in Joan of Arc's genome defined her as "French" and does everyone with those genes become automatically French? --Jayron32 15:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Lenin was born in Ulyanovsk, in those days called Simbirsk (Симби́рск), which is quite firmly in Russia. His parents were from Astrakhan which is also in Russia. Our article Chuvash people says that at least some of them are native to Russia. It seems a bit silly to try to argue that Lenin isn't Russian. Alansplodge (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking for US election tv ads

A few days ago Politico said that US Democrats were running political ads attacking down-ticket Republican candidates in marginal districts - ads which tried to associate the Republican with that party's unpopular Presidential candidate, Mr. Trump. Is there anywhere online (YouTube or the like) where I (in the UK) could view such ads? I'm specifically interested in these kind of "Senator XYZ is big chums with Donald Trump and is therefor probably horrid" type ones (and not interested in a general "Senator XYZ is wrong about everything and is horrid" ads that don't try to leverage Trump). 87.114.14.104 (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You are terribly mistaken if you think Trump is unpopular. Either that, or you are push-polling, otherwise known as begging the question. I suggest you google a site called youtube. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

[24] [25] [26] [27] Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The LA Times poll has come under some serious scrutiny as to its methodology. To their credit, they are extremely transparent as to what their methodology is. But there was an article about how they "weigh" the different members of their polling panel - apparently, there's ONE black participant aged 19-21 who's a Trump fan, and he gets a HUGE weighing, as if he was a true representative of his entire age-ethnic group (all black 19-21 year olds). In other words, they under-sample many groups, and attempt to balance this out with no limits on weights given to individual participants. They are interesting in using the same 3,000 people for the entire polling season, rather than selecting new random participants each time, as most other polls do. I'd say the poll is academically interesting, but its value as a genuine indicator of Trump's popularity is significantly dubious. Then again, they have at times been proven right in previous elections, so I'm not totally writing them off, just saying that they're somewhat odd, and certainly don't follow the norm in their polling methodology. An interesting experiment in political science, I would say. We'll only know how it stacks up to reality come polling day. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's a good one: [28]. StuRat (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

October 19

French response to Hawaiian overthrow and annexation

Can someone help me find out what was France's stance and response to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the subsequent annexation by the US in 1898? France had conflicts with Hawaii in the 1840s and were one of the three powers along with the US and Great Britian to recognize the Kingdom. I've seen plenty of sources about Japan and Britian's stance during this period but never heard much about France's response during this period. I know they recognized the Provisional Government and the Republic and annexation but hopefully there is more. The diplomatic representatives of France on the ground were Marie Gabriel Georges Bosseront d'Anglade, Henry Leon Verleye, Jean Antoine Vizzavona, and Louis Vossion.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This book, in the public domain and free to peruse, looks somewhat useful. Towards the end it says something about the British and French ambassadors delaying their recognition of Hawaii as a possession of the U.S. for a time, then finally recognizing it. It is from 1899, so it is fairly contemporary to the events. I didn't look harder, but it may prove a useful source in general for your continued research on Hawaiian history (which has always impressed me, FWIW). Keep up the good work! --Jayron32 01:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Some more: this page discusses some of the history of The French in Hawaii, maybe of use? --Jayron32 01:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Found what may be a great lead for this question: This book here is not fully previewable, so I can't search the whole thing, but the index is among the previewable pages. Under "France" in the index it has a lot of good leads, but most interestingly it says "France seeks to prevent annexation of Hawaii to U.S." on pages 418-419. --Jayron32 01:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will look into these sources. But the last suggestion (viewable here) relates to the mid-1800s when there was another annexation scare that never materialized.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I've also posted at fr:Wikipédia:Oracle/semaine 42 2016#French response to Hawaiian overthrow and annexation (Renversement du Royaume d'Hawaï) hoping that something can be found in French sources. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Can someone help me find out when Marie Gabriel Georges Bosseront d'Anglade died?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the skills of a good lawyer is the ability to research almost anything (and in my case, the only skill of good lawyer that I possess), so I was hoping to find an answer. But no luck. What I can tell you is that, in the espionage novels by fr:Jean Bommart, "Georges Sauvin" is the real name of the spy known as "le poisson chinois".--Shirt58 (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That publication came after Bosseront d'Anglade usage of the name I presume. Interesting...Funny, maybe my work on Wikipedia can get me into law school one day! I'm thinking of it currently in my gap year after undergrad. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

First US State Dinner

It is stated on list of U.S. State Dinners that Kalakaua was the first state dinner. Yet this source claimed that the 1865 visit by Queen Emma of Hawaii was the first state dinner for a visiting royal. Andrew Johnson was the president. The definition of a state dinner requires the guest to be an incumbent head of state which Emma was not and the list article states that other "formal dinners for important people of other nations, such as a prince or princess, are called official dinners, the difference being that the federal government does not pay for them". My questions are did the US government paid for the dinner with Queen Emma and what other formal dinner did presidents have with royals or head of states incumbent/deposed before 1874?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

End of money in the future

Has anyone ever predicted the end of money in the future?Uncle dan is home (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

In the news, Tim Cook has recently suggested killing cash. Killing cash would ordinarily mean all transactions are recorded and tracable - a despot's dream; no private transactions. But ApplePay supposedly addresses this by making transactions untracable. (Your credit card pays Apple, Apple pays the person you want to pay, Apple retains no records connecting the two parties). - Nunh-huh 06:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't believe it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Even if they resisted any temptation to snoop it seems so easy to hack things these days. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, well, that's the point. If you keep records, they can be hacked. If you don't keep records, there's nothing to hack. - Nunh-huh 20:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Absence of a need for money can be a feature of a Post-scarcity economy, which as that article shows has been discussed in Economics and Futurology, and has formed part of the background of various Science Fictional (and Fantasy) works. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If hard cash disappears, look for a return to the barter system. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a prediction as such, but The Culture in Iain M. Banks science fiction novels is a post-scarcity society without money, private property or economics. As a result, life in The Culture is pretty dull and the novels have to achieve dramatic tension by positing scenarios where The Culture comes into conflict with various less advanced civilisations. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The Culture, population 30 trillion; where living on planets is considered weird and space station/starship is the urban/suburban divide of the day. i.e. the General Systems Vessel Size Isn't Everything, 50 miles of parks and hulls and shit seemingly exposed to vacuum and flying in formation but really rigidly held together by forcefields (which contain the air). Or the GSV Empiricist, hundreds of kilometers long, population over 13 billion. Controlled by 7 hyperintelligent sentient computers which are mostly in hyperspace with a little I/O thingy in realspace (cause 1: they wouldn't fit and 2: the speed of light). Antimatter engines are too primitive for anything but hobby craft (like our sailboats I guess), real engines are piece(s) of metamaterial that push against the boundary of our universe in another dimension and you can get a full sex-change and become a mother-father gentleman. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This came up a week or so ago and User:FT2 started a new article, cashless society. That's a good place to find or add some info. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that there are 2 quite different concepts here:

1) Elimination of cash, that is, folding paper and coins you carry. This is possible, although it may have unintended negative effects, as the underground economy can be a significant portion of the total economy, and go completely unappreciated until it is eliminated. I believe they found this out in Zimbabwe when they cracked down on unregistered businesses, and the economy went to pot. However, it might be possible to keep the underground economy going using barter, or some other exchange medium, like, oddly enough Tide detergent bottles.

2) Elimination of private ownership and wealth. This is the Marxist dream, but all of the old problems come back with a lack of motivation to work if everyone gets the same "stuff", regardless. StuRat (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Multi-sided conflicts

Has there ever been a war involving as many sides as the Syrian Civil War (which has so many sides it breaks the infobox)? I'm struggling to think of any examples - some colonial wars such as the Dutch–Portuguese War involved colonial powers at war with each other as well as with the native people, but otherwise wars seem to bed down into two sides even if those sides don't have much in common beyond their enemies. Even in WWII, although Germany and Japan or Britain and the USSR had almost no policy objectives in common, they still allied together into two sides. Smurrayinchester 09:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

In WW2, Finland was arguably a third side, since it was specifically at war only with the invading Soviet Union (in two separate campaigns, in order to preserve the independence won from Russia during WW1), but had no quarrel with any of the other Allied Powers. Finland was careful to describe itself as a "co-belligerent" rather than an "ally" of Germany during the second campaign (and towards the end of WW2 overall entered a third campaign against Germany). During the second campaign, Britain formally declared war on Finland, but except for one unsuccessful bombing raid, the non-Soviet Allies avoided any direct military actions against Finnish forces. See Military history of Finland during World War II for the details. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The situation in Finland didn't have as many sides, but perhaps never has the weird center of a war seemed so striking. From Continuation War: "The field synagogue in Eastern Karelia was one of the very few functioning synagogues on the Axis side during the war. There were even several cases of Jewish officers of Finland's army being awarded the German Iron Cross..." I think there is such a spot at the center of every war, a place that no one true to any side wants to look. Wnt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

How many sides are you considering the Syrian Civil War to have? (where WWII is 2) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Our own article, linked by the OP, indirectly suggests six, though one could argue that the Kurdish fighters constitute a seventh rather than being part of the Syrian Democratic forces. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

At least Assad + Russia, Opposition, Western Coalition, ISIS, Al-Nusra, Kurds, and Turkey - not counting the fact that it's also arguably part of the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict and Iran–Israel proxy conflict. That seems to be the minimal set of alliances (as 90.197... says, it's not really clear on any given day whether or not Rojava and FSA are cooperating). Smurrayinchester 11:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, during the early Crusades you had the various crusader states, the various muslim states, and the Byzantine empire. Arguably also some of the Italian city states and the Kingdom of Sicily. So complex and shifting coalitions seem to be a tradition in this area. The Warring States period in China had 7 major and 3 minor states, and probably hundreds of independent brigand groups. The Italian Wars had most Italian city states in changing coalitions, and most of the major European powers meddling. The Thirty Years' War had only two official "sides", but all of Europe joined one or the other (or both) sides over time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

See also Coalition Wars or Napoleonic Wars, rather a headache to remember all participants. There were several such multi-sided wars in the past. Later there were also proxy wars, such as Vietnam War. Brandmeister^talk 11:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This search actually turned up some good leads on historical multi-sided wars. Maybe I'm misreading it, but it seems that a good number of multi-sided wars are civil wars, which makes sense as many such civil wars occur in the context of a total breakdown of a central organizing authority, and thus multiple (rather than just 2) competing factions, each with their own goals and ambitions, end up fighting each other multilaterally (ironically, the United States Civil War was an atypical civil war in that way, as each of the two sides established themselves into two essentially state-organized factions with clearly delineated territory; it was a much more traditional war in that manner). Take, for example, these famous civil wars:

• The Russian Revolution: You had the following sides all fighting one another: You had absolutist-Tsarists looking to maintain, or later re-establish, monarchy. You had traditional liberals of the Russian Provisional Government (the Lvov and Karensky governments) looking to establish a traditional liberal democracy/constitutional Monarchy. You had various socialist factions which fought with each other as much as the other groups, such as the Trudoviks, Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. You had external groups that came in to fight, such as the North Russia Intervention. Historians traditional divide the groups into the "Reds" and the "Whites", but even that becomes problematic since neither group really had any cohesion; it's the same sort of problem as in the Syrian Civil War trying to classify the fighters as "Assad-Government" forces vs. "Opposition", where the opposition is not a cohesive group.
• The French Revolution likewise had numerous, multiple sides to the conflict. While broadly the conflict gets divided into the Revolutionaries and the Royalists, within each of those factions are numerous groups which also fought each other. I'm pretty sure the Reign of Terror killed as many those ostensibly on the Revolutionary side as it did true Royalists, with the Jacobins fighting the Girondins fighting the Montagnards fighting the Dantonists, etc.

In this way, the Syrian Civil War is quite typical for a civil war within a society where political control breaks down. --Jayron32 20:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There were in fact 4 major factions in November 1860. Two of them just didn't disagree enough with the other northern or southern faction to go to war with them in April 1861. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There were 4 political parties. That's quite different from a 4 sided war. Once it came to war, it was basically a traditional 2-state war, where each side had a functional government and a defined territory. Not the sort of multi-sided clusterfuck of what is usually meant by "civil war". --Jayron32 22:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks! It's interesting that neither of those articles list all the sides in the infobox (although the Russian Revolution one does mention conflict between Bolsheviks and other socialists in the intro). Perhaps a hundred or two hundred years from now, the Syrian Civil War infobox will look like that, and it will have "Assad and Russia" on one side, "FSA, Rojava, ISIS and NATO" on the other. Smurrayinchester 07:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  We do have an article titled Russian Civil War which covers the complexities. --Jayron32 12:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

When the Mongols invaded China, China was already split into several separate states, all of whom repeatedly though that fighting each other while also fighting the Mongols was a reasonable strategy. (Spoiler: it wasn't). Based on the main belligerents listed in the article, it doesn't meet the 6 or 7 sides of the Syrian Civil War - but if there were any minor factions that took advantage of the chaos, I expect it could top it. The Mongol invasion of Europe, and earlier, the various barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire would probably be worth looking into. Iapetus (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that considering all involved parties as individual "sides" is quite valid, though they may each, of course, seek their own ends. In Syria, for example, there are a multitude of parties, but they more or less fall into two basic camps - those fighting for the Syrian government and those trying to overthrow it. Of course, once that issue is resolved on way or another, then these various factions will quite likely come into conflict over other issues, and very likely find that their alliances may shift. In any case, I imagine most large conflicts end up being multi-sided, in that they will inevitably involve many parties, all with their own goals. For example, the conflict in England in 1066 had at least three distinct sides: the English under Harold Godwinson, the Normans under William, and the Norse under Harald Hardrada. Both the Harald Hardrada and William fought against Harold, but they were not allies - each wanted the throne for himself. There are plenty of good examples from the ancient Near East too, such as the struggle between Assyria, Elam, and Babylon over the control of Babylonia in the time of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon (early 7th C BC). Ushumgal (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Except it isn't that simple in Syria because the groups on the opposition side are fighting each other as well. For example, both the Syrian Interim Government and ISIL are fighting against the Assad regime, they are also fighting against each other. They're not even begrudging allies. --Jayron32 13:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The Great Northern Railway and The Northern Pacific Railway.

Am I right to understand that The Great Northern Railway (US) was completed in 1893, reaching Seattle, going all the way from Minnesota? It's a bit confusing with all the different companies and railroads being built and often merged with each other at some point or another.

I also wonder why The Northern Pacific Railway was being built at roughly the same time as the Great Northern Railway, when they both seemed to run from Upper Midwest to Seattle. Why build two railways going the same path?

Third, I wonder in what year they successfully established railway connection from Minnesota/Upper Midwest to Chicago?

84.211.184.66 (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You can find detailed answers to these questions Here and Here. Centpacrr (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Rules of engagement for ship security crews in repelling boarding attempts by pirates

In international maritime law, a pirate is absolute scum - Hostis humani generis - an enemy of all humanity! Even ships and nations NOT under attack may attack the pirates.

My question is, what licence does or doesn't this give security crews aboard ships, when faced by a pirate boarding attempt? What are the rules of engagement? If a pirate with a rifle slung over his back hooks a ladder to the side of the ship and begins climbing, may the security guard shoot to kill, leaving the corpse of this "enemy of all humanity" to topple back onto the pirate's ship, or into the ocean? In simpler terms, once the security crew have identified a clear attempt to carry out a hostile boarding of their ship, are there any restraints on using deadly force as a first resort to drive off the boarders? Ditto if the pirates have managed to board, and the non-security crew have barricaded themselves in the control room / bridge (the so-called "citadel tactic"). May the security crew kill the armed and hostile intruders who are trying to seize the ship and take its' crew captive, so as to regain full control of their own ship? Are there any restrictions under international law (including international maritime law) on using deadly force in this situation?

(Most ships operate under a Flag of Convenience such as Liberia or Panama, and I can't see either of these countries restricting the activities of security crews, so I don't think the ship's flag-nation's jurisdiction is a practical factor here - though laws which govern a country's citizens abroad, i.e. the security guards' country of citizenship, including when ocean-bound - extraterritorial jurisdiction - might be. But I'm not sure all countries would have such laws. In fact, I suspect most don't). 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I pasted your question into the Google searchbar and found Rules of Engagement and Legal Frameworks for Multinational Counter-Piracy Operations which says:

'The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the primary law applicable to piracy... Under UNCLOS, force can be used to combat and apprehend pirates in accordance with minimum international law requirements of necessity and proportionality. For example, Article 8 of the 2005 Protocol to the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation declares, “[a]ny use of force pursuant to this article shall not exceed the minimum degree of force which is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances”'. Alansplodge (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

(OP here) Proportionate force? OK? But MINIMUM force??? That sounds like a requirement to be extremely nice to people who are extremely NOT nice! They're trying to take your crew and ship hostage, for heaven's sake, and all you're allowed to respond with is minimum force??? What's the logic???

Also, as a seperate question, who's job is it to practically enforce the rules? With Navies, there is dicipline, rules, and a chain of command. But what about a ship's private security crew? Remember, they are all alone on a ship which pirates are trying to seize with armed force, and they likely have NO backup - they are alone. Experience is, fighters in such a position will do WHATEVER IT TAKES - even extreme force - to repel the enemy. Look at how private military contractors have behaved in Iraq, if you want an example. Being all alone with no backup, if they come under attack, they go ALL OUT, and just shoot, shoot, shoot their way out of the situation with the limited weapons and personnel at their disposal - damn the civilian casualties, GET ME OUT OF HERE. That's the reality. If a private security contractor on a ship pirates were attempting to seize did the same, assuming he in fact violated the rules of UNCLOS (dubious, as I've explained, given his situation), whose job is it to charge him and put him on trial? Forget the ship's flag state, they likely don't give a damn. Is there ANY risk of the guard being charged, and if yes, by whom? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It's no different to the usual legal requirement of 'reasonable force'; and although the word 'minimum' sounds restrictive, actually it's saying you can do anything deemed reasonable. Reasonable force just means equality of response- but that basicly means you can use the same weapons against the pirates as they are using against you. And since pirates today favour the AK-47 rather than the flint lock pistol ;) you can see where that leads you? _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

So are M16s kosher if they're only using AK47s? They have a longer range and accuracy than AK47s I believe and if kept in a good case until needed probably wouldn't have the M16s ruggedness disadvantage unless you're unlucky enough to be attacked by pirates in a sandstorm. It's not a big advantage so maybe that's allowed right? What if they have a cannon but didn't touch it yet? Can you use a cannon against them? What if they shot a cannon off target on purpose hoping you'd surrender without having to damage your ship or get in a firefight, can you take the tarp off your cannon and shoot to kill? What if you're not sure they missed on purpose, can you shoot to kill now? What if you had a .50 caliber machine gun and the pirates only have AKs? Or a 20 millimeter automatic cannon. What do they do if the ship has to go within 12 nautical miles of a country that bans automatic guns? What happens if you're attacked in the territorial waters of a country but their coast guard sucks? (and you don't trust their ability to save you). What really happens is you machine gun the pirates to possibly save your life but legally are you just supposed to let them capture you? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No; what really happens is that you either misunderstand or misread. Fair exchange for me wasting twenty-four seconds reading and re-reading that post in bemusement I guess. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No one has answered my second question: who is responsible for enforcing the rules against private security crews? Imagine the pirates try to board a ship, and the security crew drive them off with live gunfire. The pirates, realizing the presence of armed security on board, beat a hasty retreat (that's what they usually do in such a situation - they know they're no match for the ex-commandos who guard the ships). The security crew are not satisfied. They know the pirates will strike again, and the next victim ship will likely not have armed security (most ships don't). Wanting to prevent this, they board the pirate ship and slaughter the pirates to the last man. Who prosecutes?

Please don't let this distract from my question, but Sagittarian Milky Way, I don't think there are sandstorms at sea - even off the coast of sandy Somalia. But an AK47 might stand up better than an M16 to the rigours of ocean saltwater spray - or it might not, I'm no firearms expert. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The answer will depend on the particular case. See here for some discussion. [29] [30] [31] The answer often is, no one actually does anything no matter who could. Note that the vast majority of countries do have restrictions on murder, even if those laws are not necessarily well enforced. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't really know about this issue, but I was under the impression that the main "rule of engagement" holding things up has something to do with commercial ships and crews being pressured to be unarmed, possibly to avoid being considered warships? I have a feeling you're barking up the wrong tree, in a way. Wnt (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

October 20

Fred W. Phelps (1929-2014)

Hi. Phelp´s name was diminutive or Frederick or diminutive of Alfred? Thanks 79.145.27.117 (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I cannot find any official record of his birth certificate or census records (which are not normally available to the public), but looking at the Wikipedia article Fred Phelps, and also checking on the original sources cited in that article, it appears his birth name was "Fred Waldron Phelps", that is Fred is his full first name, it is not diminutive of anything else. --Jayron32 19:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Census records (available via a pay site that I use) show 1940 as Fred W Phelps Jr. age 10; father Fred W Phelps Sr. age 46; and head of household / aunt Irene Jackson. 1930 has Fred W Phelps father and head of household, age 36; Catherine Phelps wife age 23; and Fred W Phelps age 5 / 12. No "Sr." or "Jr." in the 1930 report. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a general note, which it would have been nice to mention regarding a more appealing figure: Phelps was born in Mississippi. In the American South, many people have first names that might appear to be diminutives or nicknames, but actually are their genuine legal birth names. Bob Jones, Sr. was really Bob, not Robert. This does not actually hold of Jimmy Carter (he was born James, but appeared as Jimmy on most (all?) ballots), but if it had, it would not have been a surprise. --Trovatore (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Oops -- looks like I was wrong about Bob Jones. I'll see if I can think of another example. --Trovatore (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not just the south. I've got several Freds in my family tree, all of them northerners. Some were Fredericks, others were just plain Fred. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is the example par excellence. 86.128.234.239 (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

In 1930 the recently deceased Fred W Phelps was obviously five months old, and the age is given as "5/12". I've never seen that formation before - is it a standard shorthand in the (presumably) federal census department? 86.128.234.239 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: The above two postings are by banned user Vote (X) for Change. I'm not deleting them, and am assuming "entire responsibility" for them per WP:BANREVERT. Any other user may delete them, of course. Tevildo (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, federal. I've looked at quite a few old censuses, and the n/12 designation is typically used in the "age at last birthday" column instead of saying "0". The 1930 census sheet is dated April 14. His actual birthdate, according to Wikipedia, was November 13, 1929, which is 5 months and 1 day before the census sheet was filled out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

And according to the Federal Census instructions, the month notation is only to be used for children born during the census year (so no older than 1 year). Sometimes, though those instructions were either ignored or misunderstood, so you may see an occasional 1 and 5/12. - Nunh-huh 04:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Admiral (ret.) Bobby Ray Inman's legal first name really is Bobby iirc. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Charles the First

Who chopped Charles the first head off during the 1649?- 72.159.154.170

This question was originally posted on a talk page of a red linked article. It was moved here by User:Feinoha. Feinoha ^Talk 20:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Quote: 'The executioner was masked and disguised, and there is debate over his identity. The commissioners approached Richard Brandon, the common hangman of London, but he refused, at least at first, despite being offered £200. It is possible he relented and undertook the commission after being threatened with death, but there are others who have been named as potential candidates, including George Joyce, William Hulet and Hugh Peters.[282] The clean strike, confirmed by an examination of the king's body at Windsor in 1813,[283][h] suggests that the execution was carried out by an experienced headsman.[285]' from Charles I of England. _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

October 21

Why didn't America "island hop" through Alaska and Russia instead?

It seems like they took the hard way in. Why didn't we just make an agreement with the Soviets to let us use its territory to skip the entire Pacific Theater? Is there alternate history of this? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

.#1 "Why didn't" questions are not possible to provide references for. Counterfactual history you just made up to ask this question doesn't exist in references, so we can't provide you with references. #2 Alaska and Kamchatka and the related islands are really inhospitable. See Aleutian Islands Campaign which explains why the U.S. didn't even bother to retake the Aleutians that Japan had actually captured for a year and a half or so. #3: Control of the Pacific Ocean was the key because of the importance of Command of the sea. Playing around in the inhospitable, low-value, almost impossible to militarize, mountainous and glacier-filled Arctic did fuck-all to defeat the Japanese navy which could strike at will from it's main bases in the central Pacific, which is why the U.S. needed those islands in the Central Pacific. There's nowhere to harbor a navy in the Aleutians, but the little atolls around the Central Pacific made for nice naval bases, which is why Japan used them as such. You really can't base a Navy out of freaking Attu like you could out of Midway Island or Guadalcanal. #4 Japan and Russia weren't at war. Like at all. Like Russia wasn't particularly interested in helping the U.S. defeat Japan because Russia wasn't at war with Japan, didn't have any military in the area, and had no impetus to help the U.S. in any way in the Pacific Theater, mostly because they had their own problems in the West. As noted at Surrender of Japan, Russia declared war on Japan on August 9, 1945. Which you'll notice is three days AFTER Hiroshima, and a mere 6 days before Japan surrendered. They weren't at all involved in the war, and only joined up to make a land grab during the putative 6-day Soviet–Japanese War (1945). They basically didn't want to lose out on the spoils of WWII in the Pacific theater. So, that's why. It boils down to a) Alaska? Really? b) Japan's Navy wasn't there because it wasn't all that useful, and the U.S. needed to defeat the Japanese Navy c) Russia wasn't even in the war in the Pacific, so why would Russia help out the U.S.? --Jayron32 03:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Um, your point #1 is overstated: it is possible to provide references for some "why didn't" questions. Typically those are ones where that option was seriously considered and rejected, and there is a historical record of the discussion. I doubt that that's relevant in this particular case, though, for all the other reasons you state. --69.159.61.230 (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This raises the question in my mind as to why Japan bothered to waste precious troops to garrison the militarily useless Aleutians? (It seems to remind me of Hitler's refusal to abandon the channel islands, even though the troops garrisoning them were rather desperately needed elsewhere after D-day). What was Japan's logic? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Japan took the Aleutians as a possible base of attack for the North American mainland; at the time Japan already had commanding control of the sea, and was expanding northward. The U.S. didn't immediately try to retake them because they were low-value assets and they needed to establish control of the main shipping lanes in the South Pacific instead. Japan took them in 1942 from a position of strength in the Pacific. Holding them required a token force, it was a low-risk move for Japan. --Jayron32 15:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that any sort of withdrawal was in the Japanese mindset. It might also have helped the Japanese in Manchuria if they had withdrawn to a defensible position in 1945, but instead they clung to their outlying territories and were easily overrun by the Soviets.

US Army in WW2: War Department, Strategic Planning for Coalition Warfare (pp. 99-100) says that the factors downgrading the importance of the Aleutian front were lack of Japanese aggression and the poor weather; "The overcast that covered the islands most of the time made air and naval operations dangerous and often impossible" (air superiority and naval gunfire support were the cornerstone of US amphibious operations). It continues that there was contingency planning for a US offensive in the Aleutians in the event of the Soviets entering the war, but as noted above, this didn't happen until August 1945. Alansplodge (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Jayron32 is a bit unfair to the Soviets. Their neutral stance in the Far East enabled them to transfer "over 18 divisions, 1,700 tanks, and over 1,500 aircraft from Siberia and the Far East" in time to turn ther tide in the Battle of Moscow. As the Soviets were doing most of the fighting in Europe, even after D-Day, it would have been counter-productive for all the Allies to shift forces from Europe to the Far East. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was at the urging of the Western Allies and was agreed at "the Yalta Conference in February 1945, [that] the Soviet Union entered World War II's Pacific Theater within three months of the end of the war in Europe. The invasion began on 9 August 1945, exactly three months after the German surrender on May 8" and was "a significant factor in the Japanese government's decision to surrender unconditionally, as it made apparent the USSR would no longer be willing to act as a third party in negotiating an end to hostilities on conditional terms". Alansplodge (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Equally as likely as the "exactly 90 days later" was probably a coincidence, where as the "The U.S. just deployed a super weapon on the Japanese mainland and Japan is against the ropes" had a bigger impact on the Soviet decision to invade Manchuria. The Soviets had not shown a particularly strong propensity towards honoring agreements with either side, either before, during, or after the war, and were far more interested in acting in what was in the best interest of the Soviets. It is highly unlikely they would have been particularly keen on committing massive ground forces to an Asian campaign if Japan were at full strength. --Jayron32 11:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Kwantung Army was affected in any way by the Hiroshima attack, although admittedly it had been "systematically stripped of [its] best units and equipment" for deployment to other fronts. I take your point about Soviet self-interest, an issue that became apparent to the Western Allies as the Soviet preparations were underway, but the fact remains that they were doing our bidding. Alansplodge (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in 1945, not in 1942-1943 which is the time frame the OP is asking about. He's asking why we went south instead of north across the Pacific. It's an understandable question; it's shorter (the great circle path from the U.S. west coast to Japan crosses Alaska after all) and if you look at a map it appears the route has more land-based options for bases. The main crux of my point was that it was inhospitable in Alaska and Kamchatka, and that the Soviets weren't actually at war with Japan at that point; they were in no position to be at War with Japan either. --Jayron32 15:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I concur with your summation! Harmony is restored. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The actual American-led campaign in the South West Pacific theatre of World War II, that the OP calls "taking the hard way in" was motivated by the need to give a direct response to the causus belli Attack on Pearl Harbor on 7/12-1941, the rearguard action in the Philippines Campaign (1941–42) and to pre-empt the imminent threat to British interests posed by Axis naval activity in Australian waters. The attempt early in the Pacific War at multilateral coordination in the short-lived American-British-Dutch-Australian Command convinced American strategists of the need for campaign initiatives by the US Army (under MacArthur) and Navy (under Nimitz). The Logistics of the war over long distances at sea became a contest for air supremacy that focused on denial to enemy use of island air bases and attacks on each side's Aircraft carriers, most decisively in the Battle of Midway. The alternate campaign suggested by the OP would have been too slow because it would have involved uncertain negotiation with a 3rd party who was recently allied to Hitler (see Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) and it would have occupied troops in holding territories of no strategic value to Tokyo. AllBestFaith (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Another aspect worth discussing: the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands was planned for the southern coasts of Kyushu and Honshu. As the article says, these are really the only two good places on the islands for large-scale amphibious landings, and the Japanese knew this. This is why the Allies captured Okinawa first, to use it as a staging ground. So if you were going to try to invade from mainland Asia, you would either have to attempt unfavorable landings on the north and west and then slog your way towards Japan's population centers, which are mostly on the Pacific side of the islands, or sail your whole invasion force around the Japanese islands, with the Japanese military knowing where you're headed and going all-out to stop you. The Mongols famously tried the first and it didn't go too well for them. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Jayron32, back to what you replied to my earlier comment. You say that Japan took the Aleutians "as a possible base of attack for the North American mainland". How so, and why? From what others have said, they were manifestly unsuitable for using as military bases. Precisely why the Americans were in no rush to retake them.

Also, you say that holding them required a "token force". Perhaps yes, the number of troops on the Aleutians was low. But how on earth do you go about resupplying even a small number of troops at the very edges of your empire? Particularly troops stationed in such a freezing inhospitable hard-to-approach location? Even if they're not expending a single bullet as no one is confronting them, they still need to be fed, remember? How did Japan accomplish this, and did it deliver the prospect of any actual military value for Japan? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Jayron's very first linked article in his initial reply says this in the lede:

"The Japanese reasoned that control of the Aleutians would prevent a possible U.S. attack across the Northern Pacific. Similarly, the U.S. feared that the islands would be used as bases from which to launch aerial assaults against the West Coast"

I can't immediately locate the book I have specifically on this campaign, but from what I recall: (a) most Japanese supplies were sent by air and (b) both sides underestimated the severity of the weather (which caused far more fatalities and crashes than any actual combat) so any Japanese plans to bomb the USA's West Coast never became practicable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Great Stink

I have a question about this illustration about the Great Stink in 1800's London. In the 'Monster Soup', what are the actual 'monsters'? Are they supposed to depict microorganisms, real creatures or just fictional creatures? --Poing-PoBongino (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

They are speculative Microorganisms drawn in 1828 and probably inspired partly by images in "Micrographia" 1665 and the animalcules seen by Leeuwenhoek (between 1674 and 1682) but also, I fancy, influenced by the imagery of Hieronymus Bosch, see his "The Garden of Earthly Delights". The satyrical magazine Punch published a similarly speculative microscopic slide cartoon. AllBestFaith (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The website of the The Library at Wellcome Collection says in explanation of this work: "Looking at a drop of water though a microscope was a popular entertainment provided by travelling showmen who carried the microscopes around in cases on their backs". Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The only "monster" that looks like a realistic microorganism is on the right side, and looks like krill. They do come pretty small, so could qualify as microorganisms, depending on your def. There also appears to be a crawfish below that, but they don't get that small, AFAIK. Same for the apparent remora to the left of the krill (eyes in the wrong location, though), and the tadpole above that. The rest seem to suffer from the bias that the artist apparently thought all microorganisms must have a head and face, when that's not even true of all macroorganisms, like starfish. StuRat (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Please cite evidence that this was what the artist thought was true rather than what the artist thought would make a good cartoon. Compare anthropomorphism, and specifically anthropomorphism#In film, television, and video games. --69.159.61.230 (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I never made any claims about what the artist actually thought. What the artist apparently thought means that is what it appears like. StuRat (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you're overthinking this - remember that this is a joke. People knew that small creatures lived in water and the artist was suggesting that London's polluted water contained monstrous ones. Alansplodge (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

One hopes that StuRat at least knows the difference between a microorganism and an invertebrate. Tevildo (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly right. Although note that I've had the chance to play with period optics and the images one sees are not great...there's a lot of room for imagination and wishful thinking. It really gives one respect for how much people got right, even if early mistakes - like that humans had 48 chromosomes not 46 - lasted for far too long. Blythwood (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

We are dealing with the 1828 definition of microorganisms (although technically the captions says "microcosm"), so, I'm not sure it was defined precisely then, and if krill would qualify or not. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• The orange beast (Stu's possible "remora") is a ray, as seen from below, the fish at the bottom is a stonefish or a frogfish, there's a pipefish (looks like a snake-shaped seahorse). There are various plausible crustaceans. To assume these are all based on fancy is unfounded, the cartoonist obviously had some familiarity with actual macroscopic, if unusual sea-creatures. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And the big fish in the centre is spouting like a whale - I really don't think it bears academic scrutiny. Alansplodge (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Put the illustration down to just artistic licence. After all, the microscope may well have been developed into a scientific instrument by this time but before photography, TV etc., the 'reading pubic' of this publication had their own experiences only to go upon – so in order for the illustrator to have the public to grasp the point he trying to make, he made the critters look familiar . To be pedantic, during the 'great stink', the water would be so deficient in oxygen that zooplankton would not survive anyway. It would have been just a soup of bacteria, (which had not yet been discovered and identified in those times). Yet, he got across the point, this water was far from healthy. Middle class households in those times, had large earthenware pots of charcoal and felt filters to make Thames water drinkable but even those domestic treatments could not cope when the river became an anaerobic summer sewer. One has to look at it in the context of 1828 and what the general public understood and could comprehend.--Aspro (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

October 22

Javert's suicide in Les Miserables, in the overall context of suicide

Now, I have been warned by Jayron32 on the Entertainment desk: "No one can provide references that explain why fictional characters acted in a certain manner." (Not personally warned, just noted his explanation in hatting others' questions along those lines). But I think major, well-studied works of literature would be an exception, wouldn't they? When it comes to shakespeare, to use an obvious example, I would think there would be a reasonable amount of academic analysis of the characters in his plays, and the supposed logic of their actions. My question is about Les Miserables, for a start, and I suspect there may very well be scholarly analysis on Victor Hugo's work. Also, my question asks whether what happened in fiction ever happens in reality.

It is in that context that I ask about the suicide of Javert in Les Miserables, as it would fit in the wider context of the phenomenon of Suicide. I can, in a sense, understand Javert's logic. He had dedicated his life to enforcing the law, and encountered a case where the the moral ability to enforce the law failed him. He was pinned into an ethical corner. (In the musical, he sings "and my thoughts fly apart / can this man be believed / shall his sins be forgiven / shall his crimes be reprieved". All he needed to do was answer his own question with a YES, and perhaps he could have lived).

My question is, would a typical psychologist, psychiatrist, or coroner expect to typically encounter an individual who either killed themselves or sought to kill themselves based on a similar train of logic and thought? I'm not thinking specifically about police or the law here - more along the lines of either a trap between two competing (moral?) obligations, one of which one has devoted their life to - or just a general epiphany that "everything I ever believed in is wrong" (to use the words in the article "the discovery of deep flaws in his ethical system")? Or any other twist one may put into Javert's logic, translated into the setting of the modern therapist or coroner? Is this sort of suicidal logic a phenomenon known to modern psychiatry? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

For scholarly analysis of the character, google scholar often turns up what you are looking for, if you narrow your search terms enough. "suicide javert" brings up mostly philosophical papers, for example, but you can experiment with adding terms. "psychology suicide" may be closer to what you need. For the more medical part of the question, also try PubMed. 184.147.116.156 (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

October 23

Doctor of Letters vs.Doctor of Humane Letters

What is the difference (if any) between Doctor of Letters and Doctor of Humane Letters? The articles are unclear. I realize that the talk pages would be the place to ask this, but those have been inactive for several years. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:28A8:8A3A:F3CD:A344 (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The Litt.D is a genuine academic degree, awarded for distinguished scholarship in the humanities. The D.H.L is a purely honorary degree, awarded to the great and the good without having any specific connotations of academic (as opposed to societal) achievement. This page has a more comprehensive description than our current article. Tevildo (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:28A8:8A3A:F3CD:A344 (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

High schools and elementary schools

Why is it rare for high schools to be placed right beside elementary schools?Uncle dan is home (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Seniors hazing freshmen is enough already. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

High school students old enough to drive might also tend to run over elementary school students who are too short to see. StuRat (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh right. My HS had thousands of kids, no parking spaces but a subway entrance on the property line. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's generally true. But one thing to keep in mind is that a reasonably-sized city tends to have more elementary schools than high schools. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Really any well-planned city. You have to figure a steady birth rate, and there will be at least twice as many children born during the 9 years served by an elementary school as there are for the four years of high school. For those cities that divide up k-6 as elementary, 7-9 as middle, and 10-12 as high school it's the same principle. -Nunh-huh 04:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The article on intermediate schools says the exact grades 6-8 sometimes change cause of feeding area population changes. So they don't need new construction if the junior high gets full, just rename it and move the lowest grade to PS's. Makes sense. I was wondering why my school system has JHS's, IS's and MS's with different grades and no rhyme or reason, that's probably why. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Where are you referring to? The primary school I went to was right next to the secondary (which I didn't manage to get into despite all my other siblings having gone to it because of insufficient places). I could see it from across the fence. My secondary school wasn't that close to a primary school, although it wasn't that far from it and the primary school was fairly close to another secondary school. Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably a different dynamic in the UK. My primary school in London was adjacent to the local grammar school, but one was built just before and one just after the Great War, and both on land donated by the same wealthy lord of the manor, who was selling up and moving to the countryside. Alansplodge (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• In the county I live in, there are many situations where the schools of different levels occupy the same campus. Here you can see two elementary schools, a middle school, and a high school on one campus. Here you can see an elementary and high school together. It probably depends on a plethora of factors, including the size of the plot of land, the local population densities, etc. The OP's premise is faulty, because they have not yet established that it IS rare (for any given value of "rare") --Jayron32 12:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Here in Michigan, elementary schools (grades 1-5, typically) are small, so they won't be overwhelming and can be placed in walking distance, while we then have middle schools (grades 6-8, typically), a bit bigger and farther away, on average, and then high schools (grades 9-12, typically) are the biggest (only one in my school district) and likely to be the farthest, so they can offer athletic and academic facilities and equipment a smaller school couldn't afford. There were about 60 students per grade in my elementary, 180 in my middle school, and 600 in my high school. So, that would mean there couldn't be a high school near most elementary schools, but there could still be a high school by some elementary schools in the district.

We also had a case where a former high school was used simultaneously as an elementary and middle school, using different wings of the building. StuRat (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

October 24

Engraver identity

Can someone help me find out who is the engraver listed on these three images? It looks like Harlly but searching that doesn't come up with anything. It could also be Harley but that is a pretty common name. Thanks.

• 
• 
• 

Possibly Joseph S. Harley? I've added an example of his work below, although unfortunately there's no signature to compare. Warofdreams talk 00:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• 

By zooming in on the three images it seems clear to me that the first and third ones are signed "HARLEY NY" (in one case with the N reversed: presumably the engraver momentarily forgot that the process requires mirror-image lettering) while the second one is "HARLEY SC NY". I take the meaning to be that this is an S.C. Harley who worked in New York. However, I tried a catalog search at the Library of Congress and couldn't find anything relating to engravings by such a person. --69.159.61.230 (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This image "probably by Joseph S. Harley" has a weird monogram in the bottom-left corner, bearing a resemblance to a Chi-Rho but could conceivably be a "JH". Alansplodge (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Which academy(ies) was Welser elected to?

As the result of a recent exchange on the Language refdesk I became interested in the story of Mark Welser, who at the time had no en.wiki article. There was one in Italian WP, and it turned out there were some others in other languages. I translated the Italian version into English.

I have a question about Welser's elevation to Accademia dei Lincei, or Accademia della Crusca, in 1612 or 1613. The article currently claims that he became a member of Accademia dei Lincei in 1612, which is what it says in the Italian article, and also in this source page: http://www.stadtarchiv.augsburg.de/index.php?id=17273. However the German article says that he became a member of Accademia della Crusca in 1613, which is supported by this page: http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/itineraries/biography/MarkWelser.html.

These two things may of course both be true. But no source I've seen mentions them both, and I'm a little bit worried that one or the other may be a confusion for the other one. Does anyone have access to high-quality print sources, and could check? --Trovatore (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I can provide one other reference for his membership at Lincei: [32] Ubrizsy Savoia, A., (2012). Federico Cesi (1585–1630) and the correspondence network of his Accademia dei Lincei. Studium. 4(4-2011), pp.195–209. DOI: http://doi.org/10.18352/studium.1555 However it doesn't confirm your date. Perhaps if you go straight to the academies themselves they can point you to online documentation for Wikipedia purposes? Lincei can be contacted here and Crusca here. (The name "Welser" does not appear on the website for Crusca [33].) 184.147.116.156 (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much. The article now asserts that he was elected to both academies, with a reference to an actual print book for the Crusca, a book that looks serious to my naive eye. But it does concern me that he's not mentioned on their website — perhaps I will go ahead and ask them. --Trovatore (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Story behind censored Michael Vance videos

There's currently a story in the news about Michael Vance, who had been accused of a sexual assault on a child, posting videos Sunday night to Facebook Live explaining his position. The "videos" are now all over the international news, e.g. [34] But they all are censored to the point of complete unusability - words are censored, the man's entire bright pink T-shirt which has some kind of message written on it is censored, and above all, the first part of the video where he explains himself is censored. Many different news outlets serve this as if they had their own versions, but I think they were all censored by the same person. Given that the location is Oklahoma the chances of some major injustice in a court case seem pretty high. Without getting overly involved in his particular case, this has some relevance for understand the free ? press.

It is possible they all got the video from the same 3:54 am Twitter posting by news 9: [35] - I don't know. And Facebook is renowned for cheerfully taking down anything police don't like in any country. A hypothesis is that news9 might have spotted the video and acted quickly, then police (whether or not tipped off by those seeking the "exclusive") had the video shut down. Actually I don't know because I don't know Facebook well and, not being good with faces, I'm not even sure which Michael Vance on there to start looking at (there are dozens).

Can anyone shed some light on this? How was this arranged? Does *anyone* know what the man's shirt said, or have a copy of the video that explains his motivations? Wnt (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Why was Bill Clinton so successful in red states?

Why'd Bill Clinton win Arizona? (United States presidential election in Arizona, 1996) And get close in '92? No other Democrat has won Arizona since Harry Truman. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Clinton was a Southern Democrat. He also was elected before the Contract with America, Dick Armey's political strategy which repainted the American political map by polarizing each party and moving them both away from the center. Prior to the mid 1990s, southern White Democrats still had wide appeal in what later became "Red" states. There's some considerable credit given to the bi-partisan Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 as to Clinton's re-election; it kept him a LOT of support among the more conservative Democrats and probably forestalled their complete bailing of the party that eventually came during the GW Bush era. During the 1990s, the Blue Dog Coalition was still a major political force (see also Conservative coalition and Democratic Leadership Council). As noted at Presidency of Bill Clinton, he was a "centrist" (which basically means "conservative Democrat") and one of the New Democrats. As also noted in that article, in 1996 he was presiding over the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. Incumbents tend to do well during good economic times, regardless of what their politics are. Clinton won in 1992 based on the economic crash of the early 1990s (see It's the economy, stupid); and likewise the economic boom helped him in 1996. --Jayron32 20:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, Arizona is trending more Democratic lately, due to immigration. They may vote for Hillary this time, according to: [36]. StuRat (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hence his moniker, 'Dixiecrat Clinton,' of course. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Entführung libretti

Are there multiple "standard" libretti for Die Entführung aus dem Serail? Listening to it today, I've pulled up the libretto I downloaded from somewhere (it's in plaintext, so I copied it from a website, not a PDF), but I'm consistently unable to find the current text in the libretto. Confused, I searched for some of the text, and on this page I'm easily finding the text I was expecting to find in the "other" libretto. For example, one character clearly says "mein Vater", and while the word "Vater" isn't in my text, it shows up several times in the one I found online. And my favorite line from this opera, Blonde's contemptful Deine Sklavin? Ich deine Sklavin? Ha, ein Mädchen eine Sklavin! isn't in the text I downloaded at all; even the word "Sklavin" is absent. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Are your two versions the same two that the Wikipedia article links to? This one might be your confusing version, but note it is is billed "singing parts only" and cuts off Aria 8 after the line "So Lieb' als Treu' entweicht", so it doesn't include your favourite line or the word "Vater". The other link is the same link you provide and has the full exchanges. 184.147.116.156 (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no clue what the source is for the "other" libretto (it's in a Notepad file, and according to the metadata, I created it 2+ years ago), but even without checking to see whether it's the same as your "this one" link, that's entirely a reasonable explanation, especially because I'd be inclined to take the libretto from an academic source that I'd find linked from our article. Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

October 25

Credit Suisse Rebranding

When and why did Credit Suisse rebrand itself to the current name?

I never understood why a Swiss bank would have a French name. Apparently it still went by its original German name, Schweizerische Kreditanstalt, as late as 1972: Credit_Suisse#Acquisitions.2C_growth_and_First_Boston, so the rebranding must have been a recent thing. Pizza Margherita (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, French is an official language in Switzerland as well, notably in Geneva which is an important banking centre. French is more of a pan-European language than German is, so that's another factor if they want to increase their overall presence in Europe. Also, Credit Suisse trips off the tongue a lot more easily than Schweizerische Kreditanstalt. --Viennese Waltz 08:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The company's website has a history page which says in the "Milestones in Credit Suisse’s History" slideshow: "17/34 1989 - CS Holdings - CS Holdings, set up in 1982 as a sister company to SKA, becomes the parent company of the Group". However, it seems that "Credit Suisse" was used in US and UK well before that - the 1974 merger with White Weld & Co resulted in Société anonyme financière du Crédit Suisse et de White Weld. [37] and a 1978 joint venture in London was called Credit Suisse First Boston. I suspect that the German name was too much of a mouthful for English speakers, Alansplodge (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

At Credit Suisse, it does say the company was modeled after Crédit Mobilier, which may have influenced the naming. --Jayron32 11:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Which, by the way, was totally unrelated to the Crédit Mobilier of America scandal. I'd never heard of the original Crédit Mobilier, and I was confused why any company would want to take a name inspired by a political scandal, so I thought it best to put in this note. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Pizza Margherita (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

1982 the CS (credit suisse) holding was founded. 1989 the SKA (Schweizerische Kreditanstalt) became part of the Credit Suisse Holding. --JMS (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

U.S. / Canada border monument on I-95

So, I tripped over this image which shows the end of Interstate 95 in Maine approaching the Canadian border. To the right of the image is a monument that says "United States" on one side, then "Treaty 1825" on the other. I'm trying to track the meaning of the monument. As far as I know, the border itself was defined by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 (not 1825) and I cannot find any treaty signed between the U.S. and Great Britain in 1825 that would pertain to the modern Maine/New Brunswick border in any way. I've also made a search for more information about this Monument, to no avail. Does anyone know more about it, or what it says on all 4 sides? My google-fu fails me today. --Jayron32 16:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It could be the date that the road was constructed. On that premise I found A History of Maine Roads 1600-1970, Maine Department of Transportation, State Highway Commission (1970), which only says: "When Maine became a state in 1820 it inherited from Massachusetts five operating turnpikes..." but no detail about a road to the border. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

According to Houlton–Woodstock Border Crossing, the crossing shown here has only existed since 1985. Maybe the monument says "1985". Still doesn't explain the meaning of "treaty". Anything firm or written down somewhere on the internet, or some better pictures on the internet that anyone knows about or can find would be most helpful. Thanks! --Jayron32 16:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It says "1925" (see picture here of the stone on the other side of the road (Begin I95))), and probably refers to the International Boundary Commission which was established in 1925. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Another border marker completely on the other side of the country (Blaine, Washington) also says 1925 [38]. It seems to be a standard design. --Xuxl (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks all! --Jayron32 17:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Wall along Mexican border

If Donald Trump gets elected as president,how would he go about building a wall along the US-Mexican border? Would he need approval from congress first before going ahead and doing so? And what could he do in order to make Mexico pay for it? I don't think it's likely he'll be elected, but I'm asking just because I'm curious.Uncle dan is home (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If Donald Trump gets elected as president he will not have to build a wall. Enrique Peña Nieto will do that for him, to stop the flood of US economic migrants wanting to move south into a freer country.--Aspro (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

And also to where Trump's friends have moved the jobs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

For a thorough analysis about why this can't be done see: [39]. The article describes the technical and non-technical factors (actually impediments) for this project - environmental issues, engineering difficulties, federal and state level players. I also don't see how they could send the bill to Mexico, nor if Mexico could even pay for a 2,000 miles wall. Of course, Trump says building a U.S.-Mexico wall is 'easy.' Hofhof (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

chatter that belongs in a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He can try sending the bill. What's the Spanish for "Return to sender, address unknown"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC) I think it's "returno sendero, adreso no saber."Hofhof (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Bueno. Although if he wants to drop the discourse to Trump's level, he could send it back with a message something like ponerlo donde la luna no brilla. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC) To save face, he could make a deal with Mexico that says if they pay for the wall, the US will give them something more valuable, like an even more lucrative trade deal than the NAFTA one Trump always complains about. StuRat (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Presidential candidates promise things assuming a friendly congress. When Congress is not friendly (as in the later Obama years) they really have very limited power to get anything done. Trump would have assumed a Republican majority House of Representatives, which is the only chamber that can introduce budget bills, which would mean that assuming he had the support of the party, he could get them to pass a bill that he wanted, leaving it up to the Senate to threaten filibuster or defeat the budget i.e. "government shutdown". Would the Democrats, if they had the numbers, stop all government business to keep a wall plan from being introduced? Well, that's anybody's guess.

An obvious though ironic way to save costs is outsourcing, and personally, I took Trump's speech from Mexico to be hinting at outsourcing wall construction when he said "Mexico will work with us" [40] Obviously the cheaper it is the easier it is to get passed.

As for how Mexico would pay for it, he is keeping that totally under wraps. My assumption, for which I have no source, but which I think is hinted at in " They don't know it yet, but they're going to pay for it. And they're great people and great leaders but they're going to pay for the wall." is that he would enact a tax on remittances from the U.S. to Mexico. By extending the time frame on which the revenue is calculated to whatever length is needed, he could say that Mexico paid for the wall. I have taken several of Trump's comments, most notably at the first presidential debate, to be support for a value added tax (national sales tax or so-called "FairTax") of approximately 16%, and so the taxation of remittances to Mexico would automatically be a part of that. Wnt (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK and supported by our article, most FairTax proposals suggest a retail sales tax rather than a value added tax. Likewise many other proposals for a national sales tax in the US suggest some sort of sales tax that isn't a value added tax.

I don't understand your point on remittances. Whether a sales or consumption tax of some kind or value added tax, this isn't going to affect remittances other than potentially for fees.

There have been some proposals for a Financial transaction tax which would affect remittances as well as other financial transactions, but these are normally a lot lower than 16%. Note that proposals like 9–9–9 Plan do not tax all financial transactions, so likewise would not generally affect remittances.

I've seen some suggestions particularly related to Trump to only tax foreign remittances, but often without any real details on how these would be implemented etc and in any case they're likewise separate from a sales or consumption tax (although they could be part of a combined plan like the 9-9-9).

If you don't tax remittances, whether only remittances or all financial transactions and you reduce income tax rate you will potentially reduce the tax paid by foreign workers and migrants in the US (presuming they are paying income tax) who send remittances. Although since current tax rates are progressive and many proposals are for a flat rate, it can get complicated.

Practically however, I think it's likely many proposals which include a sales or consumption tax (including those few which include a value added tax) would probably result in them paying more. Not because such taxes affect remittances, but because despite what some people seem to believe [41], even people who send remittances or who sometimes go back home do actually buy and use services where they live. And low paid migrant workers often aren't paying much income tax, or sometimes not any due the progressive nature and other factors. But a value added tax, and likely a national sales tax or other consumption, tends to be regressive.

Of course Trump has also suggested simply stopping remittances until Mexico pays for the wall [42]. This may be why recent proposals suggest to collect payment after the wall was built, since this seems a lot more difficult without extremely effective border control.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

October 26

Pantheism and Suicide.

Does this title cover it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasapathy (talk • contribs) 02:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Cover what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

We are part of God, we should know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No. Alan Vega, vocalist of the duo Suicide (band) is a pantheist, but their self titled debut album Suicide (1977 album) comprises original songs and no covers of songs, plus he died of natural causes at age 78, not suicide. His 68 year old partner Martin Rev is still active. -- ToE 09:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

funny cat

I was looking on Google at some images. They consist of a squinting cat with its paw over its mouth as if the cat was giggling. The caption read "DO YOU WANT TO KNOW SOMETHING FUNNY?" Underneath the images, Grumpy Cat gave her reply "NOPE". Where can I find images of only the funny cat?2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Here and here. (Take your pic(k)). First one was first hit for "smiling cat". Second one was second hit for "giggling cat". Incidentally there's nothing funny there from the cat's point of view. This is what one of my cats does when there's something stuck between his teeth. Basemetal 18:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

That's the cat I was referring to. Thank you so much.2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Is the concert harp an instrument blind people can master?

I've tried the Entertainment Desk with no result.

I've been wondering what instruments could be played without any need to look at one's hands. If a blind person has ever mastered the instrument, then it is obvious that instrument can be played without looking at one's hands. One instrument that seems particularly difficult to play without looking at your hands is the large concert pedal harp of about six and a half octaves. The large harp even has strings colored in various colors (usually three colors) which seems to show that visual cues cannot be dispensed with even for virtuoso professional harp players. Obviously there are blind players of small, traditional kinds of harps, but I am not aware of any blind player of the concert harp. Have you ever heard of a blind player having mastered the large concert pedal harp? Basemetal 12:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

John Parry (harpist) appears to have played a full-sized harp with no trouble. Harps have no more strings than a piano has keys and pedals, and there are numerous examples of blind pianists. There are also numerous examples of blind organ players, and the full concert organ has far more moving parts than a harp. It should also be noted that I have never heard of an instrument that a blind person could NOT learn to play; notably people like Stevie Wonder is a multi-instrumentalist that has played a wide variety of instruments, from drums to keyboards to strings. --Jayron32 12:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I do hope you're right, especially since I do believe instruments should be played (even by sighted people) using only ear, touch and proprioception (which has practical as well as musical benefits) and that the way blind people approach an instrument is in all cases the right way. At least this is how I play my instruments: currently sax and guitar, in the past cello. For these I can vouch for the fact sight is entirely unnecessary even though you often see cellists looking at their bow or, more ridiculous even, even proficient sighted classical guitarists with eyes popping out of their heads checking their left hand. Now John Parry's example by itself is not entirely conclusive. His harp seems large enough alright (though not quite as large as the modern concert harp) but it's not only a matter of how many strings there are but how demanding the repertoire is. It is difficult to compare an 18th c. traditional musician and the requirements and repertoire of the modern harp. So, while I would guess that you are probably basically right, still I would very much like an actual example of a modern blind concert harp player to entirely reassure me and prove that beyond all doubt. Basemetal 13:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Is one enough of an example for you? --Jayron32 15:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes one is enough. Madeline Link started on the Celtic harp in 2007 (all the pictures show only Celtic harps) but the page does say she took up the classical pedal harp in 2013, so she does seem to be a real example of a blind pedal harp player. Here she is again, a few years later than in your link. Still no picture of a pedal harp but again a mention that she does play that instrument too. What search string did you use? Basemetal 17:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I used "Blind concert harp" or "blind concert harpist". --Jayron32 17:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems like there would be lots of opportunity for invention here. For example, a small tube with compressed air behind the harp could have holes punched in it that direct tight jets in front of particular strings to provide some tactile landmarks, or a camera might read the position of the user's finger and provide an audio feedback via an earpiece. Since even the sighted players have given themselves accommodations with those color codes, it only makes sense that the blind would do the same. Wnt (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Or they could just play the harp, because the last thing people with disabilities need is the able-bodied to patronizingly treat them as being incapable of doing things they're quite able to do without any trouble at all. --Jayron32 23:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it patronizing to offer ways to compensate for the absence of some ability? I had to get glasses. Was I being patronized? There's useless gimmicks offered to sighted players too, like colored stickers meant to help you know where you are on the fretboard. Useless even for the guitar, but on the cello they would in addition be a way to hurt your neck. But take this device. It did not become a commercial success but it was meant to solve a genuine problem for harpists, sighted or not, namely knowing the positions of your pedals. Otherwise you may be looking forward to that F string sounding an F♮ and actually getting an F♯. That can come as a nasty surprise mid-concerto. Unfortunately you needed eyesight to take advantage of it. Would it have been patronizing of anyone to come up with an equivalent device that nonsighted or very poorly sighted players could use? Basemetal 15:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Prosecution of Governor's Spouse

Has the spouse of a United States governor (first lady or first gentleman) ever been indicted or prosecuted for a crime while the governor was in office? I can think of some close calls (Cylvia Hayes, Maureen McDonnell) but none that actually happened. Thanks, --M@rēino 13:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

irrelevant posting by banned user removed – Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

How does that relate to Mareino's question about US state governors? Rojomoke (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I did find another close call. Bill Collins, the husband of Kentucky Governor Martha Layne Collins, was convicted but only after she had left office. He was charged and convicted in 1993, some 6 years after she had served as governor, however the activities he was charged with occured during her term in office. --Jayron32 17:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

party-list proportional representation voting system how

Is there a website that shows you how many votes does a party need to get in order to reach the threshold like for example in Israel, to get a seat it is 3.25%? Donmust90 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It depends on which method a country uses to allocate its representation. Wikipedia has articles on the D'Hondt method while others use the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method. Both of those articles list countries using those methods, and the minimum thresholds they set. --Jayron32 17:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, forget all of that. Wikipedia has an article titled Election threshold which seems to have everything you want in nice tables. --Jayron32 17:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Earning Money for Dead People

Is earning money for dead people 'logically' and 'religiously' sensical? E.g., I would like to earn/tuck away money for my Late. Mother and Brother... 103.230.105.19 (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't care what they tell you at the Western Union office, I say don't pay them to wire any money unless they get you a live video connection first. Wnt (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, in a few religions (ancient Egyptian religion or traditional Chinese religion with joss paper money and possessions, e.g. "hell money") it is nominally considered possible to transfer possessions to the dead, often with a substantial discount. I don't know how serious they were/are about it though. In religions that believe in the Atman, a person can donate to the poor to give to departed loved ones, since all people are expressions of the same underlying essence. Wnt (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

irrelevant posting by banned user removed – Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I read Johann Tetzel and it doesn't really seem like the same idea, but I suppose it's another answer for the question. Wnt (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Dead people do often have trusts, there to either distribute money to the heirs, or, in the case of a more substantial trust, to give scholarships, support charities, etc., in perpetuity. In the later case, they do need to make money to replace what is distributed, as well as administrative costs, by making investments. So, it makes sense in that case. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're asking. What do you mean that you want to earn money for your late mother and brother? Obviously they cannot benefit from the money you earn for them. So, in what way is that money for them? Basemetal 19:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Money saved up for a tombstone, monument, etc., might also be said to be "for the dead", although others would argue they are really for the living. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Well it might but here might doesn't cut it. To answer the question (or to attempt to in any case) it is necessary to know what it is for. The OP has to provide more specifics if they want the RD to be able to answer their question in anything but the vaguest terms. And also, to determine if it makes sense in religious terms, one must know what religion the OP has in mind. The IP is from somewhere in Bangladesh but that does not necessarily mean they are interested in a Muslim answer. In any case, that's another important piece of information that's missing. Basemetal 20:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

An Englishman, a Welshman and a Scotsman attended the burial of a loved one. To show his appreciation of the deceased, the Englishman laid a pound note on the coffin. Not to be outdone, the Welshman pointedly lay a Five pound note on top. The Scotsman sniffed "I was the one who loved him most" and laid a cheque for £100 on top of the pile. AllBestFaith (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

And what did the Irishman do? Maybe this is where we go back to Wnt's Western Union warning. Basemetal 20:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Drank a bottle of whiskey in his honor, then shared it with the deceased by pissing on the grave ? :-) StuRat (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The cheque clears a few days later. The Irishman is the undertaker. AllBestFaith (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This humor started out good, but this just seems nasty. If random put-downs of the Irish weren't already out of style, they've been pretty much unthinkable ever since the Orangemen started parading down to the post offices to pick up their EU passports. Wnt (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In English law, and in other common law jurisdictions, there is a rule against perpetuities. If there wasn't, because of compound interest (what Albert Einstein allegedly described as the most powerful force in the universe) a trust would eventually gobble up all the world's wealth. That's why private trusts are only used to benefit heirs. If a testator wanted to benefit a charity he would bequeath his wealth to the charity who would set up the trust in accordance with the terms of the bequest. 78.145.21.227 (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to ban them entirely to prevent them from getting too big. Laws can make them taxable beyond a certain point and/or require that they spend/distribute everything they take in beyond a certain amount. Religious charities and other nonprofits would have similar issues. Also, the same diseconomies of scale that prevent one company from gobbling up all the rest and owning the world also apply here. StuRat (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it would also benefit the living person to have some of their wealth transferred to a trust or charity of a deceased person.Instead of using their own money to build buildings etc. and having to pay tax,it could be used as a donation to the trust,which as a charitable foundation wouldn't have to. Lemon martini (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't ordering a group to spend its money infringe its human rights? In the case of a charity, if it didn't distribute its income it would probably lose its charitable status. 78.145.21.227 (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Stream of consciousness

hi,can you please help me understand the writing style-Stream of consciousness?I read the wikipedia article,but i'm in need of a clearer answer.Azmain apro (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The idea is that people don't think in a particularly logical order, like chronologically. Instead, they start thinking of one thing, which reminds them of something else that sound similar, which reminds them of an old friend, which reminds them of their childhood, which reminds them of amusement parks, which reminds them of something else, etc. So, a book written in that style is extremely fragmented and hard to follow, but you may eventually get some insight into the mind of the author or fictional character, similar to the psychological test where the "shrink" says one word and you say the first word that pops into your mind. Unfortunately I had a history book written this way (which I was only subjected to because my prof had written it and required it), and this method is terrible at conveying factual info. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to this article? What is it you don't understand? Basemetal 19:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

(ec) See the article Stream of consciousness (narrative mode). I recommend reading James Joyce's Ulysses (1922) and Virginia Woolf's Mrs Dalloway (1925) as examples. AllBestFaith (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Kigeli V of Rwanda

So, what about the heir to his claim? Who is the current pretender now? Our article remains silent.--78.87.221.199 (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The king had no children. There was no previously named heir - in line with the traditions of royalty in that part of Africa. The wider family will now have to make a decision as to which member of the family will be considered the titular king - and their choice has not yet been announced. Wymspen (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reference for that? We could put it in the article. Alansplodge (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

BBC says heir will be announced later, quoting King Kigeli's official website. 184.147.116.156 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Washington Post - Kigeli did not marry, in deference to a rule that kings take no wives in exile. Pennington declined to provide a complete list of survivors, citing “security reasons.” An heir has been selected and is expected to be announced in the next week, he said. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/kigeli-v-ndahindurwa-rwandan-king-without-a-crown-dies-at-80/2016/10/18/c02e6a22-948a-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html Wymspen (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Joe Saenz

Has his trial not commenced yet?--78.87.221.199 (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

For what crime exactly? He's a prolific criminal. More about him: [43]. Llaanngg (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

All tabloids and gossip columns say that he has silently decined the Nobel and that he hasn′t even contacted the Academy. Isn′t the Academy′s spokesperson a reliable source?--78.87.221.199 (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Failing to acknowledge an award is not the same as declining it. I've seen him roundly criticised for not uttering a single word of thanks, but nothing to say he's "silently declined" the word. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

But he did not simply fail to ″utter a word of thanks″. He failed to go and receive the prize, or even send a proxy.--78.87.221.199 (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It would have been a bit difficult for him to go and receive the prize, as the ceremony isn't till the 10th of December. Fgf10 (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ouch, I guess I didn′t know that... still, our article could include a reference to the Academy′s reaction.--78.87.221.199 (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

See [44] [45] [46] [47] for some discussion surrounding what may happen with Dylan's award. If you want to discuss what to include in our article/s, I suggest you use the talk page and various methods of WP:Dispute resolution where needed. As always, you're welcome to update any articles yourself where you can, or use the edit semi-protected template where you can't. Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Bhumibol Adulyadej

Was he considered a natural-born citizen of the U.S.? Did he lose his citizenship on succeeding as King or before?--78.87.221.199 (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Does "except children of foreign ministers" of United States v. Wong Kim Ark apply? Mahidol Adulyadej (Bhumibol's father) was a Prince, but he was in the US as a medical student at Harvard at the time of Bhumibol's birth. -- ToE 13:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In what way does being a medical student qualify one as a diplomatic envoy?--Jayron32 17:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Posters on reddit and quora claim that the hospital where he was born was declared Thai territory, making him a Thai citizen and not an American citizen. (See Princess Margriet of the Netherlands for an actually attested case of this tactic.) However, I can't find a reference to this being done for Bhumibol, so this may not be true. This 1960 newspaper article does claim American citizenship for him but that doesn't have much authority either. 184.147.116.156 (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Do tipped employees' income have a round number-based business cycle superimposed on the general economic one?

Especially while the long-term trendline for job X & clientele Y transits the 1 $/£/etc. neighborhood and that's the smallest bill?

Cause maybe when the long-term trend was somewhat below a dollar people didn't want to look cheap by giving a bunch of coins summing to like 19 shillings. So they give 1 banknote. The US didn't have half dollar coins in common circulation after the Sixties I think so even more coins would be needed than in Britain. Then inflation happens and the long-term trendline's somewhat above a dollar but many probably still give the same $1 bill. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The correlation between tipping and inflation is complicated, especially since most tips are paid as percentages and tips themselves seem to be one of the drivers of inflation. I only managed to find one study that looks at the effect of currency redenomination (in Ghana), which finds that, again, it's complicated. (As an aside, there were coins between the shilling and the pound that were acceptable tips in the UK - depending on the service and the era, you read about people pressing crowns, Half sovereigns, 10-bob notes, half crowns and so on into the hands of eager urchins - it was relatively easy to tip with just a couple of coins.) This is not at all related, but in searching for answers, I came across this amazing patent for a gun for shooting money at strippers. The inventors tells us that this "frees up the customer from using their hands". Smurrayinchester 08:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

October 27

Why has Spain ceded Gibraltar?

Why did Spain cede Gibraltar to the UK under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 and later even confirmed this situation? Soon after, in 1727, Spain would try to reclaim the territory by force and it remains committed to regaining it until the present day. --Llaanngg (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• The British (as part of the Grand Alliance) had already captured Gibraltar in 1704, and Spain failed to recapture it (Gibraltar is extremely difficult to take by land, which is partly what makes it such a military asset). The Treaty of Utrecht was simply Spain recognizing that it had no hope of getting the Rock back and formally handing it over to stop the war - although the Grand Alliance was defeated in Spain as a whole, Gibraltar was such an excellent redoubt that they could have continued low-level conflict from it for years. Smurrayinchester 12:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

And blockaded Spain's ports, sank Spanish ships that escaped the blockade and captured Spanish overseas possessions.
Sleigh (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe these accounts could go into an article like Disputed status of Gibraltar, if adequate sources could be provided. Otherwise, the idea is only implicitly there. Llaanngg (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Catholic churches in Rome

how many Catholic churches are there in Rome?--79.17.186.90 (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Our Churches of Rome article says: "There are more than 900 churches in Rome, including some notable Roman Catholic Marian churches. Most, but not all, of these are Roman Catholic."

A full list is here, but it only lists six Protestant churches (the Assembly of God church meets in the American Episcopalian building) and three Synagogues. All the rest are Catholic, although some cater for non-Italian speakers. I'll let you add them up, but 900 seems to be a good estimate. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Correction, there is a list of about 100 "Protestant Churches" (which strangely includes a Mosque) near the bottom of the list, but duplicates those listed at the at the top, Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The website of the Diocese of Rome lists 341 parishes. These will be active, functioning churches. There is also a wiki devoted to churches in Rome which lists 1,179. This includes churches from other dioceses which are within the municipal boundaries of Rome, deconsecrated churches and even churches demolished in the last 250 years. 184.147.116.156 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Deals Gap

From this video [48], does anyone know which side of the Dragon (Deals Gap the Swift semi truck is on (Tennessee or North Carolina)? Is the Swift semi heading to North Carolina or Tennessee? --107.77.234.85 (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Text in the video itself and the description of it mentions THP. That stands for Tennessee Highway Patrol.--Jayron32 17:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Date headers

I notice that this page is no longer automatically creating a new level 1 date header each day. I have been adding them as we go along, but it would be nice to have the auto function running again. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Nor does it appear to be automatically archiving older material as it used to. The list of questions is getting very long! Wymspen (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This has happened a time or two (or three) over the years. Usually this is a problem with the bot. You could try asking at User talk:scs or the WP:VPT. Thanks for doing things manually Blueboar. MarnetteD|Talk 21:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I asked SCS about this by another method. He's aware of the problem—this is what WT:RD#wiki server issues? is about—but has been too busy to look into it right away. --69.159.61.230 (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

What they carry?

What these Soviet soldiers carry across shoulders? I've seen the same stuff on other photos with Soviet soldiers in WWII, but never on other Allied soldiers. Thanks in advance. 93.174.25.12 (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a 'Plash Palatka', a piece of canvas that could be used as a rain cape or as part of a basic (or complex) shelter. See also [49], [50], [51]. Nanonic (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought of it, but wasn't sure. 93.174.25.12 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)