Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

February 26

UK Civil service governance

Is Civil Service (United Kingdom) an organisation or is it just an informal name given to all government departments? I know civil servants are employed by individual departments.

It has a contralised structure, with a senior official who is Head of the Civil Service. Although people may work for a particular department, moving from one to another is common, and you remain within the same employment. Wymspen (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centralised + controlled + contrary = contralised. Beautiful. Very fitting. I love it. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I wish I could lay claim to such imagination and ingenuity - but sadly it was just a typo. Wymspen (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying the symbols of a Model 1891 Mosin-Nagant "Dragoon"

Posting per an users request, could you help to identify the meanings of the symbols on this Model 1891 Mosin-Nagant: http://imgur.com/a/JpLDb. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see a swastika and the year 1941, which go together. I can't make out much on the symbol that looks like a treble clef or the surrounding symbols, though (maybe a 2 1 in front and a 1 after ?). There also appears to be a faint embossed (is that the right word when on wood ?) stamp consisting of a pair of concentric circles, but I can't read anything on that. StuRat (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin%E2%80%93Nagant#/media/File:Mosin-Nagant_M1891_-_Ryssland_-_AM.032971.jpg indicates that the circular embossed stamp is original - either a maker's mark, or a Russian army stamp. The other strange symbol could be something as simple as the owners initials, in some sort of monogram. Wymspen (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything else about the gun, where it's from, who owned it? The swastika looks to be of a Hindu variety. This type of gun was used all over the world, so a Hindu owner would not be beyond imagining. I tried looking up that other symbol in lists of Hindu religious symbols, as well as Indian alphabets, but couldn't find it. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's also the form of swastika used by the NAZI regime, and the inclusion of "1941" makes me think that's the correct identification. Also, this is a weapon, not a religious artifact, so military markings are most likely. StuRat (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look again, Stu. I don't recall the Nazis ever including the dots between the bars. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the dots, but do now. StuRat (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems rather more likely to have been some creative whittling by a soldier on the Eastern Front, than the rifle owned by a Hindu mystic in British India. But you never can tell I suppose. Alansplodge (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of Mosin-Nagant and Swastika makes me think of Finland. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 17:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - why didn't I think of that? See this Finnish aircraft for example. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any Reliably-sourced non-Zhuangzi versions of the Butterfly dream?

Are there Reliably-sourced non-Zhuangzi versions of the Butterfly dream, especially any that pre-date Zhuangzi? The question was prompted by viewing Francis Ford Coppola's Youth Without Youth (film) a few hours ago. My memory of the precise movie conversations is inevitably probably somewhat inaccurate, but it is roughly as follows: Towards the end the hero is having a dream in which fellow academics discuss the Butterfly dream. One of them eventually refers to an unnamed Chinese philosopher (presumably Zhuangzi), but before that they seem to be talking about a king dreaming he's a butterfly dreaming he's a king dreaming he's a butterfly (and so on ad infinitum, I understood them to be implying). Zhuangzi's version contains no mention of either a King (the dreamer is Zhuangzi, who is not a king) nor an 'ad infinitum' bit. Although the relevant articles do mention Hindu and Buddhist notions of illusions (Maya), they don't seem to mention any non-Zhuangzi Butterfly Dreams, so I was wondering does anybody know of Reliably Sourced alternative versions, especially (but not only) if they pre-date Zhuangzi. (Note: my real interest is actually Simulated Reality and Simulation Hypothesis (which strictly speaking are not usually about dreams as we normally understand the word 'dream'), but the Butterfly dream is important background for that). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tlhslobus: you're looking for a source for this dream earlier than c. 300 BC (the Zhuangzi)? And you think a random Coppola film might contain such a reference? That strains credulity, if you ask me. No, to the best of my knowledge there is no other version of this story other than the Zhuangzi. There has been some scholarly hypothesizing on a possible Indian influence/origin of the Zhuangzi, but it is very much hypothetical and not widely held. White Whirlwind 咨 03:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, White Whirlwind. The Coppola film is entirely based on a Romanian novella which largely seems to be about Indian notions of reincarnation - so Hindu (or perhaps Buddhist) sources would seem eminently plausible, at least to me (and regardless of whether Coppola himself knew about them or not, since he likely got his knowledge from the novella, whose author Mircea Eliade may have got his knowledge from other sources, or either he or Coppola may have made the whole thing up). Do you by any chance have any sources for the scholarly speculation that you mention? Tlhslobus (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tlhslobus: It is nothing but pure artistic embellishment, I assure you. The scholarly speculation appears mostly in the writings of Victor Mair, see his chapters in Kohn (2000) p. 30, and Nienhauser (1998) p. 21. White Whirlwind 咨 08:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, White Whirlwind. I've now managed to find out more myself - Google (here) gives numerous references that suggest the dreaming King is Janaka, but he dreamt he was a beggar, not a butterfly, and the date of the source (Ashtavakra Gita) is unclear, being anything from shortly before Zhuangzi to over 1000 years after him. This entry (from a book seemingly with no page numbers, but part of its "Waking State" section) tells the story as follows:

The Indian version concerns King Janaka, who had a very realistic dream that he was a starving beggar. When he awoke, he had doubts whether he was the king who had just dreamt he was a beggar, or whether he really was a beggar, now dreaming he was the king. This story goes on to describe how he summoned his advisers to clarify his quandary but to no avail. It required the Sage Astavakra, the eponymous teacher of the Astavakra Gita, to explain that he was neither the king nor the beggar but the one Self.

I may eventually put a reference to this in Dream argument, though I suspect the above source is self-published and thus unusable. Thanks again for your help.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ICANN

What are the effects of ICANN shifting to international control? Benjamin (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (see article ICANN) by agreement with the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) was freed from US government oversight on October 1, 2016 which prompted the report The U.S. government no longer controls the internet. It quotes ICANN’s board chairman assuring that the Internet of tomorrow remains as free, open and accessible as the Internet of today, but also carries a few critical comments that the move needlessly "give(s) away another bit of America". Time will tell whether any future issues that might be seen at ICANN#Criticism can be attributed to the change. Blooteuth (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been speculation as to what sort of practical effects the change might have, or support or opposition to the change for particular reasons? Benjamin (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The US government hasn't "controlled the internet" since its name changed from ARPANET. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is arguable. NSFNET was a central part of the early post-ARPANET Internet. And, relating to the original question, ICANN was formally operating under a contract with the U.S. government until just several months ago. It's true that the U.S. government had a very hands-off attitude towards ICANN, but they could always have started making demands or given the contract to someone else. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

Maritime flag protocol

When a merchant ship from country A visits a port in country B, it flies the flag of country B as a courtesy. Of course its own flag/ensign is always on the "main" flagstaff, which is usually on the stern, the host country's flag goes on another mast. Does this rule also apply to warships? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This US Navy document, in section 8, discusses the display of foreign ensigns: "While firing a salute to the nation upon entering a foreign port, returning such salute fired by a foreign wsrship, or firing a salute on the occasion of a foreign national anniversary, celebration or solemnity, a ship shall display the ensign of the foreign nation at the main truck." This salute appears to be mandatory per section 4: "When a ship enters a port of a foreign nation, the government of which is formally recognized by the Government of the United States, she shall fire a salute of 21 guns to that nation..." Several exceptions follow. So under normal circumstances, a US Navy ship must display a host nation's ensign when visiting a foreign friendly port. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'm answering only with respect to the US Navy, as you specified no particular nation. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From a British yacht club website: "The custom is to wear the maritime colours of the country being visited, known as a ‘courtesy flag’, close up to the starboard cross trees. No other flag should be in a superior position to the courtesy flag, so if that is where you normally fly the club burgee you will need to find somewhere else for it. The courtesy flag for visitors to the UK is the Red Ensign, no matter which part of the UK you are visiting". Just to clarify the language used by the USN above, the main truck is the flag position on the main mast of the ship, like the image on the right. The ship or boat's own national ensign is flown at the back "flag pole", or ensign boom, while the front "flag pole" or jack stay flies the ship's own national flag or "jack" when in port. Alansplodge (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Royal Navy, the answer is: "Her Majesty's ships do not normally hoist courtesy flags when entering, laying alongside or leaving Commonwealth or foreign ports, as the use of courtesy flags is exclusive to the merchant service. Commanding Officers however have discretion to fly a courtesy flag subject to diplomatic advice". See Naval Flags and Ensigns - A Note by the Naval Staff Directorate (p. 8/40). Alansplodge (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this explains the lack of a courtesy flag on a South African warship visiting a British port. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most Commonwealth navies still follow British naval customs. Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they do, the South African Navy is very "British" in many ways. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarians

Closing this before the OP embarrasses themselves more than they already have. --Jayron 32 17:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What portion of the population thinks it's okay to punch male libertarians? Benjamin (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one has ever given a poll on this subject, so it is an unanswerable question. But I think you already knew that. Please don't make political statements and then put a question mark at the end pretending it is a good-faith request for references, when we all know it isn't. --Jayron 32 17:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Perhaps a better question would be, are there any surveys of radical political ideologies? Benjamin (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant to libertarianism?--WaltCip (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some radical anarchists / communists think it's okay to punch male libertarians ^{[citation needed]} and I'm wondering how widespread that view is. Benjamin (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've had enough here. Find another place to do this. It isn't welcome here. --Jayron 32 17:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if you find such a specific poll, but you might have more luck with polls that ask if political violence is acceptable to achieve political ends. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's the sort of thing I'm looking for. And also how it relates to ideologies, and also perhaps the statements of prominent figures of those ideologies. Benjamin (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this question is a reference to this story. As a white male libertarian myself, I found it, of course, provocative. But obviously none of us know what fraction of the population agrees with the provocative assertion, or even whether it includes the person cited as making it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that those guys aren't libertarians, they're neo-Nazis. If a survey asked the question, "Is it OK to punch a Nazi?" you might get a different answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whom you mean by "those guys". Richard Spencer is definitely not a libertarian, although I don't think that makes it OK to punch him. But Monteiro wasn't talking just about Spencer. I don't think the tweet was meant entirely seriously, but it's hard to be sure. --Trovatore (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a libertarian, he's a racist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said he was not a libertarian. Did you read the tweet in question? --Trovatore (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Without knowing more about its author, I can't tell if it's serious or sarcastic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only scientific poll we have on the matter, as presented in evidence, is a tweet from someone saying it's okay to punch male libertarians. So, to answer the OP's question of 'what portion of the population': Roughly one in 320 million. Hope this helps! --Golbez (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the average pollster would probably say that's too small a sample size for reliable statistical analysis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Did you run an ANOVA?--WaltCip (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that argument holds much water. How many people have tweeted that it is not ok to punch a male libertarian? Anyway isn't it a self selected sample? Plus why the sexist distinction, that doesn't sound right - was the sex distinction something the researcher chose after seeing the results so shouldn't we increase the degrees of freedom by one - which pretty much eliminates the one sample. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the analyst consciously tried to skew the result - it is generally accepted that it is not O.K. to go about punching women. 86.128.236.125 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well... unless you're her parent. Or her husband. Or a famous sports star. Or a sports player of any type, really. Or a congressman. Or a chief of staff. Or a cabinet secretary. Or a president. Or white, and she's not. Otherwise, yeah, totally frowned upon. --Golbez (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A more realistic cynic might claim that "Or white, and she's not" has an unnecessarily narrow precondition. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

Sentencing an adult for a crime committed back when (s)he was a juvenile

Two years ago in the place I live (Victoria, Australia) a high-profile athlete, who was 23, was charged with committing a rape back in 2007 (when he would have been 17). The charge was a "regular" rape charge, not a "statutory" one. Age of consent was not an issue, as his alleged victim was less than 2 years younger than him. He was ultimately acquitted. (I am not mentioning his name, lest someone cry BLP, even though our article on him mentions the matter).

During the trial, the prosecutor expressly (and rightly, IMHO) told the jury things to imagine things as they would have looked in the eyes of a 17 year old, not as they would look to the 23 year old now sitting in the dock, were he to face a similar situation today. As he was acquitted, obviously, there was no sentencing.

My question is, how would a judge go about sentencing someone who now clearly an adult, for a crime committed when he was clearly still a juvenile? (17 year olds are definitely deemed juveniles in this jurisdiction). I don't recall such a case ever arising before. (Someone just past the point of adulthood could still be dealt with under juvenile rules here - and this does happen, where the defendant has passed his 18th birthday by the time his court date arises - but a 23 year old would clearly be too old to be sent to a youth justice centre). Can someone point me to either any case law or statutory law, in any jurisdiction, not just my own? I find this an intriguing issue, as I've never seen it play out in practice.

(And I do NOT consider this "legal advice", as I can't see it changing any reader's behaviour, either in court or outside it, as a result of any answers proffered!) Eliyohub (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, often a prosecutor convinces the judge to try the defendant as an adult, even if he was a juvenile at the time of the crime (see paragraph 2 of Juvenile court). Then he would be sentenced as an adult, regardless of his age at the time of the trial. Loraof (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He would be sentenced in the "adult jurisdiction" (as happened here, the trial was in adult court), and any prison sentence would be served in an adult prison, but would the Judge take his age (and related immaturity) at the time of offending (and the general legal acceptance that juveniles generally bear less moral culpability for their behaviour) into consideration when deciding on a sentence? Eliyohub (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't help you with Australia. But look up the story of Michael Skakel. --Trovatore (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious case in England and Wales will be Murder of Stephen Lawrence#2011–2012 trial. That article mentions it was before Criminal Justice Act 2003 but AFAICT, while that may have affected bases sentences, it doesn't affect the fact those committing murders before they were 18 are treated different, see e.g. Murder in English law#Criminal Justice Act 2003. The article doesn't actually say but I think it's clear the defendants would have been sent to adult prisons straight away since Her Majesty's Young Offender Institutions only cater to people until they are 22. Note that I'm fairly sure (and the earlier article also strongly implies) that some people will eventually be sent to adult prisons even if their offences were committed and tried while juveniles, e.g. those sentenced (as with Lawrence's killers) to At Her Majesty's pleasure#Incarceration. Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The case of the Carlton Franklin is relevant. As a 15-year-old, he murdered Lena Triano, but he was not tried until almost 40 years later at the age of 52. [9][10] Under the laws of the state of New Jersey, his case was not eligible to be moved to an adult court because the crime was committed before the age of 16. Hence he was tried in a juvenile court and sentenced under the statutes that applied for delinquent juveniles at the time of his trial. He ultimately received a 10-year prison sentence, which the judge determined was the maximum allowed for a juvenile convicted of rape and murder. Because of the greater leniency offered to juveniles, someone sentenced to 10 years would often only serve 3 or 4 with good behavior. I couldn't find anything to indicate where he was incarcerated, so I would assume he was sent to an adult prison. Dragons flight (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the maximum sentence for an offence is the maximum at the time the offence was committed, not when sentence is passed. 81.151.101.90 (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was explicitly part of the case. Between when the offense occurred and when the trial occurred, the legislature reduced the maximum sentence for such crimes. The judge was very explicit in holding that the reduced maximum, which was current at the time of the trial, was what applied. The prosecutor challenged this on appeal, and the appeals court agreed that the maximum sentence in this case was limited by the law as it existed at the time of the trial. Obviously other jurisdictions may handle this issue differently, and perhaps the outcome could have been different if the possible sentence had been increased rather than decreased, but I don't know. However, in this case the critical point was the possible sentence at the time of the trial. Dragons flight (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Are you referring to the issue of ex post facto laws retroactively increasing maximum sentences as something generally rejected in most jurisdictions with concern over human rights? If so, presuming your statement is intended to apply widely it isn't completely true. As our article mentions, there have been certain cases even in places generally accepted as having decent regards for human rights where some specific ex post facto laws with increased or new sentences were allowed, especially in jurisdictions without strong constitutional protections. Also your comment seems to imply the maximum at the time of offence will always be considered, but in reality in some or many jurisdictions, it's possible for a law to reduce maximum sentences, simply not increase sentences. Actually in some places, Canada is one mentioned in our article with Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms#Right to lesser punishment, where the lesser sentence is nearly always required. (There may also be provisions for people already sentenced to reduce their sentences. Since you mentioned maximum sentences, I guess you already appreciate that there is dispute over whether increases in minimum sentences, where the minimum sentence is below the maximum at time of offence, is allowed, e.g. [11] [12].) Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

marketplace companies

What are marketplace companies? Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.159.48 (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a vague term. Can you give us a context? Did you read this somewhere? Can you show us the exact webpage or location where you read it? If so, we can help you find information based on the context you read it in. --Jayron 32 12:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, that term refers to health insurance companies which offer insurance under Obamacare. See Health insurance marketplace. StuRat (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Affordable Care Act, you mean. Obamacare is a pejorative term.--WaltCip (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally, but it's become mainstream, especially once Democrats embraced it as a positive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nickname, and it's used in the article. StuRat (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname though it may be, for purposes of reference, you should use the official name to avoid confusion. Any academician who includes the term "Obamacare" in a research paper unironically would be laughed out of peer review.--WaltCip (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. See Google Scholar, which has plenty of hits, including high-quality sources like the New England Journal of Medicine and several other journals that don't, at first glance, raise a red flag. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Official names are often unwieldy. Even you didn't use the official name, which is "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". That name doesn't mention the nation and time period, but "Obamacare" makes that all clear. StuRat (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Things could be worse. Just imagine if Medicare had been dubbed "LBJcare". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

long brisant jejunum? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Chinese Shinto"

Idries Shah uses this phrase to refer to Chinese folk religion. Was this ever a common practice, or is it just Shah being Shah? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if true or not, but this essay claims that both Shinto and Daoism use the same Chinese characters. --Jayron 32 17:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The essay is exaggerating (for effect, perhaps). "Shinto" is made up of two characters, the second of which (to) is the character "Dao" ("the Way") in Daoism. The other character (Shin) means "spirit" or "gods".

OP - Our article Chinese folk religion suggests that the traditional belief system in China was even in pre-modern times referred to by some as "Shendao", i.e. "Shinto": see under Chinese folk religion#Etymology. --165.225.80.99 (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Shendao-Shinto connection is clear, and pretty interesting, but I'm wondering about the use of "Chinese Shinto" in English (or, I suppose, use of the equivalent by non-Anglophone orientalists). -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does outsourcing make the non-well off of the developing world better off or worse?

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they get jobs doing outsourced work, then they must be better off than they were, or they wouldn't take those jobs, would they ? An exception would be if they are compelled to work, say if they are convicts doing forced labor. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a debate topic, not a reference desk question. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why ? Shouldn't there be stats on economic development in nations providing outsourced labor ? StuRat (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of which you have provided exactly none. --Jayron 32 18:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a ref to support my initial reply. My second reply was not to the OP. StuRat (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

here, here, and here for a few articles on the topic. here is one from a more scholarly journal. --Jayron 32 18:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may check the article Globalization for some ideas and stacks of references. You can also pick a random Third World country and observe the economic development. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outsourcing oftentimes creates a unique "verbal bridge" between English-speaking Americans and English-as-a-second-language-speaking members of other countries. I see this as a good development. This is often a "broad bridge" due to the numbers of people involved in both the "first world country" and the "third world country". The interface between American companies and American consumers tends to be colored by the citizens of non-American countries based simply on accented English. It is not unusual for Americans to know an ostensibly "American" company exclusively by their interaction with representatives of that company in another country. Thus, figuratively speaking, Apple is an Indian company and Bank of New York Mellon is a Filipino company. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true where the outsourcing company is American. The question was not so restricted. --ColinFine (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government departments

Can government departments/ministries be considered companies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B994:E100:88F8:47A9:913F:81E (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In America, generally not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In some places, entities can be midway between "government department" and "company". Quango is the standard term for such things in the UK; they're comparable to US entities like Amtrak and the Postal Service, which are government-related but still attract public criticism for wasting tax money when they consistently don't turn a profit. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In America, they can, see for example Amtrak, Fannie Mae, or more generally, Government-sponsored enterprise and State-owned enterprise#United States. So we have government-sponsored agencies in the U.S. which are companies; also see companies like Citgo, which is formerly a private enterprise, but is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Government of Venezuela. There have also been companies that have acted as governments (see, for example, East India Company which was basically the British Government of India for a long time). However, under normal situations, the answer would be "no". --Jayron 32 16:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A "company" usually has a specific meaning in law, in English-speaking countries a "company" is a legal entity which is not a natural person but has been vested with legal personality by specific legislation relating to companies. So a natural person or a partnership business would not be a "company". Something that is not a natrual person and that has legal personality, such as the Crown, might still not be a company, if its legal personality does not come from company legislation.

The concept of "corporation" extends to any non-natural person that has legal personality. So the Crown, and certain types of government offices, are corporations sole, which means they have (artificial) legal personality and so are corporations, but are not companies. Likewise, city councils in many English-speaking countries are corporations, but are not companies. So it is possible to transact with a government department (as represented by the minister) or a city council - but not because they are companies. --165.225.80.99 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is why the British Broadcasting Corporation is not a company - it's a public service organisation incorporated by Royal Charter. By 6 Geo 1 c 18 the formation of a joint-stock company otherwise than by Royal Charter was made illegal. 92.19.171.188 (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the first black Catholic bishop?

A google search gave me James Augustine Healy; however he's described as the first in the United States. Was there an earlier black bishop elsewhere? Zacwill (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Victor I was Berber, so depending on what you mean by black I suspect he is a candidate. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Later, but not a Pope? Does St Augustine of Hippo qualify? Born in Tegaste, Africa (present day Algeria) in 354, was at least a Berber; or brown North African. Bishop of Hippo from 396 to 430 ad. born Nov. 13, 354, Tagaste, Numidia [now Souk Ahras, Algeria]—died Aug. 28, 430, Hippo Regius [now Annaba, Algeria]. Guess I repeated things a bit... Manytexts (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine may or may not have been a Berber: "...people from all over the Empire migrated into the Roman Africa Province" according to Africa (Roman province)#Roman Africans. Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe a bit later, the first bishops of Axum in the 4th century (though not the first one, St. Frumentius, who was Greek). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Axum is a good bet, but both Alexandria and Carthage were early major centres of the Christian Church, and the people of the ancient Mediterranean world, while often ethno-bigots, were rarely racist. One might argue when the church became coherent enough to be called catholic, and if that happened only at the First Council of Nicea, which would set a lower bound. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public statues of living black people in the UK

I have read that a new bronze of Floella Benjamin at the University of Exeter is the only sculpture of a living black person on public display in the UK. Is this true? DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If so, is that all that remarkable ? After all, statues are far more common as memorials to dead people, aren't they ? And even when the subject is alive at the time, statues tend to last a lot longer than people do. StuRat (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As StuRat says, I wonder how many statues there are of living white people in the UK. But as to whether the claim is true, don't know who would keep a catalog of all UK statues of people on public display, and sort out those few where the subject is still living? Anyone have any suggestions for the OP? Eliyohub (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Mandela formerly met the requirements—he attended the unveiling of his own statue in London in 2007—but he died in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.6.254 (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bust of him also stood outside Royal Festival Hall since 1982. Smurrayinchester 13:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Brixton railway station#Artworks, three statues were erected in 1986 which were "life casts of three people - two black, one white - who regularly travelled from Brixton." It seems likely that they are still alive. It also states that they are "believed to be the first sculptures of black British people in a public place in the UK". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a statue of Thierry Henry outside the Emirates Stadium - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also statues of Dame Kelly Holmes in Pembury and of Ade Adepitan in Woking. Smurrayinchester 13:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(The Wembley Rugby League Statue includes Martin 'Chariots' Offiah, but isn't exclusively of him) Smurrayinchester 13:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what definition of "Black British" you use, there is A Real Birmingham Family, unveiled in 2014. It features a pair of sisters, Roma and Emma Jones, and their sons, Kyan Ishann Jones and Shaye-Jones Amin. They were "chosen to represent what it means to be a family" (i.e. not for any personal achievement per se) and the sisters refer to themselves as mixed race.^[1] In addition, you might want to try browsing categories such as Category:Sculptures in the United Kingdom. We don't seem to have a Category:Sculptures of living people. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been running on for some years but there is due to be a statue of Brendon Batson, Laurie Cunningham and Cyrille Regis in West Bromwich. JMiall ₰ 20:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ AUTHI, JASBIR (28 AUG 2013). "Meet the Joneses - the real Birmingham family of two single mums and sons chosen for library statue". Birmingham Mail. Retrieved 3 March 2017. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

March 1

Audiobook production

For a skilful out-loud reader, someone who makes comparatively few mistakes (for example, a television presenter who typically contributes to live broadcasts), how long does it typically take to record an audiobook of such-and-such a length? For example, if our skilful reader spends eight hours in the studio, reading from an average book, how much audio time would be recorded in an average shift? Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A simple search for 'audio book recording time' finds [13], [14] & [15] which say 2 hours for 1 hour of audio. Then there's [16] which says 1.5-2 hours for 1 hour of audio. While these sources don't specifically mention anything about the skill level, it's clear they're talking about professionals i.e. people who are skilled in the craft. There are a few sources like [17] which mentions 4-5 hours & [18] which mentions 6 hour, but these sources seem to be referring to freelancers doing most of the work themselves. Several of the other sources mention additional staff time required for editing which is in a similar range of person-hours. Note that at least two of the sources also suggest an 8 hour shift is unlikely. Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In an era of text-to-speech technology, what keeps such jobs alive, may I ask? Eliyohub (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eliyohub, I'm currently going through the Harry Potter series, courtesy of Jim Dale, after having gone through several of the Austen novels mechanically: download the Project Gutenberg plaintext, format the lines properly, put them into Microsoft Word, convert into a PDF, and use Acrobat Reader's read-aloud feature. I can testify to a massive difference: aside from Acrobat's numerous and jarring pronunciation mistakes (e.g. in Persuasion, the family homestead, "Kellynch Hall", is consistently read as "KELL-link", while Lady Catherine de Bourgh is "de Boer" with a stop at the end), it's much less pleasant because it's read mechanically, without any sense of realism, and all the characters have identical voices, while a human reading an audiobook can voice different characters in different manners. Plus, you have tones of voice; if I had Acrobat reading Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Hermione would use an identical tone of voice in the troll-in-toilets scene, in the scene where she scolds the boys for going to a duel, and in scenes where she's actually happy. Conversely, the human narrator can observe that these situations shouldn't all be read identically. Nil Einne, thanks for those sources (I looked around online, but I didn't find those for some reason), so it's good to see them. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation, it does make good sense. The obvious disadvantage is that due to the enormous amount of labour involved in the "human" option, far fewer books can be made available?

Also, if you're OK with the book being read in a heavy Indian or other accent, I suppose the job could be outsourced? I'm sure you could find some Indian Harry Potter fan who would do the job cheaply, with his or her best attempt at intonation of the voices of the characters? Eliyohub (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Audiobooks are as much performances as spoken poetry, live comedy or acted plays. Sure, I could read a transcript of a George Carlin Grammy winning routine but listening to it will be a little more impressive. They also give out Grammys for spoken word and spoken word for children performances. The 2004 nominees for the children's category were Jim Broadbent reading Winnie-the-Pooh, Jim Dale reading Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Eric Idle reading Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Carl Reiner reading Tell Me a Scary Story but they all lost to Peter and the Wolf by the Bill Clinton, Mikhail Gorbachev, Sophia Loren and the Russian National Orchestra! I would prefer any of those to some cheap reader or computer-voice. Rmhermen (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that this is not directly relevant, but when I worked on the EXLIB project, I was told that Talking Books for blind people, as well as being read faster than normal audiobooks, were also read expressionlessly, and that this was how users preferred them. I haven't found a reference for this, however. (I haven't looked very hard). It seems to me that for this purpose, machine reading would be more useful (though the problem of mispronunciation would persist). --ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also of tangential interest: not all readers are paid or experienced. Projects such as Librivox recruit volunteers, many of them amateurs and all unpaid, to read books that are out of copyright.^[1] Here's one explanation of why people choose to give their time in this way.^[2] Wired has reported on "The Weird, Obsessive World of Free DIY Audiobooks":

LibriVox is like Audible, the audiobook service owned by Amazon, except that every book is made for free by volunteers, and every book was published before 1923. A legion of volunteer readers—from professional stage actors to people practicing reading English as a second language—patiently, and sometimes not so patiently, inch through thousands of texts, posting the end results for free. The most popular audiobooks on LibriVox— for The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Moby-Dick, and Pride and Prejudice—have been downloaded or streamed more than 2 million times. Since LibriVox started in 2005, over 8,000 texts have been recorded, edited and posted to the site by over 6,000 readers. Other volunteers work on the editing of the audio files and checking for accuracy.

Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Volunteer for LibriVox". Librivox. Retrieved 3 March 2017.
^ "Learning Ally Volunteers". Retrieved 3 March 2017.

As Carbon suggested above, a factor in the manhours required to record a book is verification. When I considered becoming a volunteer to record technical textbooks for blind students, I was told that they always have one person record it and a different person verify it. I do not recall if the verifier sat there while the reader spoke, or if he listened to the recording later while looking at the book. I suspect it was the former, so errors could be promptly corrected in the main reader's voice. Right there, you have at least two hours per hour of output. Edison (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors in Mexico

In the government of cities in Mexico at present, is there a difference between "Alcalde" (mayor) and "Presidente municipal" (municipal president)? For example, does the city of Guadalajara in 2017 have both a mayor and a municipal president in office, each with distinct roles? -- M2545 (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Municipalities of Mexico are not equivalents to cities; a "municipality" seems more equivalent to a "county" in the U.S., so a "Presidente municipal" would be the equivalent of a County executive. However, saying that, it does not appear that Mexican cities have the equivalent of Mayors, that is Mexico doesn't have a special administrative organization for a city, as noted at Guadalajara#Politics, Guadalajara has a Municipal President just like any other municipality. Given that, it looks like Municipalities are more like communes of France or civil parishes in England. Mexico City appears to be a special case, see Mexico_City#Political_structure, and it is organized differently than other parts of the country. --Jayron 32 16:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, almost all cities are civil parishes. Most cities have the powers of a district council, and most districts consist of a number of civil parishes. The more important civil parishes within a district can have their parish council upgraded to town council and appoint a mayor although there is no corresponding upgrade in powers from those of a parish council. London has a mayor and each of its constituent 32 boroughs also has a mayor. The City of London has a Lord Mayor. Some areas have unitary government, which is to say they have the powers of both a district and a county (the county council normally supervises the districts within it). 92.19.171.188 (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- M2545 (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures?

In The Gambler (novel), it states, "if he [Dostoyevsky] did not deliver a novel of 12 or more signatures by 1 November 1866, ..." Any idea what that means? The editor who wrote it is no longer active. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A signature is a group of pages forming a section of a book, wikt:signature #5 and here. In this case is was sixteen pages.[19] Thincat (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, a signature is formed of pages that are folded and stitched together. This is a quick and easy way of binding that signature, but it's limited to how many pages there can be in each one: a multiple of 4 and not too many. As books are longer than a signature can hold, most books need to be bound by making signatures, then binding these signatures into a block, then attaching a hard cover.

Signatures are apparent in old hardbacks - you can see their folds by looking at the top or bottom of the block, near the spine, or even their stitching down the centre of the signature. Signatures having a fixed number of pages is why older books often had blank sheets at the rear, or publishers sometimes used these as a free location for advertising. They also appear where older books had illustration plates grouped together, rather than printing them in-line on each page as for a modern 'picture book' (a technical bookbinding term, not simply a picture book). These groups of plates were printed by offset lithography rather than letterpress (as used for the body text) so were separate sheets: either bound as a whole signature, or placed as the central sheets inside a signature.

Cheap paperbacks - and many modern books - are perfect bound instead. The sheets are placed in a simple stack, then glued at the spine to make the block. No signatures. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, such books also normally go through the signature stage, because it's a necessary consequence of printing the text of several (usually 32) pages on large sheets of paper (rather than on "page-sized" pieces) for reasons of economy; but rather than being sewn into a binding, the folded and assembled signatures are instead guillotined down the spine edge to remove all the folded edges so that the "perfect binding" method (essentially, dipping the cut edges into glue that dries to a flexible state) can be applied. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.75.147 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me. It's one of the entries in Signature (disambiguation). Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not covered in WP as yet, we still need Signature (bookbinding). The brief note on the disambig page isn't accurate either. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree we need Signature (bookbinding) to exist. The disambig eventually leads me to Bookbinding#Terms_and_techniques which says, with reference "A signature, in the context of printed books, is a section that contains text. Though the term signature technically refers to the signature mark, traditionally a letter or number printed on the first leaf of a section in order to facilitate collation, the distinction is rarely made today.[31]"

Is that enough to start a stub? Can you clarify what is not accurate about the statement " a large sheet of paper printed with several pages, which, when folded, is intended to form four or more leaves in the finished book"? I have some guesses but if we can find one or two additional refs a stub should be easy enough to start. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Signature" is often used as a loose synonym of Gathering (bookbinding), about which we do have an article. I'm not sure that a separate article is needed. Deor (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deor thanks, I guess I only knew of "signature" as a synonym for "gathering" or even "section". Shall we merge those articles as suggested in 2015, and maybe put the link to the resulting article on the signature DAB page? SemanticMantis (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Section article could reasonably be merged into the Gathering article. (I'm more familiar with descriptive bibliography, in which gathering is the usual term, than I am with bookbinding per se. I don't know whether section is more or less prevalent than gathering in that field.) With regard to Signature (disambiguation), I'd change the entry beginning "In bookbinding ..." to something like "An alternative name for a Gathering (bookbinding)" and also change the word signatures to gatherings in the "Signature mark" entry. Deor (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I've seen 20th century hardcover books where that "traditional" letter was visible in the finished book; I assume they were normally trimmed away. These were mysteries from the 1930s or so, from a British publisher, that I used to borrow from a university library. They would show the initials of the title, then the signature letter; for example, if the book was Sparkling Cyanide you would see "S.C.—B" on page 17, "S.C.—C" on page 33, "S.C.—D" on page 49, that sort of thing. (Assuming the first page was page 1 rather than page i.) --76.71.6.254 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go to https://books.google.com/books?id=FiJNAAAAYAAJ and check the bottoms of pages 37, 53, 69, and everything else at sixteen-page intervals. You'll see a little number that apparently indicates the signature number. I don't know why page 21 doesn't have such an indicator. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The signature (or gathering) indications in modern books (they're visible in many Penguin paperbacks, for example) are present for the same reason that they have always been used—as a guide to assembling the parts of the book in the correct order before binding. In earlier days (for the most part) catchwords were used for this purpose. Deor (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical puns

Hello,

The following is from Les Miserables:

"The pun is the dung of the mind which soars. The jest falls, no matter where; and the mind after producing a piece of stupidity plunges into the azure depths. A whitish speck flattened against the rock does not prevent the condor from soaring aloft. Far be it from me to insult the pun! I honor it in proportion to its merits; nothing more. All the most august, the most sublime, the most charming of humanity, and perhaps outside of humanity, have made puns. Jesus Christ made a pun on St. Peter, Moses on Isaac, AEschylus on Polynices, Cleopatra on Octavius. And observe that Cleopatra’s pun preceded the battle of Actium, and that had it not been for it, no one would have remembered the city of Toryne, a Greek name which signifies a ladle."

I know of the puns that Jesus Christ and Cleopatra made, but what are those other historical puns that Victor Hugo refers to? 70.82.177.85 (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that the Mosaic reference is from the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. God told the childless couple of Abraham and Sarah, now 100 and 90 years old respectively, that she would conceive (the implication is that it was miraculous), and Abraham laughed at the idea (see 17:17). In response, God commanded them to name the boy "Isaac" (17:19, which is related to the term for laughter — the two have the same triliteral root. See commentaries on the right side of the 17:19 link for more information. Calling it a pun is a bit of a stretch, since many biblical figures' names reflected the circumstances of their birth. For example, see Genesis 30, which speaks of the births of some of Isaac's grandchildren; the footnotes explain the meanings of the names. Ancient Israel (and their ancestors, in this case) apparently didn't use a stock of names as we do; there's such a massive variety of names in the Hebrew Bible, tons of them with clear meanings, that it seems that names were more commonly picked for their meanings than in modern Western society. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree there. God's command is plainly meant to mock Abraham. Not every name would be a pun, but there's an element of humor and irony in God's command to name him Isaac. --Jayron 32 00:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True; this is different from other biblical accounts of parents being directed to choose a name (e.g. John the Baptist, Solomon, and Jesus), because in other cases God gave the name without apparent reference to a specific event, but need mocking wordplay be a pun? If so, yes it's definitely a pun; I just don't think that we have to classify it thus. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To those who do not subscribe to the belief that 'God' actually existed and operated in the way the Biblical accounts describe, "meaningful" names that prefigure subsequent supposed events may suggest that the accounts were composed long afterwards and the individuals in question – or at least their attributed names – are mythical rather than historical. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.75.147 (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant even if true. Even if you consider it a work of fiction, it doesn't mean that wordplay is not obvious. Examples of wordplay in Shakespeare are not invalid even if Shakespeare was writing fiction. --Jayron 32 14:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all irrelevant: it's a rational explanation of how these punning names came to be used, despite them apparently prefiguring future events. Also, I wouldn't classify biblical stories as "fiction" even if they are not literally true: when pious people write down orally transmitted folk myths, they generally believe them to be true, and they may indeed contain elements of truth. Compare, for example, the Iliad and Odyssey, which demonstrably contain some historical foundations even though names like "Odysseus" (and its variations) gave 'Homer' suspiciously wide latitude for punning. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.75.147 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I misinterpreted your response. I had thought you were saying that because the Bible was mythical rather than historical, it couldn't be a pun. Thanks for clarifying. --Jayron 32 18:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, obvious puns do appear in the Hebrew Bible. See the eleventh and twelfth verses of Jeremiah 1: The word of the Lord came to me: "What do you see, Jeremiah?" "I see the branch of an almond tree," I replied. The Lord said to me, "You have seen correctly, for I am watchingb to see that my word is fulfilled." Footnote says that "almond" and "watching" sound really similar. Also, see Micah 1, the latter half of which has a series of puns. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another which I remember reading of many years ago, but for which I cannot now find corroboration, is supposedly that in Aramaic, the words for "word" and "lamb" are identical or nearly so – the frequency of the terms translated as "Word of God" and Lamb of God" would then suggest deliberate wordplay in the original accounts which may now be obscure. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.75.147 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reference to the Toryne one, though I don't get it. Octavius is attacking Antony, and has occupied the town of Toryne. Antony is worried. "Cleopatra jested with his uneasiness: "What a misfortune," said she, "that Octavius should be sitting upon a dipper!" — in Greek Toryne means a dipper." [20] 184.147.120.176 (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Apologies, just realized you already knew that one.184.147.120.176 (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Polynices: “characters whose names are significant in their literal meanings are named after actions or states; for example... Polyneices is the cause of “much strife” in the Seven against Thebes” [21]. 184.147.120.176 (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 70.82.177.85 (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Toryne. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

What are all the steps to follow to shrink back the hippie counterculture?

Is it too late to eliminate the hippie counterculture? What are all the steps to follow to shrink it back? I am trying to eliminate the growth of depictions of sex and nudity that has been occuring in films since 1963 and am also pushing for the creation of more organizations that emphasize the benefits of traditional family values. DarthPalpatineSidious (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing else you can do, because not all people share the same beliefs. Escapism lover (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sex in film and nudity in film go back way before 1963 and bear very little relation to hippie counterculture.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, free love (sex) and "freedom of expression" were two of the tenets of the hippie movement, so they certainly would not have supported censoring sexual images from the media. What the OP wants sounds more like reinstatement of the production code. For a generation (or 3) that fully embraced such values, see Victorian morality. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the OP is referring to when sexual intercourse began. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Where do the driving schools in and near Manhattan train n00bs?

Empty parking lots would be very hard to find. When I learned pedicab driving I drove the thing on an empty industrial sidewalk in the West Side of Manhattan before training in the street but they couldn't do that with a car. Do they all have simulators? Then where'd they train people who'd never touched a gas pedal in their life in the era before simulators were invented? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On streets. Manhattan has streets, you know. See Category:Streets in Manhattan for more about this. --Jayron 32 23:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be irresponsible to take somebody onto the streets until they've had some practice in a safe environment. Empty parking lots may be hard to find during business hours, but how about outside business hours, such as in the evening or weekends at a 9-to-5, M-F business ? StuRat (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even those who are bad at finesse and angles for a 16 year old? Is their collision insurance through the roof? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York City has the highest car insurance rates in the state of New York, by a factor of 2x teh state average. --Jayron 32 01:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For info, in the UK driving schools usually let the new driver onto public streets during their first lesson. The cars have dual controls. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The dual controls would allow it to be done (relatively) safely. StuRat (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here`s a reference to driving on the street in the very first lesson: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/02/drivers-seat 184.147.120.176 (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What era hairstyle does Disney's Sleeping Beauty have?

It seems pretty 1940s to me but the movie was released 1959. Is that a late 50s hairstyle also? -- 23:55, 2 March 2017 Sagittarian Milky Way

We`ve got Hairstyles in the 1950s but not Hairstyles in the 1940s. The article we do have says there were a variety of popular styles and gives the impression that there was less uniformity than in previous decades. For external sources, look at [22] and [23]. Note that Disney began developing the look of the film in 1951, per our article. 184.147.120.176 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rich ladies' 1930s hairstyle. Popular in the 1930s amongst those with the leisure to afford its treatment and with the opportunity to spend their days without it being in the way. In the 1940s, Veronica Lake famously cut hers short as an encouragement to those engaged in war factory work. So by the 1940s this is even more so an affectation of Hollywood, and the aspirational (and propaganda-wise inspiring) actresses of the inspiring pinups and nose art: the 'princesses' of the age.

By the 1950s it's an anachronism, but still aspirational. 'Novel' hairstyles of the 1950s (especially the leisured movie stars) are making use of new technology, such as volumising setting sprays, rather than the 'glued flat' permanent waves of the 1930s. But Disney has always been anachronistic, as a means to appear timeless. So 'princesses' are dressed and coiffured into a remembered past. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British legal texts with change of monarch

In UK law that refers directly to the Monarch (as opposed to referring to the Crown or to other institutions related to the sovereign's person), how does the text handle the possibility of one monarch being succeeded by a new monarch of the opposite sex? Does the text of the law automatically get switched from "Queen" to "King" by some Crown office (perhaps the British analogue of the US government's Government Publishing Office), or does Parliament just always enact laws using the appropriate term for the current monarch and such texts always get interpreted as a reference to the reigning monarch (regardless of sex), or is there another route? Imagine a 1950 law that added to a legal code a piece of text mentioning the King; would some office have updated the code to say "Queen" in 1952, or does it still say "King" and everyone treats it as if it says "Queen"? Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is no, it doesn't get rewritten, but I can't give you a citation. What you can do is look through Legislation.gov.uk, where you can see Acts both as originally enacted and as they are in force today. DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah! I can give you a citation, the Interpretation Act 1978 online here, says "In any Act a reference to the Sovereign reigning at the time of the passing of the Act is to be construed, unless the contrary intention appears, as a reference to the Sovereign for the time being." I rather think this was a statutory restatement of a principle in common law. DuncanHill (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan seems to have hit the nail on the head, but I also thought of the Oath of Allegiance in which one swears to "...be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God". This covers any eventually. Alansplodge (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simiarly in Canada, the Interpretation Act specifies in subsection 35(1) that "In every enactment...Her Majesty, His Majesty, the Queen, the King or the Crown means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her or His other Realms and Territories, and Head of the Commonwealth", and, of course, that "Sa Majesté, la Reine, le Roi ou la Couronne is defined as "Le souverain du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de Ses autres royaumes et territoires, et chef du Commonwealth." Incidentally, the inclusion of "Head of the Commonwealth" is potentially problematic given that seemingly reliable sources disagree as to whether or not that title will be inherited automatically by the present Queen's successors. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, the federal Acts Interpretations Act 1901 says: "In any Act references to the Sovereign reigning at the time of the passing of such Act, or to the Crown, shall be construed as references to the Sovereign for the time being." Evidently Australians aren't as hung up about their Sovereign remaining British as the Canadians are. --165.225.80.99 (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

Did the Soviets have the strength to defeat Germany without the Western Front?

Curious whether Nazi Germany would've been defeated in a 1v1 with USSR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.185.215 (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the page header, which states, "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions, or debate." This is a question that World War II historians have discussed extensively; there are plenty of books, courses, etc. to consult. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been more helpful if you pointed towards the relevant books and articles (not sure what "courses" means in this context), rather than quote an irrelevant bit of the page header. --165.225.80.99 (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how close Germany came to capturing Stalingrad and then Moscow, it seems they needed some help. In addition to the Western front, there was the African front, the Italian front (until it joined up with the rest of the Western Front), and the US supplying the Soviets, under the Arsenal of Democracy concept. Note that Germany taking Stalingrad and Moscow wouldn't have knocked the Soviet Union completely out, but it might have made it impossible for them to defeat Germany alone. StuRat (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the US supplying the Soviets. Churchill diverted to Russia all the Hurricane fighters earmarked for Singapore; that didn't end well. Alansplodge (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to make some assumptions. For example, would the Allied supply of the Soviets have happened in this scenario or not? If the Britain Emrpie/Commonwealth and the US were not at war with Germany but were using their combined industrial might to supply the Soviets, the result would probably have been different. And what about Japan? If there was no Western front, France would have been around and able to defend Annam, while British forces might have successfully defended Hong Kong, Malaya and Singapore. If Japan was defeated early, or if Britain/the Commonwealth and the US were not at war with Japan at all, the result would probably have again been different. Or perhaps, seeing greater obstacles to a southern strategy, Japan would have tried harder to fight the Soviets, and thus opened up an Eastern front for the USSR. --165.225.80.99 (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How much Allied strategic bombing and the Allied naval blockade contributed to the Axis downfall by degrading their industrial output is another factor.

On another tack, two interesting articles: Oversimplification: The Numbers Fallacy in WWII and Statistical confusion – whose troops actually did the fighting in World War Two. The conclusion of the first is that German high-grade divisions were diverted to the western theatres, leaving largely low-grade divisions to slog it out with the largely low-grade Soviet divisions in the east. The second is that comparisons of the number of divisions engaged on the eastern and western fronts are misleading because of the disparity in the size and equipment of those divisions. Alansplodge (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are "the Soviets"? Soviet Red Army land and air forces? Soviet Army, in a continuing pre-D-day situation? Soviet Army, with materiel supply from the West? Soviet Army with Western strategic bombing of German production facilities? Soviet Army against a Germany that has occupied the UK, Egypt and is not at war with the US? I think there's a sizable difference between each of these - although I think that Stalin's "victory at all costs" meatgrinder would have got there eventually, even without. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind a 1v1; I think there is a historical consensus that Hitler probably would have defeated the Russians if he did not change his mind from assaulting Moscow to go attack Stalingrad instead.--WaltCip (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans could certainly have taken Moscow in 1941, but would that have won them the war? The Soviets had already relocated much of their war industry behind the Urals [24] and the Germans were relying on immense and lengthening supply chains dependant largely horses and carts. So perhaps, as Napoleon found out in 1812, winning Moscow was not winning the war. Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the strategic value of Moscow? The Soviets, as a command economy, were the belligerent most easily capable of enduring the relocation of their capital city (which Napoleon had already burned).

What for that matter was the strategic value of Stalingrad? It was not the city that Hitler needed, it was a crossing of the Volga. He became fixated on the real estate of the city and forgot the real prize. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order. Napoleon did not set the fire. There are two different traditional narratives, and neither places the blame at Napoleon's feet. They are 1) The Russians set the fire to fuck Napoleon and his army[25] [26] and 2) It was an accident due to the abandonment of the city and no one left to put it out.[27]. Either way, Napoleon certainly didn't set the fire. --Jayron 32 00:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resource for finding locations of paintings by artist?

Is there an online resource that can show or list what museums house works by a certain artist? I've had a few too many trips to art museums only to find out later that a work by a favorite artist was there and I somehow missed it or never thought to look for it in the first place since I didn't know it was there. For instance, something specific like a list of North American museums with Jan van Eyck or Gustav Klimt paintings would be extremely useful. NIRVANA2764 (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you not only need to know which museum houses the works, but when they display it, or the work of art may be out on loan, being cleaned, etc., when you visit. I suggest you call before visiting, to confirm that the work you are interested in is currently displayed. I would be skeptical that any third-party site would be kept up-to-date on when each item is actually displayed. StuRat (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source of "irrationality" argument

I'm trying to remember where I heard a certain argument. It may have been a work of fiction, but if so, it seemed like the kind of thing that the author thought was serious.

Note that I'm not soliciting opinions on whether the argument makes sense; I just want to figure out where I heard it.

The argument goes something like this:

There are no circumstances under which it would advantage the United States to use its strategic nuclear deterrent.
Therefore, if the United States is rational, its strategic nuclear deterrent will never be used.
The adversaries of the United States can figure this out, so if the United States is perceived as rational, then its strategic nuclear deterrent is of no value.
Therefore the United States went to war in Vietnam, to prove to its adversaries that it was not rational.

Does this ring a bell with anyone? It seems to be along the lines of drama theory and confrontation analysis.

It's not a fictional philosophy. It's a real one called brinksmanship, which means "prove to your enemies you're crazy enough to end the world, and they'll leave you alone". John Foster Dulles used it as his primary philosophy of dealing with the Soviets during his time as U.S. Secretary of State. --Jayron 32 23:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recall something like this being discussed in a game theory class I took in college, regarding rational vs. irrational players. In the context of a grim trigger strategy, such as mutually assured destruction or a doomsday weapon, would any rational player actually follow his own strategy? The reason being that any rational person would prefer bullying by a foreign power, or some of his countrymen being killed, to the literal end of the world. Therefore a foreign power need not worry about retaliation in response to anything short of destroying the opponent utterly. This is apparently discussed at this source, which I cannot access. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the US were under an attack with nuclear bombs, why would they not throw nuclear bombs? That won't be the end of the world. Just the end of the attacker. If the war is US/Russia the world would be maybe at a certain risk. But even then, why not take your attacker down, if he wants to destroy you. All other nuclear powers too could be dead sure that they would be ripped off the map if they attacked the US with a nuclear bomb. Hofhof (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making the argument, just trying to figure out where I heard it. But I think the position of the argument would be that the United States is doomed either way, and so there is no advantage to the United States in destroying the attacker. I suppose that does depend on what constitutes an "advantage" according to one's value system. --Trovatore (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who makes the argument, it is still called brinksmanship. --Jayron 32 00:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was a useful response, Jayron, and I neglected to thank you. So, thank you. But I'm still trying to figure out where I heard it. Maybe Dr. Strangelove? Seems a bit too early for Vietnam. --Trovatore (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry not to be able to help you there. I'm afraid Dr. Strangelove would have been my best guess, it was a direct satire of brinksmanship. As I said, it's not fictional, it's pretty much consensus that it was the foreign policy of the U.S. during the 1950s-1960s. For the record with regard to Vietnam, the usual justification for that specific war was the domino theory, though rather than Dulles being responsible for that one, McGeorge Bundy and Robert McNamara are usually credited as major proponents of the domino theory as justification for escalation of the Vietnam war. --Jayron 32 01:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Strangelove did refer to MAD (although perhaps not by name), but not to Vietnam. StuRat (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romanov

Other than the Mecklenburg siblings of Ivan VI and the future Peter III, who else was considered a viable Romanov heir for the Empress Elizabeth of Russia or were these the last of the family?--96.41.155.253 (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] AUTHI, JASBIR (28 AUG 2013). "Meet the Joneses - the real Birmingham family of two single mums and sons chosen for library statue". Birmingham Mail. Retrieved 3 March 2017. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[2] "Volunteer for LibriVox". Librivox. Retrieved 3 March 2017.

[3] "Learning Ally Volunteers". Retrieved 3 March 2017.

[1]

[1]

[2]