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.

May 18

publicly owned pets

Are there recorded examples of quadrupeds who hung out in towns but did not belong to any specific person? I feel like there’s been a film or show about one of those, but I have no idea what it was (if anything). — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 07:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military mascot might meet some of your criteria. Phil Holmes (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romanophile -- Semi-feral cats, who at least partially rely on human food handouts, but are not part of a human household, are quite common in some areas. The cats of Rome have been described and depicted a number of times (what Wikipedia has on this is apparently in the Largo di Torre Argentina article), while recently there was the movie Kedi (2016 film) about cats in Istanbul... AnonMoos (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks that live on and around public ponds are common throughout at least the developed world, the municipal parks authorities usually bear some responsibility to maintain their habitats but do not actually own them. Various sacred animals associated with certain deities in India may be fed/maintained by temples. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sacred geese in the temple of Juno, who are supposed to have saved Rome from a Gaulish attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wymspen (talk • contribs) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks and geese may have four limbs, but are bipeds. See Quadrupedalism. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Street dog, urban fox, rats and mice, grey squirrels. All these may occasionally be treated as pets. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be the Canadian Parliamentary Cats. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Larry the 10 Downing Street cat, the Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenton, Tennessee has a large population of white squirrels, who are featured in an annual festival and protected from harm by local law enforcement. Original research warning: I have been there and seen them. A restaurant owner said that when non-white squirrels are seen in town they are "encouraged to leave." If I recall correctly, they did not have pink eyes as one might expect in albinos, so they may just simply be white furred animals. The would seem to qualify as municipal animals.Edison (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Encouraged" to be put into a big pot of burgoo given my understanding of the culinary history of the area... --Jayron 32 13:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall an old British film (1940's maybe ?) where a dog was ordered to be destroyed as a stray, but a barrister (lawyer) argued that the dog was in fact public property, and therefore not a stray, and not subject to the law. This dog would "do his rounds" where he visited various residents and locations. StuRat (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of Greyfriars Bobby (1961), a Disney production but set in Scotland: "Bobby's fate rests with the Lord Provost of Edinburgh (Andrew Cruickshank) and, without a license and someone to take responsibility for Bobby, he may be destroyed. The children of Edinburgh contribute their pennies for Bobby's license. Bobby is declared a Freeman of the City and adopted by the populace of Edinburgh". The film is loosely based on an actual 19th century dog, Greyfriars Bobby. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's the one. StuRat (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no large city at the mouth of the Susquehanna or Connecticut River?

Philly and Wilmington are at the mouth of the Delaware (or close enough), New York's at the mouth of the Hudson, Boston's at the mouth of the Charles, DC has both tidal Potomac and the head of navigation (but inner DC was on soggy ground so I can see why there was nothing there in 1787), Hampton Roads has the mouth of the James.. I guess Cairo, Illinois at the mouth of the Ohio isn't big because it needs a 64 foot tall flood wall. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pure speculation here: the Susquehanna is fairly shallow at its mouth and therefore probably never played an important role in shipping. With little industry depending on the river for transportation, no city grew to support it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not speculation at all: The text of the article Connecticut River states in clear English why there is no large port there. I will not insult SMW by quoting the text he could read himself in the article he cited. The Susquehanna does have a small but significant city at its mouth, Havre de Grace, Maryland; it was a significant enough port that it was seriously floated as a Capital for the United States. Its proximity to Baltimore; which has a better natural harbor, probably prevented Havre de Grace's development into a larger city. Many major early American cities were sited and grew up around large, well-protected harbors rather than the size of the river they were sited near; compare New York (Upper New York Bay), Boston (Boston Harbor), etc. Boston is particularly a good parallel for Baltimore; just as Baltimore's harbor is more important than the Susquehanna in terms of siting a city, Boston is not sited at the mouth of the the Merrimack River, which is a very important river in New England, but which also has no major settlement at its mouth. Mouths of rivers are only useful where they also include a well-protected harbor; not merely for being rivers. --Jayron 32 15:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Site is different from cite. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So corrected. --Jayron 32 16:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If someone posts a link which they have not actually read, they could be said to have "sighted" it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of cite, out of mined. —Tamfang (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia is nowhere near the mouth of the Delaware, although it is at the mouth of the Schuylkill River. Baltimore and Philadelphia are suitable inland ports with access to the upper Delaware and Susquehanna. Plenty of people not native to the are actually think Philadelphia is on the coast, while in fact it is an hour's drive inland from Atlantic City at the South Jersey shore. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia lowest elevation: sea level. Just like Baltimore. I really don't know where the mouth of the Delaware is, it just sort of fades into its bay without getting much wider in a short or shortish distance like the Hudson or Charles. Delaware Bay seems to suggest it's Wilmington. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Delaware river is tidal up to Trenton, NJ, so if we want to talk about where the river ends, it's still nowhere near Philadelphia. You are trying to force words onto things. Words are human tools, not Platonic Ideals. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoomed in, Google Maps apparently keeps saying Delaware River till the Mad Horse Creek Wildlife Management Area which is way downstream of Wilmington. So Wilmington is wrong too? There's also different kinds of tidal infiltration. Saltwater can infiltrate on the river bottom when the surface never drops close to high tide. Then there's where the surface is the height of high tide but it's still like 2+ feet above sea level. 0 feet would be less riverine than that and reaching the low tide level of the area at low tide would be less riverine than that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here:

The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) uses a stream location and identification system based on river mileage. The stream mileage system was published by DRBC staff in 1969 with revisions in 1988. The mileage system for the Delaware River and Bay consists of a "mile zero" and a line along which distances from mile zero are measured (the "mileage line").

What is "Mile Zero?"

Mile zero is located at the mouth of the Delaware Bay (i.e., where the bay meets the Atlantic Ocean) at the intersection of a line between the Cape May Light (New Jersey) and the tip of Cape Henlopen (Delaware) with the centerline of the navigation channel. The position of this point is Latititude 38° 50' 32" N and Longitude 75° 03' 18" W.

This makes sense as there is not a clear dividing line between the river and the bay, the river gradually widens into the bay and there is not any meaningful way to differentiate the end of the "river" as there is no delta or similar structure as there is with some other rivers. As Medeis notes, the estuary system (where the river has tidal influences) begins way further north than what is typically called Delaware Bay, at Trenton. From Trenton southwards, there's no meaningful line to draw to say "the River ends here and the Bay starts here" except in a purely arbitrary way; there's no particularly geographic reason to choose one spot or another, the DRBC's definition above is as good as anyone's, Google's is fine too, as is "Wilmington-ish" or the southern limit of the Twelve Mile Circle or any of a number of other places. As Medeis notes, also, it's not that important; understanding how the entire hydrologic system works is probably more interesting than picking some arbitrary point where the river becomes the bay. --Jayron 32 02:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, you might want to read the 2nd, 3rd and last quotes in the header of my talk page. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salinity, and surface freezing are also relevant. The water at Philly is normally fresh but sometimes brackish, and normally unfrozen even on the coldest day of the year, but it sometimes freezes for weeks. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mention DC. There was a little city at the head of navigation of the Potomac river: Georgetown. Ships could reach it from the sea but could not go further upstream because of the rapids. -Arch dude (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those rapids being the Great Falls (Potomac River). The limit of navigability for many rivers on the East coast of the U.S. lies downstream of the Atlantic Seaboard fall line. --Jayron 32 14:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the limit of navigation is at Little Falls, which is where Georgetown is. Great Falls is well upstream from there. -Arch dude (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying a prayer before a meal by Christians and Muslims

I observe that Christians only pray before a meal in groups but never individually, but Muslims do so individually in public. By the way, I think I can distinguish Christians from Muslims. Muslims wear a headscarf and/or pray in Arabic. Christians have no headscarf and pray in English. Why do Christians never pray individually, when eating alone? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know they don't? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From my observations in the movies, Christians gather and hold a prayer. In real life, I see Muslims praying solo. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Movies are generally fictional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Among the many misconceptions of your post, I present: Christian headcovering. Minimal research will also find Muslims without hijabs, Christians praying in Arabic, Muslims praying in English, Christians praying individually, and, I strongly suspect, Muslims praying collectively. — Lomn 18:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note the specific wording was head scarves and a substantial proportion of of Muslims don't wear headscarves as these generally refer to specific types of coverings only generally worn by women except sometimes for practical reasons (in which case the religion is probably moot). Even if you call the Keffiyeh a head scarf, many Muslim men do not wear that, as it's even more of a cultural thing than the headscarf. This isn't to say all Muslim women wear headscarves, as some don't wear any head coverings and others wear things like the Niqāb not generally considered a headscarf. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that the world population is about 7 billion people, right? And that you've probably only observed a few thousand of them at most, right? So, your experience and your observations only account for something like 0.01 % of all people in the world? So why would you decide to base your understanding only upon your observation when your observation is such a meaningless portion of humanity? You could instead read about these religious groups and learn about all of the different kinds of people you've never had the opportunity to meet. There's a billion muslims and a billion Christians in the world, and their diversity of religious practice is bewildering (there are probably several hundred to several thousand different sects of EACH, and there's a wide variance in practices between each sect!) Wikipedia has articles titled Christianity and Islam that are probably a good start; your local university or college may offer courses in Comparative religion which would expose you to the diversity of faiths and practices... In short, don't trust your personal observation of human behavior as anything resembling universal; humans are far too vast and diverse for any one person's individual interactions to create any larger picture. --Jayron 32 19:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean 0.0001%. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even moreso. --Jayron 32 11:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- And the OP is talking about observance of actors playing Christians in movies, where a group prayer would be part of the plot and the dialogue - as with the family's weekly Sunday dinner gatherings on Blue Bloods. Someone praying alone in a movie would inherently tend to lack dialogue (unless God talks back). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is also appropriate for this question to note that in the Simpsons the Rigel 7 Children's Choir sings before a communal meal 'Tasty creature, we salute you. ((Slurp) For your juicy sacrifice. (Slurp)' Might I suggest yet again a quick check with Google when one has a query before posing them here. Dmcq (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look in Wikipedia and unfortunately the articles on comparing religions are mostly with a Christian bias. A big difference between Christians and Muslims in general is that Christianity is more oriented towards saving the individual - it is more of a personal religion, whereas Islam is more oriented towards working within a society. Rituals are much more important to Muslims even if they are alone and their thoughts and deeds otherwise are not so important in general, in this way they tend to be much closer to Jews than Christians. Dmcq (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 19

Peel & Co

Are two sets of Peels connected? The politicians who descended from Sir Robert Peel, 1st Baronet (including his son the prime minister) started their fortune with cotton mills. The family associated with Peel & Co., founded in Alexandria just before Victoria's accession in 1837, made their money exporting cotton (and wheat). The Peel Society offers an essay from 1852 showing more Peels than I can count. Were the cotton exporters and the cotton manufacturers related? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Edward Peel (big-game fisherman) says he was a member of the Peel family - see Earl Peel. Wymspen (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been working on the article that we both linked to. That unsourced statement re the relationship is what I am seeking to verify, or enlarge upon. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A stub "Sir Edward Peel" was speedy deleted[1] when it looked like this and, after it was restored at DRV, I improved the article retaining the original content "Peel was the son of William Felton Peel, of the wealthy aristocratic Peel family" (which I had a hunch was true but could not reference). I now see the information about his father is at odds with this maybe reliable source and have discovered from a "blog" that "Sir Robert Peel (1750-1830) ... his brother’s great-grandson, William Felton Peel (1839-1907), lived at Comberford Hall until 1902".[2] But, and I suspect this is no coincidence, Edward Peel's executors included John Willoughby Peel and Denys Felton Peel.[3] I'm not sure how this fits together (or doesn't). Contact me on my talk page if you think I can help more. Thincat (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've now found this but I'm too far into genealogy for my Wikipedian comfort. Thincat (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEXUS_(frequent_traveler_program)

NEXUS_(frequent_traveler_program):

   NEXUS members entering Canada may use a NEXUS machine to make customs declarations, as long as the member's irises are on file with the CBSA.

   NEXUS members entering the United States, either at preclearance facilities or by landing in the US, can use the Global Entry kiosks, as long as the member's fingerprints are on file.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scala Cats (talk • contribs) 04:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the iris scans only apply when entering Canada? Are there no iris scans when entering the US for NEXUS members or am I reading it wrong? I always thought that the US immigration checks were much stricter than the Canadian ones. Scala Cats (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what do the numbers mean?

Hi, on this page, I find Steven Pinker is a "42.77". So what is a 42.77? I can tell it's, the higher the better, but apart from that, I can't find anything, and I can't find any site help there. IBE (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you've already seen this, but the website has some fairly limited information. 92.29.152.96 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you'd imagine, some academics have asked the same question.[4] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hovering over the number in OP's link shows it to be his "RG Score". The last paragraph of ResearchGate#Features states that this is a "citation impact measurement" that "is not a citation impact measure", but correlates with citation impact measures, and that the exact method of calculating it is unknown.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, Wikipedia has an article on that: Citation impact. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:1 (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Gibraltar a country?

Does Gibraltar count as a country? Or Is Gibraltar in a country, like Illinois is in the US?--94.143.77.231 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar is an British Overseas Territory. It isn't considered part of the United Kingdom or are part of the European Union. While it governs most of its internal affairs, things like defense and foreign relations are handled by the British government. uhhlive (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be a British Overchannel Territory (plus some driving through France and Spain) ? Or, now that they have the Chunnel, perhaps a British Underchannel Territory. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Correction - Gibraltar is currently within the European Union, as is the UK. Perhaps not for much longer though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps? I'd say it's highly probable. Brexit is for real. --Hofhof (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "country" has many different meanings. Many people equate "country" with "sovereign state", but the two are not always synonymous - for example, Scotland is a country but not a sovereign state. Gibraltar is not a sovereign state. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm... Scotland was a sovereign state... Gibraltar never has been. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois was invented in 1818 and thus was never a country. Illinois Territory had even less power than a state. Vermont has been a country though. Mostly. Texas too. And California, New York, Georgia, two Carolinas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Jersey (New, not regular (Jersey Jersey, the Jersey near France that's not Jersey Shore or Jersey Boys)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And how is all that relevant to the status of Gibraltar? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A better analogy might be the United States Virgin Islands which is a US unincorporated territory. Alansplodge (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the OP did ask if Gibraltar was "like Illinois is in the US?". The answer is no. Gibraltar has no representation in the UK Parliament except for the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who has responsibility for three of the Overseas Territories. Alansplodge (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most do not consider the original 13 colonies to have ever been independent countries. Rmhermen (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, they were recognized as 13 independent countries ("sovereign and independent states") in the Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolutionary War. As a practical matter they didn't become a single country until the new U.S. Constitution provided for a powerful federal government starting in 1789. --69.159.60.50 (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They [the Thirteen Colonies] weren't represented in the UK Parliament either. The Gibraltarians seem rather happier with that arrangement. Alansplodge (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does British TV news ever say Breenter or Bremoan?

Or are those too informal? Bremain was said on the news right? Does the man on the Clapham Omnibus use these? Are there other Brewords? Like Brenter (referring to the original entering in the 20th century), Brestroy, Brein and out, Brevolving door..? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, never heard of any of them. Alansplodge (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen Bremain and Bremoan. The rest I made up. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nor have I. Brexit has an entry in the OED, but the others are more jokes than words (by OED standards). Dbfirs 00:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bremain does have a few Google results for British newspapers [5] but I can assure you that it was not a word in common use. However, I have heard of Nexit. Alansplodge (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "nexit" what happened when Netflix doubled their rates and sent their customers a letter saying they were doing this to improve customer satisfaction? μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times and Comey memo

How did the New York Times obtain the Comey memo? Did they obtain a written copy or did someone read it out loud to a reporter over the phone?Uncle dan is home (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I heard it described on one US TV news clip as being from "a source very close to Comey". In the British media and political milieux this phrasing is a stock formula which everyone understands really means "directly from Comey himself on the strict condition of non-attribution." Does the same convention hold in the US? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Times itself reports on the 16th: Mr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter. Hence the Times has positively claimed that it has not seen the memo (which many take to mean it was read over the phone) does not know its full contents, and that Comey himself was not the leaker. Of course we have only the Times own word for this. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words... the Times reported on unsubstantiated claims. Oh Well... at least they were honest about it not being substantiated. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak World War play

Does anyone know the name of this Slovak World War play? I saw it in the Slovak National Theatre but as I don't speak Slovak, I don't remember much of how it ended (post-intermission), however the first half was about some social-conflict in their village/community after someone dies. If it may help, I believe I saw it on 19 September 2016. I REMEMBER reading the story on WP that evening.Lihaas (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have been one of the several dramatic adaptations of the novel The Good Soldier Švejk? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Guide to Theatre (p. 276) suggests Midnight Mass (1959) and Antigone and the others (1962), both plays by Peter Karvaš about the Second World War. Alansplodge (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugen Suchoň: Krútňava (Whirlpool) played on 17 Sept and 24 Sept. [6] The plot could fit. Rmhermen (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, whirlpool. Thanks.

Gotta check out the oters too ;)Lihaas (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 20

Industrial power rate

Is there an updated version of this list[7]? That data is from 2002 so it's getting a little dated. Scala Cats (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What grows in the Fertile Crescent?

How is the fertile crescent fertile? I've seen pictures of that place, and it looks like sand and desert. Where is the food? Where is the water? Where are the lush green plants and fruitful trees? Similarly, there is Egypt. Egypt looks like a lot of sand and sandy-colored pyramids. Maybe the Egyptians had to figure out a way to catch fish? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even try to read the article Fertile Crescent before asking the question? I found the answer to your initial question in about 4 seconds. There's at least 8 major staple crops listed there in a single sentence. --Jayron 32 02:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do these crops grow in the desert? Are they really desert crops? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a desert. --Jayron 32 03:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following reference should be of interest:

Jan van der Crabben (23 February 2011). "Agriculture in the Fertile Crescent". Ancient History Encyclopedia.

2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Wikipedia's article on Jan van der Crabben is about a musician with no mentioning about studies of the agriculture in the fertile crescent. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, wrong Jan. Try this one: [8] — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it still isn't a desert. here and here and here are images of the Tigris valley. here and here and here are images of the Euphrates valley. Here and here and here are images of the Nile valley in Egypt. Here and here and here are images of the Jordan River valley Those are the four main rivers of the Fertile Crescent. Certainly, there are deserts in the middle east, but not in the Fertile Crescent, which is well irrigated by these rivers and the hydrologic systems that support them. --Jayron 32 03:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how plants can colonize the land nearby a desert. I see deserts right behind the lush greenness in those pictures. What would impede the plants from colonizing further into land? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you stand nearby an intelligent person, it doesn't make you intelligent. If you stand right behind someone who can read and understand what they read, it doesn't mean you can. Same thing here. --Jayron 32 19:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of water? Dbfirs 14:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Nile and the Tigris/Euphrates were subject to regular flooding, so these rivers not only provided a water source but regularly dumped fertile sediments in the flood plains. Land even a short distance from the flood plain had neither benefit. [9] Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also potentially high salinity (salt pans), the slight insulating effect of water on local temperatures, and sandy soils/hard clays/exposed bedrock being too loose/unbroken for plants to take root. Alcherin (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The flood plains have soil and water because of flooding, the surrounding hills don't. That seems to be the crux of the matter. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a picture taken in a marshy area of the land between the rivers:File:Marsh Arabs in a mashoof.jpg. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do humans think they own pieces of the earth?

Is owning property a humanly way to mark one's territory, but instead of using body odor, humans use language? But then, there is the idea that land ownership can be transferred from one human to another, especially by blood. What about the extraterrestrial objects? Who owns the moon, the sun, stars, the asteroids, and other celestial bodies? Is buying land just a peaceful way to own land instead of fighting aggressively for a place on the earth and defending it to the death? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imagining a prehistoric tribe of humans, I think land ownership is a way to mark territorial boundaries. Humans tend to be highly territorial creatures and feel threatened when a foreign group of humans encroach on the property unexpectedly, consuming precious resources. The two groups of humans come together and work together to form a bigger group, because somehow cooperation helps both sides survive better. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Land tenure is studied in anthropology.
Sleigh (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one owns the moon. International space law is governed by the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.
Sleigh (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the treaties, the Moon is obviously part of the US... there is, after all, a faded American flag flying on it, as well as trash strewn about and an abandoned car sitting in the yard. 😉 Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you accept that humans can justly write laws and treaties regarding ownership of the Moon, you have already accepted that they have jurisdition over it. Which is but another form of ownership. - Nunh-huh 08:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomadic tribes have existed since humans did.Lihaas (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomads in general consider themselves to have land rights or usage rights to particular areas and anyone encroaching on them risks a violent confrontation. Dmcq (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in formality though. See the conflict in Africa (as you've mentioned). Double edged sowrd.Lihaas (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage abroad

Hi,

If a man gets married abroad but didn't notify his embassy, is he legally married in his country of origin? If not, can he get married again in another country? And what would happen if the country of origin finds out? They wouldn't notify the country of residence and put their citizen into trouble I guess. Thank you for you answers! 114.219.39.107 (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know royal members married internationally (Catherine the Great, for example), and the marriage was legit because it was solemnized by a cleric. So yep, your hypothetical person may be legally married in his country of origin and the residential country. There is also recognition of common law marriage. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the laws of the various applicable countries. It could also depend on what they could get away with. I recall an episode of Who Do You Think You Are? (U.S. TV series) in which Kim Catrall discovered that her grandfather had abandoned his British family, moved to Australia, and remarried (bigamously). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) As with nearly all things with a large number of jurisdictions, there's no simple answer for this. In some countries you do not generally need to do anything for your marriage to be recognised in your home country e.g. NZ [10], UK [11]. Exceptions would be when there is question over legality of your marriage, but in such cases you may not always be able to do anything. (I.E. You don't have a process to apply to have you marriage recognised.) Also remember that in certain cases, e.g. bigamy, the marriage may not actually be valid in the country where you had it performed (or at least you may have violated the law) anyway. However there are obviously some cases where a marriage may be valid in some other country but not in the home country. (Polygamy, underage and marriages where the couple are closely related, and issues relating to the sex or gender of the partners are obvious examples.)

In other countries, e.g. Norway [12] or Israel [13], you do need to register your marriage locally in some fashion.

Note for any country there may be multiple levels of recognition. For example, while you marriage may technically be recognised in the home country, local authorities and businesses may require some sort of proof and they may or may not accept documentation from another country. (Notably, immigration laws and regulations may require something beyond simple documentation before a marriage is considered genuine although this can apply to locally performed marriages too.)

I don't personally know of any country which makes it illegal to marry overseas without notification but it wouldn't be surprising. Per International marriage (Japan) and [14], Japan requires notification within 3 months of the marriage. It's not explained what happens if you don't notify, it may simply be it's difficult or impossible to get the marriage recognised locally (i.e. you may just have to re-marry in Japan).

Remember if you marriage isn't recognised locally, you could be penalised for anything you do which isn't allowed for an unmarried couple. E.g. having sex if the country makes it illegal for unmarried couples to have sex, or if one of the partners is underage but of sufficient age if married. In fact, since a number of countries apply extraterritorial jurisdiction to child sex crimes and the ages for these can be quite high, it's possible you may be in violation of your home countries' law even if you only had sex where you got married. Laws penalising things like bigamy, polygamy, underage or maybe some other types of illegal marriages may also apply regardless of where the marriages were performed. (And getting back to my earlier point, the local jurisdiction may simply not allow such marriages, e.g. due to one partner being underage or if the couple are considered excessively related or issues surrounding the sex or gender of the partners; and there may also be laws covering sex or other aspects of these relationships so their actions could be illegal, notification or not.)

Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Polygamy in the United Kingdom for an example of some of the contortions this sort of thing involves. Dmcq (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also the ramifications of same-sex marriage. A Saudi man and a Canadian man can get married in Canada; good luck having that union recognised in Saudi. And in addition to polygamous marriage, referred to above, there is cousin marriage as well. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that same-sex marriage related issues don't just affect a man trying to marry a man or a woman trying to marry a woman, hence the reason for my wording above. If one partner was assigned male or female at birth but considers themselves female or male; and the other partner is of the opposite gender, they may not classify themselves as a same-sex couple. However some countries will refuse to recognise the person's gender identity or may require certain conditions which aren't met. If they also don't allow same-sex marriage, it's unlikely they will recognise any marriage (assuming it's only one of the partner's who's gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth). Yet another country may recognise the gender identity and therefore recognise a marriage, even if they don't recognise same-sex marriage. (It's nominally possible a third country won't recognise the gender identity but does recognise same-sex marriage so will allow marriage.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of Greece

Looking at various maps it seems that they all differ regarding the depiction of the German occupation zone in Greece during WWII. Take a look at these examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greece_Prefectures_1941-44.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Greece_during_WWII.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triple_Occupation_of_Greece.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Occupation_de_la_grece_(1941-1944)_-fr.png?uselang=fr https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/East/Balkans/maps/AG/AG-Balkans-2.jpg https://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/map/lc/image/gre76060.gif Is there some kind of reference, like an official map from that time, showing the real borders? Thanks! --151.41.178.80 (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the maps are largely identical with only small variations (precise borders and some of the Aegean islands), except for the ibiblio one that seems to omit the German zone by the Turkish border and Italian zone on Crete, and shifts the German-Italian border far to the east Alcherin (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. They differ in so many places that I honestly don't know how to replicate. --151.41.178.80 (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec torture

What is the word for the group of mostly kids who were tortured and experimented upon in Quebec some 70-odd years ago. I believe its at least partially a French word. (2 words I think). Thanks.Lihaas (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might be thinking of the Duplessis Orphans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks.Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European countries becoming Muslim-majority countries

How long will it be before certain European countries such as Germany become Muslim-majority countries if current trends of mass Muslim immigration combined with low birth rates continue?96.36.40.53 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Europe will stop taking Muslim immigrants before then. Look at Britain, despite considerable drawbacks stopping immigration was enough to make Brexit win by a few tenths of a percent while it is still 85% white and Trump won so America can have a wall. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A study says that Muslims will outnumber Christians by 2070, but the same report claims that Muslims will make up only 10 percent of Europe's population [15]. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's so long from now the demographic transition will probably happen and the Muslim population will never rise much above 10%. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer really depends on what projected rates of future immigration and birth rates you use, since you'd have to extrapolate the data. Alcherin (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a valid historical example see Reconquista. You may also research the demography of the Americas where the immigration of Europeans, Africans and other ethnicities had some consequences. Homo sapiens vs Homo Neantahliensis is also interesting. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certain European countries already are muslim majority/plurality (Bosnia (Sarajevo/Federation, in particular) and Albania; with significantly large minorities in Macedonia and Bulgaria.

Also, in that vein, don't forget about conversion by natives. Similarly, Europe was Christianized too (with Saapmi's being the last). So never say never.

Also per the immediate above, also Aus/NZ and Africa were not originally Christian nor Muslim but now constitute not far from 100%. (some syncretic animism in the latter and atheism/agnosticism in the former.) While E/ Timor and Philippines are also an example. For that matter Arab paganism too.Lihaas (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons outlined by Adam Bishop, I'm reluctant to answer this but since it already has so many answers perhaps it's worth pointing out that you should expand conversion, to include people simply completely giving upon religion (or changing religion without anyone trying to convert them). In other words the rate of loss and gain or religious followers separate from birth and immigration. Anyone who tells you they can predict any of these trends should give me money since they're clearly a real Nostradamus so must have more than they know what to do with. Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a valid point.Lihaas (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone hadn't noticed, this is some dumb Eurabia conspiracy shit. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that going to be Shia or Sunni? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe , defiantely Sunni. ;)Lihaas (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian woman's surname

For the purpose of alphabetization in WP categories (via DEFAULTSORT), which is the main surname of prominent midwife educator Aisha Moh’d Kazaure who hails from northern Nigeria? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most Hausa don't use "surnames" in the Western sense. They usually don't have a "family" name shared by the whole family. They have a given name (usually Arabic and they can acquire other names throughout their lives), a patronymic, and sometimes another name to differentiate them from others with the same given name/patronymic sequence, such as a title, a grandfather's name or a geographical name. In this case, "Aisha" is the given name. "Moh'd", a contraction of Muhammad, is likely the patronymic. "Kazaure" indicates that she has roots in the Kazaure district of Nigeria. When Hausa are required by Westerners to indicate which is their "surname" it is often a matter of personal choice, so it's up to the individual. I believe, however, that in cases like this where the name is basically "Aisha, daughter of Mohammad, from Kazaure", the patronymic (Moh'd) is most likely to be the surname. This might have some helpful information: "Hausa Names".--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 20:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the overview you've provided, my inclination is to leave her entry alphabetized under "A" for her given name, as it's likely this is how she's known and certainly matches the usage on the page I linked in the query, including the cited references. One, from the Edo State page on nairaland.com, refers to another program whose contact persons are "Dr. Mrs. Joy" and "Dr. Mrs. Grace." This offers insight into usage elsewhere that we can appropriately (?) adopt. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

Snow White's characteristics

Snow White is often described as having black hair, light-colored skin like snow (hence snow white), and red lips; and the story supposedly takes place in Germany. How common is black hair in Germany? I thought that the farther north you go, you would see lighter and lighter features. Also, how can a person have black hair (not albino) and snow-white skin (possibly albino)? What's with the black hair? I would have thought that a girl from East Asia with black hair and a powdered face would have those features, but I can't imagine a Northern European having those features. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) It's a work of fiction, so it is not beholden to actual rules; your desire for it to be other than it is does not change its nature, Snow White is characterized the way she is even if you wish she hadn't been. Your imagination, or lack thereof, doesn't change anything about the already-written story. 2) This table can be used to find distributions of hair and eye colors in the Germanophone world (Germany, Switzerland, Austria). Black is relatively rare, but not entirely unknown, and regardless, it wouldn't actually change the actual way Snow White was actually described. Your incredulity doesn't change it. --Jayron 32 04:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If black hair is relatively rare, then has anybody written anything about the symbolism of the physical characteristics? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have. Maybe something there can provide you wish some additional reading. --Jayron 32 04:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um... I'm not sure if you read that search result, but that search result doesn't show anything pertinent to Snow White's snow-white skin color. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first item on Jayron's google search, at least for me, is this:[16] which gives an explanation for the color scheme. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that one, this and this and this and dozens more from the same. I'm not sure 50.4 wants additional reading so much as he wants to argue with reality. --Jayron 32 05:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not answering this question clearly or directly. This is not productive. Hatting this. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I un-hatted it. It's evident you're not reading the links you've been provided. And you don't own the thread. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the OP wants to hear is that the Disney version is only b-------. Well ? --Askedonty (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the references don't answer the question, please explain why and we can offer further help. The references seem to be fairly simple English, so it's resonable to expect you can read and understand them. If you are unable to read or understand them for whatever reason, the reference desk isn't the place for you so you should stop hanging around. This is not Yahoo Answers or even Stack Exchange. People will summarise or quote references when they are very long and the answer is in a small part, or the reference may be difficult to access (e.g. behind paywall or the OP is known to have access issues because of where they live) but since this is a reference desk, links to references with answers is a completely acceptable answer. If you don't like that the solution is for you to find a place more suited for you, not for you to hat any answer which doesn't fit your preferred form. Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50.4 might find this item educational:[17] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In some parts of Ireland, the combination of black hair and pale skin was apparently traditionally considered undesirable... AnonMoos (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although that's a VERY common Irish trait, see Black Irish: "a reference to a dark-haired phenotype appearing in people of Irish origin. However, dark hair in people of Irish descent is common, although darker skin complexions appear less frequently". Alansplodge (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for pale skin, note that a lack of exposure to sunlight can result in that, for people of northern European ancestry. That is, they don't have any Sun tanning. This could happen from staying (or being locked) inside, or possibly from living in a forest where little sunlight reaches the ground. This feature was formerly seen as desirable, since it implies a rich woman who doesn't need to work outside. However, note that the trait can remain an ideal, even when decoupled from this justification, much as a woman with large breasts may attract men, since it's originally a sign of fertility, even if those men aren't interested in having kids. Indeed the phrases "fair maiden" and "Who's the fairest of them all ?" both originally referenced light skin color.

Further, somebody with dark hair would lack sun bleaching of their hair, under similar circumstances. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anywhere in Europe someone can have black hair and light skin. It's not weird. Very many Germans have dark hair. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

military order bearing signature

I'm watching Valkyrie (film) and it's making a big deal out of the conspirators tricking Hilter to personally sign the doctored Operation Valkyrie order.

I was wondering would a military order during WWII passing down the chain of command actually bear the actual signature? The original few copies could be manually signed, but I don't see any way to duplicate a signature with WWII-era technology.

Looking at photocopier the technology wasn't available back in WWII. And if I'm not mistaken most orders in WWII were sent over the telegraph, so only text could be transmitted. Scala Cats (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mimeograph and Spirit duplicator machines would have been widely available at the time, and had been for decades. No idea if they were used as you indicate, but your presumption that since photocopiers didn't exist, reliable duplication methods also weren't, doesn't bear out. Duplication machines did exist. --Jayron 32 05:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, didn't know about those.

Still, my question stands, were those duplication methods used on military orders during WWII (for all sides)? Scala Cats (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found an image of Führer's directive 21 (the order for Operation Barbarossa), which Adolf has signed on the second page. The accompanying text says that it was one of nine signed copies. This makes sense, as the directive could be issued to the various army group commanders, who would then draw up their own orders for their corps and divisional commanders and so on down the pecking order. I couldn't find any detailed description of the system, but it seems logical to me. Alansplodge (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the US military in WW2 the mimeograph was widely used for "cutting orders." See [18]. A clerk used a typewriter set to the stencil position to type a mimeograph stencil with the text. In the mimeograph position, the ribbon was moved out of the way so the key hit the stencil hard enough to cause it to allow ink to flow through. The stencil was placed on the rotary mimeo machine and copes were made, from one to several thousand. That way redundancy was allowed with copies for a soldier, his commander, people required to furnish transportation or equipment, headquarters etc. From start to finish a short document could be reproduced in a few copies in three minutes or so. I used mimeo for several years early in my career. It would not include an image of a signature, but it was possible to splice in images by using other methods to produce an image and literally cutting out a space for the image and taping it into the master. If the boss was present, he could write his signature on the stencil so that it printed, just as we could draw diagrams on it.To copy a document with a signature photostats could be used. This was an early 20th century technology which used photographic paper in a big copy camera with attached processing trays. It only took a few minutes. It was great for a few copies but not practical for hundreds or thousands because of the cost and time. A black and white photo of a document could be taken to a printer where it was electrochemically made into a printing plate and thousands of copies could be made in a few hours (like a newspaper). Edison (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meixi Archways

I need help finding better more reliable alternatives to these sources (preferably printed and in English). The second one seems to be blacklisted by Wikipedia so you will need to google it.

Travel China Guide. "Meixi Archways Scenic Area (Meixi Paifang Scenic Area)". Travel China Guide. Retrieved May 16, 2017.
Liang, Ling (December 6, 2012). "Meixi Memorial Archways". China Highlights. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're having trouble finding reliable English sources, then I can take a look through Chinese language results and translate them for you. I did come across this though. Alcherin (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the wedding ceremony or the marriage license proof of marriage?

First of all, what is the difference between the marriage license and the wedding ceremony? Which one determines that one is married? In a graduation ceremony, the diploma is awarded on the ceremony, so the ceremony marks the day of graduation. However, does the same apply to marriages too? In other words, which one - wedding ceremony or marriage license - marks the day of marriage? Do the marriage license and wedding ceremony occur on the same day? Does a person need a wedding ceremony if the person already has a marriage license? I know it seems like a lot of questions, but all these questions are concerned with the difference between the wedding ceremony and the marriage license. If this is an overly broad question that cannot be answered on the Reference Desk, then please directly say so; and I will narrow down the scope to a specific country. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the typical U.S. state, you apply for and instantly receive a marriage license; this allows you to get married within a certain number of days, which probably varies by state but could be, say, 30 days or 60 days. Then within that time frame you get married at either a judge's chambers or elsewhere, and you are married from that moment onward. Someone (either the married couple or the one who conducted the ceremony—I can't recall which) informs the county clerk's office that the marriage took place on a certain date, and the clerk's office (perhaps with a slight time lag) issues a marriage certificate to you stating what date you got married.

So the marriage license is permission to marry, while the marriage certificate is proof that you did get married. I'd be surprised if any state deviates in any substantive way from this description. I don't know about outside the US. Loraof (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 to 60 days? If anyone wants to get married in the States, then I presume that one initiates engagement at one point. Then, just before the intended wedding day, one applies for a marriage license. If one applies for a license right after the engagement, then one has only 30-60 days to prepare for a wedding. Then, the wedding day happens, and then the marriage certificate is sent. Then, the official day of marriage is the wedding day or the marriage certificate issuing day? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The official day of marriage is the wedding day. Loraof (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, is marriage in the judge's chambers a wedding ceremony, or is it when the judge just hands you your marriage certificate, declaring that you are married? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting married in the judge's chambers is just like getting married anywhere else—the judge reads certain things, though not as much as a religious leader would read during a church marriage ceremony. Some people might say that what the judge does is too short to be called a wedding or a ceremony, while others would still use those terms. In any event, what happens in the judge's chambers is that he makes you a married couple. When you receive the marriage certificate, a little later, is irrelevant. Loraof (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a justice of the peace in Vermont, and authorized to solemnize marriages here. The couple arranges with a person authorized to solemnize marriages (the officiant) to conduct the ceremony. The officiant could be a religious leader, a judge, a justice of the peace, etc. The couple brings the marriage license to the ceremony. The couple is married as soon as the ceremony is complete. Right after the ceremony the officiant fills out the blanks on the license, including the date of the ceremony, and signs it. Then the officiant returns it to the town clerk who issued the license. After enough time has gone by for the certificate to be copied into the official records, the couple may request (for a fee) a certified copy of the marriage certificate. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is also the basic pattern in the UK - the licence permits marriage, and the certificate is proof that it actually happened. You have to go through a ceremony (either civil or religious), and then sign the register, to qualify for the certificate. In France, marriage is a civil matter - you get married at the local mairie and obtain the necessary certificate there. Religious marriage is optional, and has no legal standing. Wymspen (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a marriage licence in Australia. Two people who wish to marry (and that means a man and a woman, until we enter the 21st century and permit same-sex marriage) simply arrange with the priest/minister or civil marriage celebrant to have a wedding, and the certificate is issued by the celebrant at the conclusion of the ceremony and handed to the happy couple. Simples. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some branches of Quakerism marry without registering their marriage with the government. This practice dates back to Quakerism's earliest days. See Quaker wedding. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In about 15 U.S. states, common law marriages are recognized, and they, of course, have no licences. Or ceremonies. - Nunh-huh

When I got married in Ontario, Canada, the "Marriage Licence and Certificate" were one piece of paper with that title. The bottom part, the certificate, was completed at the ceremony and was the proof of marriage. Once the marriage was recorded we could also order wallet-card certificates from the government. --69.159.60.50 (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage process in modern China, Japan, and the Koreas

I should have mentioned this beforehand. What is the process for marriage in those countries? I've heard that people just apply for a marriage license and hold a wedding banquet. Do they issue a marriage certificate too? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Embassy in Seoul describes the South Korean marriage process here. It does involve a Certificate of Marriage Registration (수리증명서, soo-ree jeung-myung-suh). See also marriage in South Korea (articles needs a lot of work). Neutrality^talk 03:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In China the general process is submitting an application to marry, getting a health check, then getting the marriage registered (and receiving a certificate to prove it). The application and registration steps are both done at the government marriage registration office. The wedding banquet is cultural and can be held before, on the same day, or some time after the actual registration. For most people there is no separate "marriage licence" step. Wikitravel weirdly has an article on getting married in China: [19]--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain a church wedding does not normally require a licence. In a previous discussion 78.146 gave an insight into Jewish weddings:

Following up this thesis I examined the books in my own library. I soon lighted on a copy of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies by Ben M Edidin (New York, 1941). On page 69 there is a drawing of a scroll. The text above and below discusses the hupah. I therefore assumed this was a drawing of a hupah. However, on further investigation I found on page 67 the statement that the hupah is a canopy. It was only when I reached page 70 that I found out that the marriage contract is called ketubah. At this point I suspected that the drawing was of a marriage contract, and deciphering the Hebrew letters at the top it was indeed "KTUBH" ... Even in the simple example cited above there's room for further confusion. Another book describes the formal agreement, (which is a written contract), as 'tenaim (Hebrew for "betrothal terms").' The ketubah is the marriage certificate. Both works agree that this document is written in Aramaic and sets out the husband's obligations to his wife. So we have to distinguish between pre - and post - nuptial agreements, contracts and certificates - and this is a simple example!

May 22

Manbulge

The article Packing (phallus) describes the artificial bulge used by transmen as a "packer". Is there a non-slang standard word for the natural/non-artificial bulge in cis men that is not ambiguous? The terms manbulge, mooseknuckle, trouser tent, lunchbox, cockbulge etc. all seem like slang or colloquially nonstandard. Please provide references since I'm considering adding them to the "packing" article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.95.137 (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Codpiece was quite unrevealing in this respect. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think "codpiece" can be added to the packing article. I'm thinking of adding something along the lines of "... for transmen who want to resemble having a (insert term here)". 79.67.95.137 (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does "genital bulge" not work? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I'm looking for a single noun without adjectives. I guess manbulge is the most standard term even though its slang. 79.67.95.137 (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mooseknuckles? --Jayron 32 01:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Women ignored me, and you suggested I put a potato in my pants, but now they flee in terror, for some reason."

Dr. Ruth: "I don't understand why putting a potato in the front of your pants didn't work."

"Oh ! The FRONT of my pants ! Now I get it." StuRat (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Agricultural revolution and cats

Ok, so dogs get a lot of credit over cats for being useful and for being able to be put to work whereas cats are depicted as lazy, aloof unwilling to be trained, etc. - I think it's time to redress that balance. Sure, dogs are very useful for all sorts of purposes at the moment, but I think it's cats who got the ball rolling. Without them, the agricultural revolution would never have been possible because unprotected granary stores would have been plundered and infected by vermin, right? So, is it fair to say that without cats, we'd never have made from the transition from hunter-gatherers to organised, settled communities. Maybe the reason ancient cultures worshipped them was because they knew how fundamentally important they were to their society, especially in terms of ensuring a grain surplus. Just checking that my theory makes sense, or if I'm missing something entirely --Andrew 17:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Ancient Egypt, they were venerated for their ability to hunt and kill rats, mice and most especially cobras. You can read about their status in our article on Cats in ancient Egypt. Cats were certainly a factor in civilization's move from hunter-gathering to agriculture but there were other agricultural civilizations thriving at the same time as the Egyptians potentially without the use of domesticated felines.. uhhlive (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Shillourokambos, which is evidence that humans domesticated cats as early as 9,500 years ago, which would indicate that domestication of cats is correlated with the neolithic revolution, with all of the caveats of correlation does not imply causation. --Jayron 32 18:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think that whilst man domesticated the dog. Cats domesticated man. As said above, cats are not easily trained as they are their own masters. Their ancestors realized that the early agriacultralists proved them with a sources of vermin all year round – so they moved in. At the same time, making sure, that on cold winter nights they always had the warmest place next to the fire and trained humans to sit in the second best place around that fire. Aspro (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the favored hypothesis among all the biologists I know is that dogs and cats both domesticated themselves, i.e. it's not that we bred them selectively for certain traits, but that the situation was such that those who didn't mind living around humans higher lifetime fecundity. Self-domestication#In_animals. Note also that domestic cats are far less changed in terms of genetics than dogs are, compared to their wild counterparts. This is mentioned at cat. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"So, is it fair to say...", no, not really. It is fair to say cats seemed to have performed a very important service in many societies around the time that grain storage became important to human settlements. See rat catcher, rat terrier and even mouse trap for non-cat ways that some human societies have dealt with rodents in their grain stores. Pest_control#History also has some general info, but not much on rodents. While indeed lack of cats may have hypothetically made grain storage harder in the neolithic era, WP:OR I don't think it's fair to say the agricultural revolution wouldn't have happened. But none of us can say for sure, we don't have a working crystal ball. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without a time-machine we can never know but can take intelligent guesses. Not only do rodents eat grain they also spread horrid's like Leptospirosis. Most of that happens at night whilst humans sleep and cats eat. So there is obviously a strong symbiotic relationship which continues to this very day. One can keep vermin out by building granaries with thick adobe or stone walls which a rodent can not penetrate in a single night... For instance, a way of preserving grain was to bury it in a deep pit. Bacterial decay quickly replaced spoiling oxygen with carbon dioxide. Yet both of these techniques (although simple to realize today) would probably not have been obvious to our forbears when they first started to cultivate grain. So our symbiotic relationship with Felix is probable very important.Aspro (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a correlation between Medieval Europe's attempt to eradicate cats, with the growth of the rat population and the spread of the Bubonic Plague? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, isn't the feline trait of burying feces important to domestication ? That is, any number of animals could hunt rodents, but they would also leave feces around the camp. Not a desirable trait, as this tends to spread disease (primitive man may not have known this, just that stepping in poo is "gross", not knowing that this disgust is an adaptation to avoid disease). Of course, dogs do leave little "presents" everywhere, but the benefits must justify this increased disease risk. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, where is your evidence for the above? How do we know that primitive humans disliked stepping in faeces? What are the benefits you speak of? By the way, I cannot think of a domesticated agricultural animal that does not transmit zoonosis. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient man may not have had soap and thus had horribly BO. Yet do they differ from modern man or woman, which on getting home finds something from a dog is clinging on the soles of their shoes? Sure, a pig farm may not be everyone's idea of pleasant olfactory experience but some doggy pooh is really offensive. Cats do not do this- they bury it. It may have been OK for Capt'n Kirk to tell someone else to clean off the Klingons on his right-wing but it is an odious chore (and before anyone brings it up. I know it should have been starboard wing). Aspro (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non sequitur, as that doesn't mean they all transmit disease equally. Burying feces is an effective way to reduce the spread of disease. This is why humans do it now, although disgust/miasma would have been the sole reason, before the true link to disease was known. See latrine, sewage treatment, etc. Note that sanitation of the Indus Valley Civilisation, for example, far predates the germ theory of disease, so if you don't find disgust to be the explanation for such sanitation, you need to propose another. (There is the outdated miasma theory, stating that foul air caused disease, which in practice was just a formalized version of disgust.) StuRat (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The very word malaria (= bad air) comes from the belief that the foulness of the air in certain swampy places was what caused the disease. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What decade is this wallpaper from, roughly?

I have recently come across this old wallpaper in a house I was refurbishing. Are there any art experts on Wikipedia that can tell me what era this style of art comes from, even if it is a guess? Thanks! --Abledtaken (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have much idea about the lion and zebra, but the flowers suggest the 1960s or early 1970s -- or an imitation of the 1960s or early 1970s... AnonMoos (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rather cartoonish face on the lion makes me think it's for a kid's room. StuRat (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 23