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.

June 2

How does the UK Government work?

I keep receiving conflicting information about how the UK Government actually works. What is the relationship between the Monarch of the United Kingdom and Parliament? Are they both the "government"? Where does the Church of England fit in? I have an impression that the Church of England is like a government department, because it records who marries whom and who is born to whom. Who is in charge of the Church of England - the Monarch or God? How much power does the Church of England have over the people, and does it deal with sins the same way a secular government deals with crimes? Also in the news, I am aware that the UK has "elections". But who really participates in the elections? Can a member of the royal family or noble family (including the Monarch) run as Prime Minister? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

That's quite a few questions, so let me take them one at a time.

The monarch and Parliament's relationship has changed substantially throughout history. Presently, the Queen is head of state, which means, just like the U.S. president, she greets foreign dignitaries, signs bills into law, and names members of the government (ministers and their deputies, known as Secretaries of State) and members of the judicial branch (the most senior of which is the Archbishop of Canterbury).

The government is led by the Queen but she appoints a First Lord of the Treasury to take questions on her behalf from the lower house of parliament, which mostly comprises hostile lower and middle class citizens. The Queen calls then "commoners", hence the lower house is the House of Commons. The Queen also appoints lords to the upper house House of Lords (there are minimum property requirements to be appointed to the House of Lords and only those of noble blood can be appointed).

The judicial branch is known as the Church of England and the highest judges sit in the House of Lords. These are the law lords and include the Lord Chancellor, Lord Chief Poohbah, and the Lord Chancellor. The judicial branch is also represented in the government (the Lord Chancellor is a Cabinet minister too) and as you rightly assume, is also in charge of marriage, birth, and death registration of citizens (all of whom, because the UK has a state church, are Protestants).

The UK has special courts for non citizens, including Sharia Courts for Muslims, and the Royal Infidel Courts for atheists.

God heads the Church of England but appoints the Queen to govern it. He appoints a monarch for a lifetime term. Unlike in the US, God does not require advice and consent when making appointments.

"Elections" in the UK are for prime minister. Each constituency in the UK "elects" a potential prime minister. Then, in the House of Commons, potential prime ministers must demonstrate their potential for being a feasible underling to the Queen by debating each other hysterically once a week (this is Prime Ministers' Questions).

I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.160.82.96 (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that the answer above, posted by user 118.160.82.96, is a spoof, and bears no relationship to the actual situation. Most readers should recognise this - but just in case ....Wymspen (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fairly accurate to me, but I agree with Jayon32 below that they should read the article and frame specific questions. Answering questions here is inappropriate when there is a decent article that does the job. Dmcq (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles titled Government of the United Kingdom and Constitution of the United Kingdom which explains how the British state operates. Elections in the United Kingdom explains how elections work. Church of England explains how that works. If after reading those articles, you have more specific questions or need clarification, please reference which passages you don't understand, and we'll try to provide you with more reading to clarify. --Jayron 32 01:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A street grid made of congruent triangular blocks?

Does one exist? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not (at least not as a planned city, though one can find triangles arising accidentally in unplanned cities or because of "diagonal" streets in a rectilinear network). this article explores non-rectilinear city planning, but it also makes clear that few if any such plans have ever been put into place, all planned cities are usually based on a rectilinear grid, though a few are based on a spoke-and-ring system, for example Detroit, Michigan has some features of such a plan, which can create roughly triangular "wedges"; outside of the immediate center city, however, Detroit returns to the standard rectilinear design. --Jayron 32 01:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This book also discusses urban planning and such designs, and notes the possibility, but discounts it as impractical. --Jayron 32 01:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I live in Detroit, I can tell you that the areas with angled streets are a real pain. For example, having to make non-90 degree turns is difficult. And instead of calling a lane north-bound, you have to call it northeast-bound or northwest-bound. Then there's the ugly triangular lots it creates at intersections, leading to odd triangular buildings. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like these? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you've never driven in a European city? Non-90 degree turns difficult? Oh dear..... 131.251.254.154 (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to leave the continent or country or even the Midwest. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both of those switchbacks have regular 90° intersections at each end. See here and here. --69.159.63.238 (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very regular grid, but street pattern of Paris comes quite close and was planned. It has a number of nodes (Place Charles de Gaulle, Place Victor Hugo, Place du Trocadéro et du 11 Novembre 1918, Place de la Republique etc.) and large roads connecting those nodes in straight lines. It's quite efficient in the sense that the shortest route from one place to another following the roads isn't much longer than following a straight line.

Rectangular patterns were common in the Roman world and seem to be the standard in the US, but planned cities in other parts of the world often use different patterns. These may offer on average shorter connections, or give better control on traffic flow to lead traffic away from residential areas, or force detours for cars but provide shortcuts for cyclists to promote bicycle use, aut cetera. Have a look at the street patterns of Brasília, Lelystad or Canberra. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brasilia uses hexagon street layout in the small and narrow Q. Res. Sudoeste district. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While triangular roadways are not common, consider a mishmash of seemingly random triangles. West Ashley by Charleston, SC is a mess of triangles. Look at it on a map - zoom out a bit. You will see triangles. 61/7/Old Towne Rd is obvious. Magnolia Rd/61/17 is another. Ashley Hall Rd/61/7 is another. Orleans/61/7 is another.. 7/17/Wapoo is a triangle if you include the north end of Wapoo. Magwood Dr/61/Glenn McConnell Pkwy is another triangle set inside the Bees Ferry Rd/61/Glenn McConnell Pkwy triangle. I used to hate giving directions around the West Ashley area because it is rare that you can make three rights and end up back where you started. As for why the roads are set up like that, it is the old spoke design. The bridge to the peninsula was one of the very few places to cross the Ashley River. So, the major roads began there and went out like spokes of a wheel. Other roads connected the spokes and formed triangles. Once you have a lot of triangles, adding more roads tends to create more triangles. On the other side of the Peninsula is Mt. Pleasant. It was mostly developed very recently. So, it doesn't have the same spoke design. I'm sure if you look at old towns that haven't completely redone their road systems, you will find similar spoke designs. I know that Detroit has some residual spoke roads that make little sense in their mile-grid system. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, DC was a planned city. It has a regular rectangular grid of lettered and numbered streets, overlaid with a hub-and-spoke system of named avenues. This leads to a very large number of triangular blocks in addition to square blocks and circles at the hubs, and quite a few intersections with more than four entryways, making for a traffic nightmare. -Arch dude (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that these so-called "traffic nightmare" problems are only a traffic nightmare for automobile-based navigation. All of these cities were planned pre-automobile. Most people got around by walking, except those that were rich enough to get to sit on a horse, which is pretty much mostly moving at walking speed. Making a 30 degree turn on a horse or navigating a 6 way intersection on foot is not a problem. It's why modern urban planning isn't based on a grid of any sort, usually; it's based on the street heirarchy plan, which doesn't depend so much on pretty little angular grids, but rather on keeping automobiles moving forward without having to stop. If you want to know what the modern city plan looks like, it isn't Washington DC, but rather Fairfax County, Virginia which should serve as our model, because of the way in which the street hierarchy collects and funnels cars from neighborhoods to expressways, and then distributes them to industrial and commercial districts. You pull out of your driveway on to a cul-de-sac in, say, Springfield, Virginia, which feeds some small boulevard that connects all of the cul-de-sacs to a collector road, you know, a two-lane with a double-yellow divider. That collector road allows you access to an arterial road, like say the Fairfax County Parkway, that then feeds you to a freeway, say I-95, which you take to another arterial road, say US 1 South into Crystal City, where a two lane side road takes you to a parking garage under a sky scraper where you get out and go to your job. At no point in this journey do you need to navigate a grid, triangle-, hexagon, or rectangle-based, at all. Why? Because this road network was planned out for cars, and grids suck for cars. But just because it isn't a grid doesn't mean this wasn't planned; the placement and organization of these roads is not accidental, and it was planned specifically to get you to your destination as efficiently as possible. --Jayron 32 04:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Washington DC's streets were specifically designed to impede traffic (to help the city resist cavalry charges) back in the 1700s. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions about climate change denial

1. Why is climate change denial as a movement far more prevalent in the United States compared to the rest of the world? While out article does explain that oil lobbying is a larger force in the US, the article does not explain why climate change denial, both as a movement and as a belief, is not as common in other countries, even with countries with interests in oil. Even in countries with low beliefs in anthropogenic climate change, this seems to be more due to lower levels of education than actual climate change denial lobbies.

2. Other than the Republican Party, are there any other major politicial parties worldwide which officially deny climate change? Our article only specifically mentions the Republican Party as denying climate change, while mentioning that other parties generally do not, even if individual members sometimes do. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Anti-intellectualism#In the United States has some good information about it. In the United States, the primary political strategy of the right involves primarily being opposed to anything the left says or does, without regard for its validity or usefulness. For at least 10 years or so, if a Democrat takes any position, the Republican takes the opposing position automatically; the classic example is Obamacare, which is actually a Republican-designed program (see Romneycare, which is the blueprint used for Obamacare). Republicans were fine with it until a Democratic politician tried to enact it. Because the Democrats support legislation to curb pollution and environmental degradation, the strategy of the Republican party is to oppose it by any means necessary. America is largely tribal in its politics, people identify with a party first, THEN decide on their political opinions based on what that party holds as its positions. Because of this, the Republican strategy works very well for them. Whether individual Republican politicians privately believe in climate change denial is unknown, the strategy is to make itself appear as different from the Democratic party as possible, and the way they do that is to take oppositional positions on ALL issues. Lest you think this is personal observation, This Article quotes the Robert Draper book Do Not Ask What Good We Do which itself gives direct quotes from Republican politicians and strategists, such as "We’ve gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign." (quote by Kevin McCarthy). Draper's book notes that the Republican strategy following the election of Obama had 4 key points, and point 2 was "to oppose any economic policies put forth by Obama" The plan worked to allow the Republicans to gain control of the House and Senate, and so because it worked, as a strategy it has been expanded so that any and all policy positions by the Democratic party are opposed automatically and without question. That's primarily why the Republicans are climate change deniers.

2. No idea. --Jayron 32 04:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 2: I don't know about "officially" ... is denial the official position of the Republican Party, or is there just widespread consensus among Republican office-holders, ranging from "it's not as bad as claimed" via "it may be happening but it's not created by humans" to "it's all one big hoax fabricated by liberals", with some lone Republicans who do not share this view at all? ... Anyway, with similar reservations regarding "officially", the Alternative for Germany and the UK Independence Party come to mind. The Swiss People's Party is certainly skeptical, but I wouldn't call the party, as a whole, climate-change-deniers. None of these are "major parties" when compared to the GOP of course. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Climate science denial is not an official position of the Republican Party. However, the official platform of the Republican Party does call for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, rejecting any national carbon price/tax, and ending the Clean Power Plan, etc. Interestingly, as recently as 2008, the Republican party platform supported development of renewable energy and slowly reducing fossil fuel emissions over the long-term. Now the focus is on expanding fossil fuel development. Of course, it is worth noting that party platforms in the US are heavily influenced by the leader of the party, which at the moment is Donald Trump. Dragons flight (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any sociological studies of why it has taken hold more in the US> My take on it is that individualism and self-reliance has been a creed for quite a long time in America from the time the wagons rolled west. Unfortunately this makes people quite susceptible to quacks with a good patter rather than respecting the authority of people who have trained and spent their lives working on problems. Individualism also means companies have no compunctions about following their interests and paying for denial. Most other countries value society more. It is practically the same reasons guns are so popular and why health care for the poor is so lousy. Dmcq (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation is a bit narrow. The individualism of Americans does make them susceptible to quacks, such as the antivac and climate change deniers. But, it also makes them demand proof. Many (I believe most) Americans want to see proof for claims made by the media. There is very little proof that the public can access. So, it is hard to explain that climate science isn't just a bunch of eggheads running cherry-picked numbers through some filters that don't really make much sense until they get a good looking hockey-stick graph that will make for a high-profit documentary. What's worse is that climate science has been around long enough that the alarmist claims have come and then gone as the terrible events didn't happen. Re-watch An Inconvenient Truth if you can get your hands on an unedited version that doesn't have all the alarmist claims removed. Did all the snow melt off Mt. Kilimanjaro by 2016? Have surface temperatures continued to accelerate every year since 2006? Are there far more storms with greater intensity since Hurricane Katrina? An average person who saw the documentary back then is, in my opinion, fully justified in questioning the climate science behind the documentary. But, if you question anything at all about climate science, you are labeled a moronic climate denier. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that film as I've never looked at it and I didn't know it has been edited since, I don't see anything in the article about that. Gore isn't a scientist - you are simply matching one person who has a good patter against another rather than taking any notice of the actual science, which is exactly what I said Americans tend to do. I wouldn't call it moronic. I'd settle for rather silly. I have the same problem with election debates, people seem to think that rousing up a mob or rhethoric in front of a camera is a good basis for being able to run a country. I think it would be far better if poiticians were confined to print in elections and not even their faces were shown. Dmcq (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from fund raising projects,assignments,donations from donors,users and other organizations,what are the other ways by which Wikimedia receieve money for charitable purposes?

In 2016,Wikimedia Foundation has gained a surplus of about US$16 million as it is a non profit organization.But I also feel sorry to ask this type of a question,because I am presently studying about "Not-for-profit organizations" for my Advanced Learning.If you can give instructions ,it will be a kind of assistance that I could get for my studies. Abishe (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the funding is from donations. Some comes from interest on investments, A small amount comes from sales at the Wikipedia Store.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

blood donation consent form

To apparently there's this company that sells blood to literal vampires[2].

My question is: when you donate blood in the US, is there a consent form of some sort that says: "Your donated blood will go towards medical or research needs"?

If there no such form then I guess there's no limit on how the donated blood is used. Scala Cats (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from German to English

Can this please be translated.

Leitstelle de Nachrichten Aufklaerung

scope_creep (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the translation "Headquarters of Signal Intelligence" given in General der Nachrichtenaufklärung. Xenon54 (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from German to English

Does anybody know what this is, translate from German to English

Wehrwirtschaftsnachr

scope_creep (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Litterally, it is defense + economy, but might refer to mobilization. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:2 (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC) —P.s: try translation queries at the language desk.[reply]

Wehrwirtschaftsnachr (WWN) or "military economy msgs" were bulletins about the Russian economic situation compiled during WW2 by German army signal intelligence based on intercepted Soviet radio traffic, see [3]. Blooteuth (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be getting good answers this time, but for future reference, the Language reference desk is really the right one for this sort of query. --69.159.63.238 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC): Wehrwirtschaftsnachr[.] is not a proper German word, it’s an abbreviation of Wehrwirtschaftsnachrichten (might also be spelt (spelled) Wehrwirtschafts-Nachrichten). Wehrwirtschaft has been translated as "war economy"; in this context, "report(s)" might be a fitting translation for Nachrichten (which has a whole range of meanings). Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 00:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

"China as climate change leader"

I keep reading in the news about China's being the new world leader in climate change. What does "leader" mean in this sense? Does it mean whatever China does, the world will follow by example? But why China? Why not every country that signs the Paris Agreement? I feel like I'm missing something. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It means China is at the forefront of reducing carbon emissions and in developing, implementing, and manufacturing renewable energy resources. --Jayron 32 01:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But why depend on just one country to be the leader? Why not just work together cooperatively, allowing all countries to have equal say in leadership? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because one country would be in first place in some particular metric. Only one can be the most. --Jayron 32 01:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ties happen, in theory. In practice, various outlets will still declare one or another the true world leader, based on another metric, because "leader" always carries the synonym of directing/ruling/inspiring, even if the title was earned and defended by being ahead on points, rather than stating one's goal and then demanding competitors (and sanctioning bodies) to bend to that vision.

In UFC featherweight analogy terms, Aldo is China, Holloway is India and McGregor is the US. We're hours away from a historic conference in Rio on who will lead the championship into the future, and they'll call it "new" and "undisputed", but America is still foremost in actually influencing the climate which affects the livelihood of every signatory (from Arnold Allen to Azerbaijan), so it's only really meaningful on paper. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, June 3, 2017 (UTC)

Also, China is responsible for 20% of greenhouse gas emissions, so their actions are proportionally more impactful than other countries. The only other country with a similar share of emissions is the US (18%), and they have renounced their leadership role by announcing their intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The next most polluting country, Russia (7.5%), has been dragging their feet on ratifying the Paris Agreement and also wouldn't qualify as a leader. So that leaves China and India (4%) as the countries with the greatest emissions who are actively engaged. Dragons flight (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Jayron32 and Dragons flight good answers, there's a suggestion that China could became a significant player in foreign investment in emission reduction and climate change adaptation in the developing world, particularly Africa and parts of Asia. [4] [5] Nil Einne (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that China is currently the worst polluter, giving them the most ability to improve (see grading on a curve). There have been recent scenes of people in Chinese cities needing masks to breath in places with almost zero visibility. See [6], which shows China has 8 in the worst 35 cities for air pollution, while the US has none in the worst 100. StuRat (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This type of air pollution has almost nothing to do with climate change. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not completely accurate. Heavy particulate pollution is almost always associated with burning coal. Less heavy particulate pollution is associated with diesel fuel. Therefore, these extremely visible event serve as a marker for fossil fuel consumption. -Arch dude (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat's juxtaposition of the two phenomena made it seem like they were directly related, which is a common misconception in my experience. It's true that visible pollution such as urban smog can be a marker of fossil fuel use but it's not an especially reliable one. You can clean up the air from visible pollution while still having substantial greenhouse gas emissions. That's what has happened in many western, developed countries. Conversely you can have very high levels of particulate emissions from inefficient combustion of renewable fuels, as is the case in less-developed countries where dung and similar fuels are used. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good example may be actually comparing the countries. According to Coal in China#Coal consumption, coal consumption in China in 2010 was 3.2 billion metric tonnes. Meanwhile coal consumption in the US was s 798 million short tons or 724 million metric tonnes in 2015 [7], a bit over a quarter less. Is that difference really the primary reason why air pollution in China is so much worse? Well India, which also has some of the worse air pollution in the world (Air pollution in India) consumed 787 million metric tonnes of coal in 2014 [8]. India is of course less than half the size of the US, but I think it's clear that this isn't the primary reason why their air pollution is so much worse ~~isn't because of that~~. (NB I've seen different figures for all 3 countries, and using different data sources probably isn't the best way to compare them but I don't believe these are going to make a substanial difference.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SBHB's point is that the two don't have to be tightly linked. Modern technology can eliminate 90-95% of the particulate pollution. The US requires such technology, whereas ~30% of coal in China is burnt with no pollution controls, and much of the rest uses controls well below the modern best practices. It is true that China's air pollution problem is heavily linked to coal, but one could also eliminate ~50% of the air pollution without replacing coal if appropriate technology was deployed everywhere. (There is also a Chinese problem with diesel fuels, but that's a separate issue.) India is somewhat different. Their leading pollution source is biomass burning (e.g. agricultural waste, and use of wood and cow dung in rural cooking). Coal also matters in India but not in the dominant way that it matters in China. Dragons flight (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think the figures clearly demonstrate that even taking on board Arch dude's point, saying that China has such bad air pollution demonstrates that they have a long way to go to reduced GHG emissions compared to the US is highly flawed. Even in terms of air pollution, China using a lot of coal obviously doesn't help but slightly over 4 times the consumption isn't by itself enough to account for the massive difference in air pollution levels. Actually one point I didn't think of until now. We already know that in terms of CO2 the US is only about half of China anyway. Since China consumes over 4 times the amount of coal, this would actually suggest China is doing better than the US. India is of course about half the US but consumes a similar about of coal, so they're doing better too! But then their air pollution is so much worse, (the reasons of course as you outlined), so however you spin it these examples demonstrate that saying China or India have terrible air pollution and therefore also have a long way to go in curbing GHG emissions is flawed. It is true that concerns over air pollution by Chinese citizens and so China's leaders are one of the catalysts for a push to renewable energy and a push to limit fossil fuel consumption and thereby limit GHG emissions, but that's a different point. P.S. I appreciate that other GHG can be significant too, I only mention CO2 since they're the easiest to compare. Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the US doesn't burn more oil and gas making the 2 and 4 numbers more balanced? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers not seeming to add up, to me, implies that somebody is "cooking the books". Since the amount of coal burned is far easier to track than the amount of CO² emitted, I would tend to think that the latter number was faked. StuRat (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swear on a stack of bibles to tell the whole truth

In movie courtroom scenes, witnesses swear on a stack of bibles to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God. Is it actually done like that in present-day US courtrooms? The stack of bibles and the wording of the oath? If you're Pastafarian can you use a colander or something instead? This is a question about legal procedure but it's not a request for legal advice. Thanks. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was always a single Bible, and the "stack" was just an exaggeration. I believe the Bible is considered optional in most jurisdictions (anywhere it isn't might find themselves on the end of an ACLU lawsuit). As for substituting your own object, other holy books might be permitted, but I'm rather skeptical that a colander would be, on the grounds of "making a mockery of the court" or perhaps "insulting the religions of others". StuRat (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat: There is absolutely no requirement to swear on anything in U.S. courts. It isn't required to invoke God, either. In the early common law, atheists were considered incompetent to testify (link to paper); that's no longer true, of course. Rule 603 of the Federal Rules of Evidence only requires that "every witness ... declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so." All the states, to my knowledge, have the same or similar rule. Neutrality^talk 01:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "There is absolutely no requirement to swear on anything in U.S. courts." I agree. This is why I said: "I believe the Bible is considered optional...". However, I could envision a period where a red state might add that requirement, and it would then remain in effect until overturned, perhaps by an ACLU lawsuit. StuRat (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

173.228.123.121 -- "I swear on a stack of Bibles" is a kind of exaggerated semi-humorous juvenile expression for emphatically asserting that what you say is true. It was never a courtroom procedure, and I assume that you would be more likely to find it in cartoons than in serious movies. A colander in Pastafarianism is more of a sacred object than a scripture. Maybe they'd let you swear on a copy of "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" (though I'm sure they'd prefer holy books which uncomplicatedly encourage truth-telling)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting it was only in 2007 that people were allowed to swear on a different religious text in North Carolina, see American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina v. North Carolina and [9]. I failed to turn up much more about controversies over what religious text you could use to swear on, even when it came to scientology. Some jurisidictions outside the US (e.g. Victoria in Australia) allow you to swear without a religious text. (Or affirm if you wish.) Some people have taken oaths of office with colanders on their heads, but this will often have to be specifically challenged, there's often no one to specifically reject your oath otherwise. (By comparison if you go to court and wish to swear on the The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the court could just refuse to let you.) Judges have rejected the FSM as a religion before in other cases [10]. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the ~~ability~~ right to affirm rather than swear an oath in court goes back to the Quakers Act 1695. The Oaths Act 1978 clarified the situation, having to provide a New Testament for Christians and a Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) for Jewish people. "In the case of a person who is neither a Christian nor a Jew, the oath shall be administered in any lawful manner" (ie without the use of any book). However, most courts now provide a range of scriptures to suit the main religions although it is pointed out that ". Many faith traditions are oral, or not based on scripture, while others, such as Hinduism or Jainism revere a number of scriptures; and for yet others, there is one central text only" [11] Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"any lawful manner" doesn't seem to say to me that you can't use a book, although it suggests it probably isn't required. The above source does mention people bringing their own books and also stuff like

(In Tibetan practice, oaths are normally taken in front of a picture of a deity, a photograph of the Dalai Lama or any Lama of the witness’s practice, if taken at all.)

and

In the past, court staff have been instructed to administer a form of declaration to Chinese witnesses in a ceremony which involves the breaking of a saucer. This ceremony, instituted in the Imperial Courts of China many centuries ago, is very rarely practised today in courts of law, although it is said to be practised by the Triads during their secret initiation ceremonies. It is probably because of this association that Chinese today do not ask or choose to take an oath in this manner. It should therefore not be used.

and also

In the case of R v Kemble [1990] 91 Cr App R 178, the Court of Appeal laid down the minimum requirements of the law and made it clear that the only duty of a court is to consider whether the witness is taking an oath which appears to the court to be binding on the witness’s conscience and, if so, whether it is an oath which the witness himself considers to be binding on his conscience.

This makes me think there is a chance you could bring your own copy of the The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or whatever) and colander (presuming you can get the later through security) and may be able to convince the courts to let you wear the colander and swear on the GFSM provided they think by doing so it's binding on your conscience. They would probably prefer you to just swear without anything or affirm though and may not be happy if they think you're just taking the Mickey though.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to give testimony in court, it's probably best not to do things that would make the judge and/or jury think you're a lunatic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for swearing on a "stack" of bibles... several US Presidents have taken their oaths of office with their hand placed on more than one bible ... Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump all swore the oath of office on two Bibles. For example, Obama and Trump both used the "Lincoln Bible" (the bible that Lincoln used) as well as a family bible... while George H. W. Bush used both the "Washington Bible" and a family bible. This was, however, a personal choice, and not something mandated by any law (or even custom). The President is not required to use any bible when swearing the oath, and some haven't (both John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce swore on a book of law, to represent that they were swearing on the Constitution.) Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Notary in Ohio, and routinely administer oaths. The oath itself by definition includes an appeal to God (as in "so help you God"). There is no requirement whatsoever that the oath be sworn on a bible. As far as I'm concerned, as long as you appear before me and are willing to raise your right hand and swear an oath, it has no legal impact what your left hand is doing - whether it's on a Bible, on a colander, on your favorite comic book, or in your pocket. The alternative for someone with religious objections or other personal reasons is to administer an affirmation instead, which replaces the appeal to God with a perjury statement ("under penalty of the law of perjury") and avoids the issue in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.160.163 (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green Climate Fund

I am trying to clarify the role of the Green Climate Fund and I'm finding the reporting on the issue somewhat confused and contradictory. How does GCF use the money? Specifically, does it make grants or loans or both? In other words, do organizations receiving money from the GCF have an obligation to repay the money? with interest? If GCF is loaning money, and hence acting like a bank, what term of repayment would be typical on projects they might support? Some of the reporting suggests the world would need to supply a large amount of new capital every year, but in the long-run that would be unnecessary if loans are getting repaid, right? Do contributing countries and organizations have residual rights over money they contribute to the Fund? For example, do they have the right to withdraw funds later and/or earn interest on their contribution? Dragons flight (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A graphic on the fund's website [12] indicates that so far, 42% of its funding has been through grants, 39% through loans (concessional funding presumably), 1% through guarantees and 18% equity. --Xuxl (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian government and Brexit

Has anyone ever accused the Russian government of trying to influence the Brexit vote?Uncle dan is home (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember about some outfit hey set up in Scotland to engage in social engineering that way. Anyway you can find lots yourself via Google 'russia brexit vote'. Dmcq (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some speculation from Labour MPs, but no evidence of any kind. They have accused the government of covering something up, but they don't know what. See UK officials now think Russia may have interfered with the Brexit vote. Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I don't think Russia had a major role in it. If you want to look at that sort of social manipulation stuff look at the crowd around Cambridge Analytica. Dmcq (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

School segmentation

Why are K-12 schools segmented/divided by three tiers? First, children start school at about 5. Sometimes, schools can be strict and say that the child must enroll when it is 5 in the autumn, even though the child will turn 5 later in the year or even in the spring of next year. The child starts in kindergarten, naps, and may have snack time. Then, by first grade, nap and snack time are gone, but recess still remains in the schedule. By 6th grade, recess, or playground time, is removed, but children are enrolled in physical education. Also, the child goes to a new school building, called middle school or junior high school. They may see their old friends, if (1) their classmates pass elementary school and (2) their classmates still live in the same school district. By ninth grade, they go to high school. After high school, they enter the workforce, marry, have children, or choose to pursue higher education full-time. All of this is segmented by age-based "grades". If a person never graduates from primary school, then will the primary school accept an older student? What about home-schooled children who are 11 years old but are trained enough to enroll in college-level STEM courses? Can they live in the dorms with the much older students, or do they need an adult chaperone? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are smaller schools that have all grades in one building. As to why they are in different schools normally, one possible concern is that bullying or even rough play could easily prove fatal with large age differences involved. StuRat (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(E/C) That is an enormous block of questions and it's unclear how many of them are rhetorical. A lot of the ones near the end will vary with jurisdiction, so I would suggest you contact your local school board or college/university or at least tell us where in the world you're referring to. When it comes to the split between elementary, senior elementary (or junior high), and secondary (high school), a great deal of it has to do with resources. As kids grow up, their educational needs become more complex; if there was a system where kids stayed in a single institution their whole educational career, those schools could never provide access to the kind of scholastic aids available using the other model (consider chemistry labs, automotive shops, football fields, orchestral instruments, etc.) By concentrating older kids into high schools, those resources can be invested in more easily. Matt Deres (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on how you do it. There are typically many small elementary schools, a few mid-sized middle schools, and one or two high schools in a small school district in the US. It's true that you couldn't have all the facilities at the high school replicated at all the other schools. However, you could have a single massive school with all the resources combined. But the consensus seems to be that distant elementary or combined-age schools, with massive numbers of students, is overwhelming for elementary students. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An elementary I went to now has a third of a mile of permanent hallways with classrooms on each side plus 4 "mobile home" classrooms. Is that big for most of America? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say given that description. What was the enrollment ? Sounds like they are dealing with a population surge. Mine had about 300 students. StuRat (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over 1,400 students but after annex expansion. I had to Google that. Before annex expansion there's only a 2-story annex (~1990), "temporary" trailers (~2000) and the rest is mid-century which was the lion's share of the school till very recently. There's a public high school in Manhattan which has 10 floors, 5 gyms, multiple escalators and 12 science labs. Needless to say, there are elevators. It competes with private (free) Hunter for students, was belatedly cleaned of asbestos from being inside the cloud that chased people on 9/11, the '02 class president got cancer in '06 and it still beats 4 or 5 out of 8 Ivy Leagues in average SAT score. I didn't get in. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I assume you are asking about the system in Ohio, or the USA. In other places, the system is different. In general, most children adapt to whatever system is imposed upon them. Dbfirs 18:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not universal. I had physical education in second grade and recess in sixth grade. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No recess by the 6th grade? Where and when were you in school? School selection determined by residential location? Where and when were you in school? High school starts in the 9th grade? Where and when were you in school? The world is a very diverse place. Consider broadening your horizons.DOR (HK) (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. some secondary schools outside America end in 13th grade. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a US district that doesn't follow the three-levels idea, see Metropolitan School District of Perry Township in Indianapolis. They had a bunch of elementaries that fed into two middle schools and two high schools. Some years ago, it came time to build more schools because of increased enrolment, but instead of rearranging the boundaries for who went where, they created a pair of sixth-grade academies (one for each middle school), and this meant more room in the elementaries because each one had only five grades' worth of students, not six. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous sentences and US death penalty in the 70s

What happened to the people who were already convicted to death when the death penalty was suspended and reintroduced in the 70s? Have they seen their sentences first cancelled and then reinstated? --Hofhof (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Capital punishment in the United States. The decision in Furman v. Georgia (1972) caused all death sentences pending at the time to be reduced to life imprisonment. Executions resumed on January 17, 1977, when Gary Gilmore went before a firing squad in Utah. Although hundreds of individuals were sentenced to death in the United States during the 1970s and early 1980s, only ten people besides Gilmore (who had waived all of his appeal rights) were actually executed prior to 1984. Blooteuth (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note one way in which they could still be executed: If the original conviction was reduced to life imprisonment, but they were then charged in an additional capital crime (which charges may not have happened, had the original sentence been carried out). Some prosecutors will intentionally hold back "extraneous" cases, to be brought before the court only if the original case "goes south" in some way. This can also save time, money, and aggravation to the victim's family, if trial for the second crime is never required. StuRat (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. The death-penalty laws from before Furman were invalidated. No one can be sentenced to death under those laws, because they are unconstitutional. --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hofhof, maybe a little more detail would help. The death penalty was not "suspended". In 1972, in Furman, what the Supreme Court said was that all state death-penalty laws existing at the time were unconstitutional. ~~However, it also laid out guidelines according to which states might create new laws that could be constitutional.~~ Not so clear on this last point; see below. --Trovatore (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many states got promptly to work on that, and in 1976, in Gregg, the Court said that some of them had succeeded (which is not to say that there were not still constitutional challenges available in specific cases).

Furman is still good law, which means that the pre-1972 laws remain invalid. You also can't try someone for a pre-Furman crime under a post-Furman law, because that would be ex post facto. So there is no more possibility of executing a state death sentence for a pre-Furman crime, whether or not it has already been tried. I am not sure about federal crimes. --Trovatore (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I should say that I don't really find in our article (or anywhere, really) a clear justification for my previous claim that Furman gave guidelines as to how states could come up with a constitutional death law. There were nine separate opinions, so you would have to search the five majority opinions and come up with your own conclusions.

What is the case is that the opinions said in general terms what they found unconstitutional about the existing laws. Two of them said that the death penalty was unconstitutional period, so those wouldn't help states trying to come up with such a law, but they could try to craft laws that would satisfy the other three, specifically to reduce the arbitrariness of the sentence.

It's not clear to me that the current system (yes, I know, it's state-by-state, but there are some commonalities) is any less capricious than the pre-Furman one, but the Gregg court and subsequent rulings have found it acceptable. But my main point stands — the death penalty was not suspended but rather struck down, as it existed at the time, and that ruling has never been overturned. The allegedly constitutional current laws are different laws. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Book on the philosophy of a branch of mathematics and related books

I like this book, Calculus Made Easy, originally written by Silvanus P. Thompson and later edited by Martin Gardner. It's not a textbook. It seems to be more of a philosophical exposition of various topics related to the Calculus. Are there other books that are like this? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To easily find book like that do a Google on 'amazon Calculus Made Easy', then go down to the section 'Customers who bought this item also bought' or 'What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?' and have a look there, or go to 'Amazon Bestsellers Rank' and look in the most restrictive category below that, or look for other books by an author by clicking on the authors name or searching for it in the search box at the top. Dmcq (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might also look at Martin Gardner bibliography. Loraof (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many this is true of - I own more maths books by Martin Gardner than by women, is that bad? ;-) Dmcq (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

UK constituencies

Anyone know of anywhere to view high resolution maps of UK constituencies? The sort that will let you know that "the east side of this road is in this constituency and the west side in that one? Everything I've found through google or on Wikipedia is lo res or detail-less. -- SGBailey (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/election-maps/gb/. Select BOUNDARY and Westminster Constituencies. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx -- sgb

There's also http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/googleseats2018.html and http://boundaries.spatialanalysis.co.uk/2018/. I'm sure I've seen another one, but I can't find it LongHairedFop (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. of E. services

This morning I attended mass for Pentecost (Whit Sunday) at the local parish church. The printed service sheet (produced by "The Catholic Printing Company of [location]" included a prayer for "N. our Pope and N. our Bishop and all the clergy". The celebrant rendered this as "Francis our Pope and Jonathan our Bishop and all the clergy" while the order of service also included the "Hail Mary", with the Regina Coeli on a card. Since what is said in church is no longer governed by Act of Parliament, how much control does the Church now have over the clergy? 81.148.187.1 (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was a C. of E. service? Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See paragraph six in Church of England. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and it doesn't seem relevant. More helpful is our article Bishop of Fulham. 81.148.187.1 (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you're referring to the paragraph immediately above the Table of Contents (in my browser). Yes, that's very helpful. 81.148.187.1 (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But are you sure it was a CofE church? Describing Francis as "our Pope" seems a bit extreme even for a parish under a flying bishop. DuncanHill (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme yes, but not unknown. Our local Anglo-Catholic church had a portrait of Pope John-Paul II hanging in the vestibule the last time I visited (it was a couple of Popes ago). Those priests attached to the Forward in Faith pressure group seem to be the most zealously Catholic of the lot. I sometimes wonder why they don't go the whole hog and defect to Rome. Alansplodge (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Former POTUS political interviews

I saw a John Kerry interview on MSNBC yesterday. That got me thinking: I don't think I've ever seen a former President give political-related interviews like this one. I only ever saw low-ranking former government officials give political interviews, so even a former Secretary of State giving an interview was an eye-opener for me.

Is there some sort of a unspoken rule that former Presidents does not give political commentary/criticize decisions made by the current administration? Scala Cats (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that Al Gore is extremely vocal, especially on environmental issues, but he was only ever Vice President. Scala Cats (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a bit of an unspoken rule for former Presidents not to criticize the current President. There's also an unspoken rule about the current President not criticizing the former Presidents, although their immediate predecessor may be an exception, as every President naturally wants to blame their predecessor for all the mess they are in, even if they themselves have created it. Of course, Trump completely ignores all the traditions and expectations of the Presidency, so we can expect him to continue to do so once he is an ex-President. StuRat (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This and This and This and This seem relevant reading for the OP. --Jayron 32 02:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is also expected that former Presidents do not interfere in politics in any way. When Clinton was President, Carter went to Israel to try to broker a peace deal. Clinton was rather angry about it and did what he could to get Carter out of the deal. Mainly, Clinton stepped in and took over the peace discussions himself. It culminated in the 2000 peace summit. In my opinion, if you really want to know what it is like to be a former President (and be a President), read Carter's memoir. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, Harry Truman was not shy about criticizing active politicians, especially Republicans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truman and Eisenhower did go from a friendly relationship to a bitter feud when Eisenhower ran for election in 1952. Eisenhower voiced many attacks on Truman (and Washington in general). Overall, the 1952 election turned Truman into a bit of a curmudgeon. In my opinion, it ruined his legacy. Had he welcomed his loss in the primaries and then welcomed Eisenhower, he would be remembered for creating a strong economy and social balance during a time of uneasiness about the Cold War. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler and fox hunting

Did Adolf Hitler ever ban fox hunting?50.26.127.149 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly did. See Thanks to Hitler, hunting with hounds is still verboten. The relevant law is Reichsjagdgesetz von 3.7.1934. Alansplodge (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

Carpe diem living and the future

If one just live in the moment, according to the carpe diem motto, and one is coherent with one's views, should we worry about things that have an effect only in the long term? Like getting fat, getting addicted to drugs, neither saving nor carrying about any pension plan and so on? --Hofhof (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is looks like a request for opinions or debate. That's not what we do here. --69.159.63.238 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC), emended 10:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking about personal opinions about how someone should lead his life. I want to know what philosophers had to say about this. There is plenty of opportunity to point to sources here or to philosophical discussions. --Hofhof (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How would you narrow it down? The fairy tale about the grasshopper and the ants could be included, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carpe Diem is usually translated as "seize the day", not as "ignore the future". It's an admonishment not to let one day after the other slip by, but to use (and enjoy) it. But that does not imply to ignore the future, but rather to avoid drifting into it randomly. Horace was an Epicurean, not a hedonist or libertine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More exactly: Meaning of carpe diem. "the meaning of "carpe diem" as used by Horace is not to ignore the future, but rather not to trust that everything is going to fall into place for you " Nothing to do with the "fairy tale about the grasshopper and the ants." Clipname (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The grasshopper and the ants relates to the question, but you're saying the question is based on a false premise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want classical sources about living today vs worrying about the future, Matthew 6:31-34 comes to mind. Staecker (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How dangerous is it to walk down the street?

It's easy to find stats about violent crime by demographic, but for example, it's not necessarily more dangerous for men to walk down the street just because they're more often attacked.

Benjamin (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Define "dangerous". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot depends on which street... some are dangerous, others are very safe. Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But all streets are potentially dangerous. How often have we seen coverage of an incident, where some local people are interviewed and are saying how quiet and safe and friendly the street has always been, but after this I'll be sure to lock up my house and keep my kids indoors etc etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This could be completely irrelevant, but there is one index that came to mind when you mentioned that. It is called The Popsicle Index. Basically an index designed to see the percentage of people - in a community who believe that a child in their community can safely leave their home, walk down the street to the nearest possible location to buy a Popsicle, and walk back home.Eddie891 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend it on any street. Walking with him or making his teen brother do it is temporary, death is forever. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could use that same argument to never leave your house ever, at any age, for any non-emergency reason. After all, going to a friend's wedding is temporary, death (from car accident) is forever.

Absolute statements like that are not helpful. ApLundell (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's too easy to snatch a kid cause they can't fight back. Some pedophiles must like soft neighborhoods that are as close to Leave It To Beaver as they can find (though most don't abduct strangers). Times Square might be 99.999% safe though. So many people. It depends on if s/he can be tricked to go somewhere without witnesses. That middle aged woman and pedo guy abducted Elizabeth Smart remember? People trust women. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to put numbers and sources to this wild theorizing and absolute proclamations, it's not remotely useful to anybody. ApLundell (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are numbers and sources: About 100 US kids are kidnapped by strangers each year, "about half" come home (perhaps after being raped in the butt by someone who deserves to die). This 10-year old boy was abducted off the street by a sex offender at 8:30am and put in his apartment. The neighborhood is not bad at all. Where the sidewalks have fairly high population density and one might think a criminal would think that crime too risky. 32.9% of child abduction murder incidents had unknowing witnesses, page 44.

They often think it's a legal guardian dragging an unruly child, last page. It's happened before, that's good enough for me to not let a 10 year old get a popsicle alone if I had kids. Let's say that only a third of child abduction murders occur at the ages the Popsicle Index is mostly about (age statistics, page 16) There were 662 US car crash deaths in the <13 age column in 2015, subtract those being driven by drunk drivers cause that's a separate (stupid) risk than just driving and if car crash deaths are equally distributed within that column (which I can't find information on) then child abduction murder is only about 15 times less likely than car crash death. Except the ratio is as high as 15:1 only because millions of parents prevent billions or at least hundreds of millions of trips down the street alone from happening. Cars are very useful, many times more than not walking with your young kid is a burden (you can't even live in most of America without a car, exercise and bonding time is good for you) so it doesn't seem so disproportionate to not let your prepubescent kid walk to the store alone. Math doesn't say "if you are 9.8% more careful than x or 12.9% less it is irrational", it's a judgement call. Oh, and your chance of death by car is to a large extent determined by your driving skill and whether you do it drunk, texting, sleepy, with your knees while doing makeup, on the phone etc. You don't have as much control about a guy with the balls to snatch a kid off the street when you're not even there. You could drill into their mind to never get in a car with anyone who isn't whitelisted no matter what they say but that's just like a version of the AI box experiment and anyway it's more fun to just walk with them than to keep repeating fear of everyone into their inferior brains or scare them with stories about Glasgow smiles and stuff. (And yes, only 44.4% of child abduction murders are by strangers, page 26) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this: "In the United States, people are much more likely to die while walking on a roadway than from tuberculosis or getting mauled by an animal, the odds show. In the United States, there were about 37,000 deaths from "transport accidents" (including car, train, motorcycle and boat accidents). This number includes 6,200 pedestrians who died in transportation collisions — such as crashes with cars, trucks, bikes and trains — meaning that 2 pedestrians died per 100,000 people." (Live Science)Eddie891 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

but wait, there's more. IN 2009 (the most recent statistics I could get), The National Household Travel Survey estimated that there were around 40.9 billion walking trips each year. of those walking trips, 59,000 ended in an injury. In the 2005 Traveler Opinion and Perception Survey (TOP), conducted by the Federal Highway Administration, about 107.4 million Americans use walking as a regular mode of travel. IN that year, 4,892 pedestrians died. For the first Statistic, you have about a 0.001204081% chance of getting injured. For the second, you have a 0.002870892% percent chance of dying. Every Year, 270,000 deaths are caused, and "The proportion of pedestrians killed in relation to other road users is highest in the African Region (38%) and lowest in the South-East Asia Region (12%). In some countries, the proportion of pedestrian fatalities can reach nearly two thirds of road traffic deaths, such as in El Salvador (62%) and Liberia (66%)." A report in 2014 uses a Pedestrian Danger Index (PDI) described as "the share of local commuters who walk to work—the best available measure of how many people are likely to be out walking each day—and the most recent five years of data on pedestrian fatalities." The Nation's PDI is 52.2, which correlates to 1.56 deaths per 100,000 people. "Metro Orlando tops the list of most dangerous areas to walk this year, followed by the Tampa–St. Petersburg, Jacksonville, Miami and Memphis regions. Across the Orlando region, the calculated PDI for 2003–2012 was 244.28, four times higher than the national PDI. The Birmingham, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix and Charlotte regions round out the list of the ten most dangerous places to walk." If you were wondering, Stockholm is the safest city.

Sources

Hope this helped. Eddie891 (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But... what if we compare these statistics to those for injuries that take place within the home? Could it be that the streets are actually safer? Blueboar (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the first section of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 December 3 for something that discusses this subject, although with a focus on optics and pedestrian visibility. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand walking is one of the best exercises, being sedentary is a good way of shortening one's life, see Sedentary lifestyle. So yous got to just take your chances :) Dmcq (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Sherlock Holmes- "It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside." ... — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bathing and privacy in 18th C

In the opera Der Rosenkavalier, one character (male) talks about paying a social call on a woman while she's in the bathtub. They are only separated by a small screen. The period is the 1740s.

Are there other mentions, fictional or historical, of receiving guests in this way, from that period? (My question is specifically about bathing, not other activities where we would now expect privacy.) Thanks! Herbivore (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franklin seems to have been quite a horndog, and visited one of the French women he was pursuing while she was in her bath:[13], [14]. There was a wooden cover over the tub. Edison (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Palace of Versailles famously had no corridors, so courtiers, servants and even tourists were continually passing through the royal apartments. See The grandeur — and squalor — of old Versailles]. Alansplodge (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Versailles also famously had no commodes, leading to people just peeing and pooping in a convenient corner behind the drapes. [15]. This is likely an inspiration to the "piss boy" sketch from History of the World Part I. --Jayron 32 03:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very reliable source! The French aristocracy did know of the ceramic pot and had servants to empty their pots and middens to empty them on. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, try Daily Life During the French Revolution by James Maxwell Anderson (p. 51): "Servants and aristocratic visitors often relieved themselves on back stairs, along the darkened corridors, or in any out-of-the-way place...". The reference for this seems to be the letters of Horace Walpole, but I haven't been able to pin it down exactly. More here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is not James Maxwell Anderson but someone a bit more recent who happens to have the same name. Nyttend (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It still sounds like an urban legend to me. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book's from Greenwood, a component of ABC-CLIO. Academic publishers can make errors, of course, but this book is vastly more trustworthy than lifeoftheroyals.wordpress.com. Nyttend (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OE Panther

Do we have an article about "The Panther", an Old English poem? Both Old English literature and The Panther helpfully have a link to The Panther (poem), but unfortunately that's a twentieth-century composition with no references to an æþele stenc. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not; as the links in the "Contents" section of Exeter Book show, we appear to lack articles about a number of poems in the E. B. Deor (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

State historian

How many U.S. states have an official state historian? And in how many of those is it an honorary part-time thing (like poet laureate) rather than a full-time job? Neutrality^talk 01:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is what I found. Might not be 100% accurate or true, but I hope it helps

^{This list is possibly inaccurate. I only spent about 3 minutes looking for each state. The ones that I am least sure about are marked with a question mark. I am aware that many of the states listed with no state historian have an archivist, or something similar. The honorary column is only used when I specifically saw it in a news article. If you find a mistake, please correct it ^{(Eddie891 (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC))}}[reply]

State	State Historian (Y/N)	Honorary (Y/N)	Website
Alabama	N	N/A
Alaska	Y (JOAN ANTONSON)	N	N/A
Arizona	Y (Marshall Trimble)
Arkansas	Y (Lisa Speer)
California	Y (multiple [16])
Colorado	Y (Patty Limerick)
Connecticut	Y (Walter W. Woodward)		http://cthistory.org/
Delaware	N (unsure)	N/A
Florida	N	N/A
Georgia	Y (at some point)	N	N/A
Hawaii	N	N
Idaho	N	N/A
Illinois	Y (Marla Suter?)	N
Indiana	N	N/A
Iowa	N
Kansas	N
Kentucky	Y (James C. Klotter)	N
Louisiana	N	N/A
Maine	Y (Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr.)	N	http://www.maine.gov/mhpc/about_us/historians.shtml
Maryland	N	N/A
Massachusetts	N ?
Michigan	N
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico	Y	N	http://www.newmexicohistory.org/
New York	Y (Devin Lander)	N	N
North Carolina	N	N/A
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee	Y (Carrol Van West)	Y	N
Texas	Y ( Bill O'Neal)	N
Utah	Y (Jedediah Rogers?)	N
Vermont	N	N/A
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin	Y (at some point)	?	?
Wyoming	N	N/A	N/A

Eddie891 (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

You've omitted the states of Alleghany, New Jersey, and Ozark. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Barber jihad and mcworld democracy

Barber said that jihad has more possibilities of developing democratic strategies. How? Or is it the other way around? Donmust90 (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]