Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How dangerous is it to walk down the street?

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

1. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811394
2. http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf
3. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2013/make_walking_safe_20130502/en/
4. https://smartgrowthamerica.org/app/uploads/2016/08/dangerous-by-design-2014.pdf
5. http://www.nytimes.com/images/2014/05/13/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf
6. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2013/en/

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:[1], [2]. There was a wooden cover over the tub. Edison (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

Versailles also famously had no commodes, leading to people just peeing and pooping in a convenient corner behind the drapes. [3]. This is likely an inspiration to the "piss boy" sketch from History of the World Part I. --Jayron32 03:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Snippet view suggests Clean: A History of Personal Hygiene and Purity might help. Virginia Smith, OUP, 2008. Learned review and journalistic review. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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 [4])
Colorado	Y (Patty Limerick)
Connecticut	Y (Walter W. Woodward)		http://cthistory.org/
Delaware	N (unsure)	N/A
Florida	N
Georgia	Y (at some point)	N	N/A
Hawaii	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?)
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)

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

Eddie891 - wow, thanks! This could be the start of a brand-new list article, if you feel so inclined. Neutrality^talk 23:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you looked at our articles on Benjamin Barber and Jihad vs. McWorld? —Tamfang (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Four dynamics of McWorld

What are the four dynamics of the McWorld? The McWorld concept made by Benjamin Barber. Donmust90 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Green Movement in Confederal Option

How can the Green Movement play a role in Confederal Option? Donmust90 (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Market not free nor perfect

Why does Leslie Sklair say that the market is not free and not perfect? What does he mean? Donmust90 (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Because Leslie Sklair[5] is a Marxist, and Marxists don't believe that free markets exist. See Transnational capitalist class. BTW, nobody believes that perfect markets exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you name anything humans do that could be called "perfect"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Nation-states connected Complex Interdependence

According to Complex Interdependence, nation-states are connected in the present. How? by linkage or something? Donmust90 (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Bakery and baking

Why is the bakery associated with bread and pastries, even though a bird carcass can be baked in the oven? Pizza is often baked in the oven, but somehow it's not in the bakery? Are "baked goods" all sweet treats? What do you call something savory that just happens to be baked in an oven? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

EO says that the term "bakery" dates to the early 1800s and was specifically about "baked goods" especially bread.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This does not explain how the term, baking, is used for anything that can be baked under the sun or in an oven. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the terms are used imprecisely and may differ according to local variants. The term "roasting" also refers to a cooking process in an oven for main and side dishes. Differences may involve ingredients and preparations: e.g. "baked potato" (in its jacket/skin) vs. "roast potato" (peeled before cooking) both by dry oven methods. French has the separate words boulangerie and patisserie - for the establishment baking bread vs. pastry (savory vs. sweet) and their associated professions. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Liberal Democrat election propaganda

An election leaflet, apparently delivered to every voter in the country, provides this alleged quote from The Observer of 25 February:

Labour is not a functioning opposition, leaving Mrs May free to act as she pleases

The Observer didn't publish on 25 February. Is there anything else they've got wrong? 81.148.187.1 (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is online here - dated 25 February and presumably in print copies on the following day. Hardly the most egregious piece of misinformation in the campaign. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

And if it appeared on the website on the 25th, then it is correct to say that it was "published" on that date. So this may not even be "misinformation". Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

But if it only appeared on theguardian.com on 25 Feb, did it actually appear in The Observer on 25 Feb? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The Observer is a Sunday newspaper, so it would have first appeared in print on 26 Feb. However, online versions of articles that appear in print in the Observer appear on theguardian.com (there is no separate Observer website). So yes, it is correct to say that it first appeared in the Observer on 25 Feb. --Viennese Waltz 13:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. If paper A does not have a website, and the article appeared on the website of paper B, then it was published on that website, not paper A. I think it was published on theguardian.com on 25 Feb, and then was re-printed in The Observer on 26 Feb. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a category within the website, though. Since they're both just different brands for the same organization, I don't think it's incorrect to say that an Observer article was published on the day it went up on a website officially affiliated with the Observer. It's not perfectly clear, but who would waste ink over-explaining a slightly confusing one-day discrepancy?ApLundell (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

(ec) The Observer has a separate dedicated section on theguardian.com. How thin do you want to split that hair? I'd rate the claim that The Observer published it on February 25th as "Substantially true". Also, aren't most Sunday papers available late Saturday night? I remember newspaper boys (well, mostly men) hawking them in pubs and restaurants. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

ObPers: I concur with Stephan Schulz: when catching a late evening train (on any day of the week) from London termini, for example, one usually finds the early editions of the next days's papers being sold. This is a byproduct of the distribution process that allows national papers, traditionally printed in London, to be on sale and delivered by breakfast time nationwide.

The same date discrepancy can arise with weekly publications, such as The New Scientist and The Economist: They are usually on the newsstands in London on Wednesday night, ditto nationwide on Thursday, subscription copies usually arrive by post on Friday, but they are dated on the cover from Saturday (to the next Friday). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.208.38 (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't it "Labour are"? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Because "Labour" is shorthand for "The Parliamentary Labour Party" which is the official opposition. Wymspen (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't you then say that "Chelsea" is shorthand for "The Chelsea Football Club"? So "Chelsea is in the Premier League." or any other sentence that starts with "[football club] is" shouldn't be ungrammatical. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

In UK English, references to an organization as a whole (rather than its members), take the singular. BTW, the URL has 'observer' in it, which indicates that it was published by the Observer. LongHairedFop (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The difference is the difference between notional agreement vs. formal agreement. Two things should be noted: 1) UK English and US English deal with these two forms of agreement differently and 2) It's also inconsistent within each dialect. --Jayron32 20:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually the URL only has "Observer" in it because it is "the Observer view". In this context it is because the article was intended to appear in the Observer, but it is not a logical necessity that an article headed "The X view" is an article published by X. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The poster could have found the article by a Google search and checked for themselves. As it is Labour seem to have come back quite a bit since then. Also I think the Guardian got it wrong in its attitude as if Jeremy Corbyn cares much about parliament - he is more of a grassroots politician saying populist things like Trump, the papers got that wrong too. He won't get elected this time but it certainly is looking like populism and divisiveness is going to be the way in politics for a while yet. Dmcq (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Corbyn really more like Trump than Bernie? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No, his politics are much closer to Sanders on pretty much everything. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders also tended towards populism, but that's not the same as saying his or Corbyn's aims are the same as Trump's! America is very badly divided and currently Labour and the Tories are heading towards doing the same in the UK. Dmcq (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The website is "theguardian.com". The Observer section appears to be "theguardian.com/observer". This piece was on the main section under "observer-view-on-labour-and-jeremy-corbyn". Whether the words attributed to the Observer actually appeared in the paper or are just the Guardian summary of the editorial I don't know. The fact that the word "observer" appeared in the URL doesn't mean that the Observer published them, any more than if "donald-trump" appears in a URL that means the piece was published by Donald Trump. As for dated content being referenced by the date it was accessed, you could cite an almanac for 2017 as 2016 as that was when it was published and then nobody would be able to find the material.81.148.128.200 (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you will never knowingly be wrong so why on earth raise the matter in the first place? Dmcq (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I just had a look with Google at 'Liberal democrat election leaflet' under images for the last month and I can't see anything like what you say. In fact they all look very different which is I believe in line with their general way of doing things which to have loose internal control and concentrate on local issues rather than be strongly driven by ideology. Dmcq (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It may not be quite obvious to outsiders, but The Observer is the sister newspaper to The Guardian. Both are published by the Guardian Media Group. Their relation is analogous to the one between The Times and The Sunday Times or the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday. Both The Observer and The Guardian publish on https://www.theguardian.com, where The Observer's section is under https://www.theguardian.com/observer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Zoologist, non-academic

To the List of people from Pittsburg, Kansas I'd like to add Marlin Perkins. I'd like advice regarding the appropriate category, though. He's not actually an Academic as it seems he worked his way up to the position of zookeeper. He was involved in nature conservation and gained prominence as presenter of "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom on television. I not good with "Television" because it's under the heading Arts & Entertainment. What's a proper category, even if it requires adding to the page? -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Everything Is Miscellaneous... --Jayron32 17:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think that putting him under "Television" would be fine, since the two TV shows are what he's best known for (and a zoo is, at least partly, a form of "entertainment" in any event). Deor (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Eighth Route Army

Where does the term Route come from?--Erdic (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

See Route Army: "A Route Army (路軍/路军), was a type of military organization during the Chinese Republic, and usually exercised command over two or more corps or a large number of divisions or independent brigades." Scala Cats (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Scala Cats: Thank you very much, but unfortunately, also in this article it does not really become clear to me what "Route" exactly refers to here. I also wonder, whether "Route" is a literal translation or a term deviating from the Chinese designation and coined by anglophone historians in fact.--Erdic (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"Route Armies" were first formed in 1929. Before the "Nth Route Armies" of the National Revolutionary Army were formed, there were various military units called the "X Route Armies", e.g. the "Left Route Army" and "Right Route Army" in Guizhou. The Communist Red Army, before they became part of the National Revolutionary Army, also had a "West Route Army", "South Route Army" and "North Route Army" (or "Left" and "Right"; "East", "Middle" and "West", etc). In ancient China, an expeditionary force that is marching to battle along three different routes might be organised into a "North Route Army", "Middle Route Army" and "South Route Army": examples of such names can be found from the civil war immediately before the establishment of the Han Dynasty to the Ming resistance against the Qing Dynasty. I can't find any sources form an internet search as to why Chiang Kai-shek adopted "Route Army" as a unit in 1929, but I think the terminology probably derives from the traditional division name. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. So, did I get you right that the term "Route" would then be indeed a translation of a Chinese equivalent?--Erdic (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Route = 路, lu, the Chinese word for "road". In Shanghai's French Concession, for example, roads called Route X in French were literally called X Lu in Chinese. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--Erdic (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a RL analogy to leaving separated, surrounded units too costly to rescue,

and telling them to not try to fight through the somewhat more powerful force blocking them from the main friendly force hoping to get lucky but only to fortify till the enemy decides to attack and then kill as many attackers as they can to weaken the enemy? Basically either making them a sacrificial enemy weakener if they're attacked or tying up enemy troops if they're content to just keep escape unlikely? It might work better in real war than in Risk® since a force is stronger per capita defending their lives than attacking (especially if they had time to fortify) but Risk defenders get fewer dice. This sounds like something the Japanese or Soviets might've done in WWII where surrender wasn't an option. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Last Stand.

ApLundell (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Also e.g. Battle of Stalingrad. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds exactly like that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Battle of the Alamo. However, note that this strategy requires an incompetent enemy. In both the Battle of Stalingrad and the Alamo, the enemy forces should have just bypassed them, in the first case going on to attack other targets in Russia, and in the second case, going directly on to the Battle of San Jacinto. StuRat (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• It's called a Siege and it has been an important part of warfare since prehistoric times. Basically, you fort up and hold out until you die or until there is an external change. See also pocket. A fixed fortification or city is built in advance with the idea of defending itself against a siege, while a pocket usually occurs dynamically and the defenders must hastily fortify. -Arch dude (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, but you're missing the element that this Q is only about it's use as a diversionary tactic, to get the enemy to attack a small force of defenders, while the main force is free to fight elsewhere. StuRat (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Sometimes the defenders will attempt to goad the other side into attacking. See Come and take it#Texas Revolution. This is also an annoying habit of some experienced Wikipedia editors; goad a newbie into breaking the rules then report him.^{[Citation Needed]} --Guy Macon (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

In general, the strategy of sacrificing men and materiel in order to cause the enemy to waste more (or more important) men and materiel is Attrition warfare. Delaying the enemy by forcing them to deal with multiple strongpoints rather than bypassing them is an element of Defence_in_depth, although I'm not sure this specific case is an example of that. Iapetus (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Does the Battle of Thermopylae match the OP's requirements as well? --Jayron32 23:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much it. I had forgot about that. (why didn't the Persians try to see if there wasn't a sneak way to Greece first before attacking the pass? scouts are cheap) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

They never thought they could be delayed significantly by only 300 soldiers. StuRat (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It was 7,000 at first. One would think only 100-150K vs 7K guarding a cart-width path would be at least worth a quick look around first. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

There wasn't much else. Greece is a pretty rugged and inhospitable terrain. --Jayron32 01:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

There was a way around, which a traitor eventually showed them. However, delaying the attack to take the time to look would allow the Greeks time to organize a defense, so the direct path was worth a quick try, too. StuRat (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Australia's online sales tax changes

I'm reading about Australia's new online sales tax changes and am pretty confused.

One article says: "Under new laws slated to come into effect from July 1, overseas businesses with an annual turnover of $75,000 or more will be required to register with the ATO to collect GST on all goods sold, including purchases under the current low-value threshold of $1000."[7]

But another one says: "Overseas retailers have no obligation to comply with Australian tax laws..."[8]

So do these new Australian tax laws affect overseas retailers or not? Scala Cats (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The second link is a quote from Tom Godfrey, spokesperson for Choice (Australian consumer organisation). He is doubtless a fine fellow but he is not a recognised authority on Australian tax law, so what he says is essentially an opinion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The two are not necessarily inconsistent. An Australian tax law could require overseas businesses to do so-and-so, but the extraterritorial effect could only exist under Australian law and not be recognised anywhere else, and the Australian government could have no practical way of enforcing it against them. Unless there is a way to enforce it, it would be like the old rhetorical example of a British statute criminalising literring on the streets of Paris. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

June 7

Richard III's hunchback

How pronounced was Richard III's hunchback/spine curvature? I've seen the bones and know of the facial reconstruction of the king based on his remains. But has anyone reconstructed his full body/torso or written about how pronounced his spine curvature may have appeared when he was alive since the finding of his remains. --96.41.155.253 (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

rather pronounced [9]. --Dr Dima (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Historian Dominic Selwood, amongst others, have argued that we don't know if that body really was that of Richard: [10] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

NB This notable opposition to the accepted theory is not in our Richard III article, nor in Exhumation_and_reburial_of_Richard_III_of_England. Happy for someone else to add it, or I'll get to it eventually. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Road safety

The concessionaire for the London cycle hire scheme provides two columns of six "Tips for safer cycling" at its docking stations. Tip No. 1 in the right - hand column is

Don't ride through red traffic lights-you may be fined

More to the point, you might be killed. Are there any other examples of fatuous road safety advice? 81.148.128.200 (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not fatuous at all, in many jurisdictions it is legal to go through a red light (turn on red), so it makes sense to emphasise for tourists. Fgf10 (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You have to stop first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not every jurisdiction is Idaho. Paris (France, not Texas) allows cyclists to make a right turn on red or proceed straight through a T-intersection without stopping, under some circumstances: [11]. The Dutch have been doing the same sort of thing for decades: [12]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed. You don't always have to stop first, therefore it makes sense to emphasise this. Fgf10 (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• In America, a right on red requires a stop first, and you're supposed to yield to oncoming traffic before turning, whether you're a car or a bike. I couldn't say how it works where you come from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Hence why I said "You don't always have to stop first". Your categorical statement earlier was an overgeneralisation. Fgf10 (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

According to [13] it is legal for cyclists to do so (in certain circumstances) Brussels and some cities in Germany (as well as the aforementioned Idaho, Paris and the Netherlands). And evidently San Francisco considered doing so and London considered trialing this. So yeah there is actually a very good reason for this advice. Especially since tourists from those parts of Europe would be one likely user of the scheme. Note it doesn't matter whether you have to stop first or not anyway as the advice simply says "Don't ride through red traffic lights-you may be fined" because it doesn't matter in London whether you stop first or not, you're still liable to be fined. The advice is useful both for those familiar with the Idaho law, and for those familiar with the law in Paris and elsewhere; and any other laws which allow people to cycle through red lights. (Of course this doesn't mean it's okay to say you always have to stop first when you don't.) Of course if you come from a place like NZ where the law is there but rarely enforced the advice is also theoretically useful except that I wonder how many people will appreciate it's not just empty advice and people are evidently regularly fined for this. Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Not everyone knows that you can be fined when driving a bike in the same way as a driver of any motor vehicle. Clipname (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The question claimed this was an example of "fatuous" advice and asked us to find more. But if the cyclist has enough common sense to not attempt passing a red light when there is oncoming traffic, then it makes sense to warn them that they could nevertheless be fined. In other words, this is saying "We enforce the law against cyclists even when they can see that there is no danger." That may or may not be true, but it's not fatuous. --69.159.63.238 (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the law often requires doing dangerous things, all in the cause of "safety". In the case of the bicyclist, crossing when there is no traffic is probably safer than when the light says to cross. This is because they are often "invisible" to motorists. StuRat (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

--69.159.63.238 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

[14], [15]. StuRat (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

See also wikt:SMIDSY. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

In this country, there are many junctions where you are permitted to turn right but not left. This throws up a hazard for unsuspecting pedestrians. At the weekend, seeing a red light at the junction I began crossing three lanes of stationary traffic on a dual carriageway. Unbeknown to me, while the light remained red an ill - lit green filter arrow had come on permitting drivers to cross the junction and the cars started moving. 81.148.128.200 (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to add some context, in London, many cyclists routinely ride through red lights and the police have only recently taken steps to prosecute anyone. A Transport for London survey in 2007 showed that only 84% of London cyclists obey red light signals. [16] Therefore, people hiring a bike in London might assume that it is legal for cyclists to pass a red light. Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

More to the point, it seems that the majority of cyclists who cycle in London after dark do so without lights, and an awful lot of them cycle on pavements with no regard for pedestrian safety (remembering that they are a completely silent form of transport). 81.148.128.200 (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Although that's not more to the point in respect of the original question. However, I take your point. A friend who is a special constable has recently been involved in an operation to crack down on cyclists' dangerous behaviour in London, so it seems something is being done at last. Alansplodge (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

(EC) I wonder if 69 is confused about why some cyclists feel it's safer to go through red lights as this doesn't intrisicly common from cyclists being invisible or not being seen. In NZ it isn't uncommon some cyclists will go through a red light when it's clearly safe to do so and safety is one commonly cited reason (I'm lazy to dig up references but see some of the replies to these articles [17] [18], as well as [19] which isn't from NZ). This is generally for 2 reasons. 1 if you are going straight and the lane is both for people turning left and going straight (people drive on the left in NZ) there's a risk a left turning driver may hit you if you're going straight. The second is regardless of where you're going, it puts you ahead of the traffic, hopefully increasing the chance you'll be given sufficient room (while things are improving even in Auckland there still aren't that many cycle lanes or other cyclist facilities like special traffic lights etc). Or in some cases, depending on where your traveling, when you cross, the speed of the traffic, the distance to the next light etc, you may even avoid the traffic completely. Getting back to the first point, it may also be particularly beneficial at the light especially if both of you are turning in the same direction. Note that as evidenced from the earlier references this isn't without controversy and most cyclist advocacy organisations don't support it, and yes not all cyclists are as careful to ensure it's safe to do so as they should be. Of particular contention is when it happens during pedestrian crossings and the cyclist travels into the path of the pedestrian crossing, although a lot of drivers seem to just complain about it because it's illegal (regardless of circumstances) and cyclists clearly don't think the road rules apply to them (I think a lot of them are complaining despite regularly driving 60 km/h on a 50 km/h road or going through an orange light when they could clearly stop safely in time). Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

On your second point, traffic lights in London now have a "bike box" just ahead of the other traffic, which gives cyclists a bit of a head start. Alansplodge (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that a "bike box" is officially called an Advanced stop line. Alansplodge (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You also get these in Auckland with some traffic lights, especially where there is a cycle lane. "early release" and "hold the left turning traffic" (mentioned in the Guardian article I linked in my other post above) are AFAIK extremely rare in Auckland although I admit I don't travel much in the more cycling friendly areas (whether driving or cycling) although I'm not sure how common these are in London at the moment anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Christians and the holy land

When have Christians dropped their claims to the holy land? Why are only Jewish people and Muslims dead set on it? --Clipname (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

After the last of the Crusades, Christians stopped trying to control it, although Britain did control it after WW1, following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, but by that point it was no longer important for Christians to have exclusive control over it and they eventually decided to pull out. See British Mandate. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The question remains: why isn't it that important to Christians? The holy land is holy to the three Abrahamic religions. No one really needs to lay claim to it, but two of them do it anyway. --Clipname (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Jews seem to feel the need for a place to be safe, since they were massacred when they were a minority. See Holocaust and pogroms. As for Christians, the Reformation gave the Church less power and more threats to worry about, closer to home, and corresponds roughly with the end of the Crusades, so that may be relevant. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

We need a "wild speculation" tag for StuRat's answers. Hofhof (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

StuRat's comments match my own understanding of it. What have you read that disagrees? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

StuRat has rewritten his comment. Just take a look at: [[20]] and tell me with whom you agree.Hofhof (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody had yet responded, so I continued to improve my answer, just as you did below by finally including some links. It's rather pointless to ask if people disagree with the part I removed, because I disagree with it, too. This is why I removed it. StuRat (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Jewish people were 'given/promised' the country by the UK, and they needed a safe haven. The Muslim were/felt displaced. Both consider themselves as the rightful inhabitants of land and try to keep/fight for it. Christian are/were just a minority in the region. Hofhof (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I provided several links, but see none provided by you. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration, 1948 Palestinian exodus. Christianity in IsraelHofhof (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The casus belli of the Crimean War was a row over access to Christian sites in Jerusalem, see Crimean War#Immediate causes of the war, but it was more about Catholic vs Orthodox rather than Christian vs Islam, plus a lot of superpower rivalry. Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Questioner, it's more the other way round. Why was Christendom interested in the Holy Land in the first place after about 1,000 years of not particularly caring about who has control of it. The origins of the First Crusade are murky and much argued about by historians. Yet another occasion when the much-missed User:Clio the Muse would have shed some light. My befuddled memory of the debate is that the appeal of the Byzantines for help catches peoples' imaginations and coincides nicely with some societal pressures and issues to create a potent cocktail. I'd imagine that certain types of historians would argue that the changes in society, eg the rise of the European middle classes, release some of those tensions. Others might argue it's about the rise of the nation state. Others still that leaders eventually worked out that Crusading in Outremer was futile without demography behind it. In any case, understand the original cause before you can understand why it stopped applying. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Dweller -- it's not actually that murky; it's a reasonably direct consequence of the Battle of Manzikert, which destroyed the Byzantine Empire's hold on Anatolia, a region which was actually predominantly Greek-speaking at that point, and the main foundation of Byzantine power (far more so than Greece itself). The conquering Turks, as relatively recent converts to Islam, tended to be intolerant and more likely to cut off Christian pilgrimage routes than the Fatimids had been. Also, some Christians perceived the danger of a two-front pincer movement against Christian Europe, with Turks advancing through Anatolia into the Balkans (which actually did happen) in the east, while in the west there might be renewed Arab and Berber assaults against Spain and ultimately France, accompanied by renewed piracy and naval invasions in the Western Mediterranean, such as had resulted in Muslims having a base in France (Fraxinetum) a century earlier. From that point of view, the first Crusade was an attempt to take the battle directly to the enemy heartland. The first Crusade had elements of both chauvinistic religious fanaticism and sober military strategy... AnonMoos (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Previous to that, Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah (the "Mad Caliph") had banned his Christian subjects from celebrating Easter or using wine in Holy Communion in 1004, and in 1009 ordered the demolition of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, arguably the holiest Christian shrine. Although the Byzantines soon reached a workable access agreement with Al-Hakim's successor, his actions provided ammunition for the European rabble-rousers who initiated the First Crusade. Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to add to AnonMoos' and Alan's responses, it wasn't 1000 years as Dweller says - Christians had lost control of the Holy Land about 400 years earlier. If you think, well, 400 years is a long time, why do they still care? That's a good question but irredentism is a hell of a drug. Some of the people who actually participated in the crusade believed that it was the natural conclusion of the Muslim conquests in the 7th century, and events like al-Hakim and Manzikert in the 11th century were still fresh to them. It was all connected in their minds, some of them anyway. And Dweller is right, "certain types" of historians argue about the origins of the crusade a lot, and have done so for decades, centuries even. Currently the consensus seems to be that crusaders mostly had sincere religious beliefs and went on crusade for pious reasons and considered Islamic expansion a threat to their way of life or whatever (although not all historians think so, some *cough cough* consider this to be a useless pantsload of an explanation). By the way, hopefully we don't actually summon Clio the Muse. Her powers of "restating the relevant Wikipedia article but with bigger words" were never very useful. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

And it's not as if Christian control of the Levant was a given before the Muslim conquest - Heraclius had only just got Jerusalem back from the Sassanids when it was lost again after the Battle of Yarmouk. And given that Christianity only became the State church of the Roman Empire in 380 CE, the period the Holy Land was under control of a Christian state really was not that impressive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

In the decade of the 1090s, the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in 1009 was history that was felt to still have relevance, but the Battle of Manzikert was basically current events. That is, given the state of communications, transportation, and political organization during that period, by the time knowledge of the battle had been diffused throughout Latin Christendom and understood by informed people there, and knowledge of the various political/military/religious changes resulting from the battle had been diffused throughout Latin Christendom and understood by informed people there, and people were considering and discussing whether Latin Christendom should offer any collective response to this threat, it was already the 1090s... AnonMoos (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Socioeconomic status women and men / wives and husbands at wedding day

How does the socioeconomic status of wives and husbands compare to the situation of women and men in the general population? That is, how fluid is the socioeconomic status of the partners in a marriage? --Clipname (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally they converge as a result of marriage. That is, the lower socioeconomic status partner rises up, and perhaps the upper partner falls down, until they are close to equal in status. There are many variations on marriage, though, and especially in societies with multiple wives for each husband, the status of the women can be far less than the men. StuRat (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like wild speculation or just the first thing someone could think of. I'd dare to say that the socioeconomic status of bride/bridegroom is the same as avg.man/avg.woman in the general population. But that would be just a personal opinion too. We need to find sources though. --Hofhof (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you interpreted the Q differently than I:

1) My interpretation: How do the socioeconomic status of a bride and groom change, following marriage to partners of a different status ?

2) Your interpretation (?): How does the socioeconomic status of married couples differ from the general population ? StuRat (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: I asked at wedding day. What's the distance between the partners, what's the distance between men/women in the general population. I'm interested specially in the economic part. Clipname (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, that sounds more like the 2nd interpretation. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, in the UK, married couples used to receive significant tax breaks and other benefits in comparison to single people, although they have been reduced in recent years. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.208.38 (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

No time to google further, but for those good at searching: The relevant terms seem to be heterogamy (for partners who come to the marriage with different socio-economic status) and homogamy (for partners who come to the marriage with the same socio-economic status). Another keyword you can try is “assortative marriage”. Possibly some American data here [21]. Are you looking for a particular country?184.151.231.149 (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Fifty leading American companies

In an opinion column published on June 5 in the New York Times (and in today's international edition), Antony J. Blinken states:

Just nine months ago, President Obama convened a special leaders summit meeting on refugees during the United Nations General Assembly. Fifty-two countries made commitments to increase their financial contributions to international humanitarian organizations by $4.5 billion over 2015 levels, double the number of refugees they resettle, and improve access to education for one million refugee children and to lawful work for one million adults. As well, 50 leading American companies committed to provide education opportunities for 80,000 refugees and employment possibilities for 200,000.

Is a list of those last-mentioned 50 leading American companies accessible? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

right here Eddie891 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Oops. I mean right hereEddie891 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Great! This source (obamawhitehouse.archives.gov) was previously unknown to me. I'm hoping it will serve as a WP:Reliable source so long as the citation includes the access date - as perhaps there's reason to believe even an archive might be dynamic (i.e. mutable) when we can't be sure of "its" integrity, etc. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Wars of the Roses

What was the Wars of the Roses referred and called by academics and historians before the 19th century reference by Walter Scott?--96.41.155.253 (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As it clearly says on the page: "During Shakespeare's time people used the term Civil Wars: cf. e.g., the title of Samuel Daniel's work, the First Four Books of the Civil Wars" Eddie891 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. So when did the term English Civil War come into use for the next civil war in England, and did the Wars of the Roses go by another name during, say, the 18th century? --69.159.63.238 (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I did more digging and found this book which says "what we now call the Wars of the Roses were sometimes referred to by contemporaries as the 'Cousins' Wars" (as a matter of fact, Cousins' Wars is much more commonly accepted as the pre-Walter Scott name) Eddie891 (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? There are also books from before the 18th century on Google Books, I am not finding Cousins' War in any of them. --96.41.155.253 (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

At 69.159.63.238, Interesting question. I like to know too.--96.41.155.253 (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting article on this, from the Catholic Herald. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/10/15/the-wars-of-the-roses-must-not-be-rebranded-as-the-cousins-war/ Wymspen (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

David Hume's great 18th century work, The History of England, describes the events in some detail without actually giving them an inclusive name (as far as I can see). The relevant volume is here, should anybody want to go through it more thoroughly. Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Re Hume, using the search function at [22], I find these quotes: "…those of York were denominated from the white; and these civil wars were thus known, over Europe, by the name of the quarrel between the two roses." and "There is no part of English history since the Conquest, so obscure, so uncertain, so little authentic or consistent, as that of the wars between the two Roses."

(P.S. When Hume writes of the English Civil War in volume 5 [23], he uses "Commencement of the civil war" as the heading for chapter LVI and continues to use the term, lower case.)

(P.P.S. A contemporary of Walter Scott, John Lingard never uses the phrase "War of the Roses", although he refers to [24] "the bloody feuds between "the two roses".") 184.151.231.149 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

June 8

Masha Gessen gay marriage

What are Masha Gessen's views on gay marriage?50.26.127.149 (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to Masha Gessen? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes I am.50.26.127.149 (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you aware of how to indent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 07:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

(In a thread, it is customary to indent one space from the comment you are replying to.) StuRat (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Given that the article on her clearly indicates that she has been married at least twice to other women, it would be reasonable to assume that she's in favour of it. You might try exploring some of the 55 references at the foot of the article, a number of which link to pieces written by her. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.208.38 (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

And also of importance, what are her views on fox hunting? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Plus does she stuff beans up her nose and what are the effects? Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

<small>Why does she look so miserable in the main pic in our article on her?</small> Eliyohub (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Though initially displayed small by the commenter, @Eliyohub:, I'm treating this as a legitimate query about the WP Page Masha Gessen and replying where it's dealt with, at Talk:Masha Gessen#Photo for infobox. Because this is what we do here in creating a free online encyclopedia. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that being in favor or opposed isn't the only possible aspect to a stand on gay marriage. Other issues include whether such a marriage is considered equal in all ways to a traditional marriage, such as for tax purposes, adoption, and, in the US, so they don't have to testify against their spouse in court. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The legal aspects are precisely the point of pushing for same-sex marriage. Couples with a willing minister have always been able to get married. But it had no legal status. Until now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I'm asking,guys, is because I remember reading somewhere that she said something about gay marriage being some sort of lie, but I don't remember where it was.50.26.127.149 (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If you do a Google search by typing 'Masha Gessen gay marriage a lie' into the search box of your browser you get for instance [25]. You can see how easy it is to do simple searches like that. Dmcq (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course, such searches are excellent for confirmation bias. The first few sources uncovered by your search are all right-wing stone-age-morality platforms which very much use quote-mining and unjustified generalisations to present a very particular narrative of the event that is only tenuously connected to reality. Googling for information on politically sensitive topics is a bit like using a Santoku knife - both are excellent tools, but if you don't know what you are doing, you can easily cut off parts of the world that are probably important to you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but in practice I think this sort of advice will simply lead to people looking for sources they agree with rather than simply reading the first couple of returns. That will exacerbate the problem. This is the sort of thing that probably needs a bit f training for in schools rather than that people will do it right because of some exhortation. Dmcq (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Advanced English

Which English news websites use difficult words?

Most Indian news websites general English, and I don't learn any new difficult word. There is also American English and British English. Which one to follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.135.127 (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

In India you are probably better off using the British sites - try the BBC or any of the serious newspapers like The Guardian or The Independent (which are free - The Times and The Telegraph charge for access). Wymspen (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Not an answer. 184.151.231.149 (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also, I feel you need to learn the basics first. There are a number of errors in your post, which I will correct, in the hopes of teaching you some of these basics: Most Indian news websites use general English, and I don't learn any new, difficult words. There is also American English and British English. Which one to follow. should I learn ? StuRat (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Some more complex words Stu has inadvertently taught the OP include "patronizing", "condescending", "supercilious". A good start.--Jayron32 20:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Just try and correct StuRat's own errors and see how far you get. Add "hypocrisy" to the list. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say that Calvin and Hobbes utilizes a larger vocabulary than any newspapers. 107.179.230.142 (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

When trying to learn another language I like to look at children's books and TV shows. They use simple words but they are careful and precise about how they use them, so they are easy to understand and learn from. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

For learning English, I suggest country music. It is slower and easier to sing along with. I personally hate country music, but it has been very helpful for coworkers from India and China. They not only learn words, they also learn the natural pattern of native English speaking. It isn't my idea. A doctor I work with said he got it from Jackie Chan. Now, he sounds like he's from Texas, not India. I personally think he purposely tries to sound like that. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

LyricsTraining.com is a free website with recordings and lyrics of popular songs for learning English and other languages. It's quite a challenge and rewards your study. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

As for varieties of the language, see Comparison of American and British English. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Edward the Exile

The article states: "This turn of events left the throne of England to be disputed by Earl Harold and Duke William, ultimately leading to the Norman Conquest of England." — But what about the role of Harald Hardrada? If I'm correctly informed, he was the third rival contesting the throne and was defeated by Harold. Shouldn't he then be mentioned, too? What do the experts say? (I'm German and do not have that sound knowledge about English history) Greetings--Erdic (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a simplification in a short article which is primarily about something else. If you read the full article - Norman Conquest of England - you will find it is described in the appropriate level of detail. Wymspen (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

As noted by Wymspen, we can't reproduce the entire narrative on every single article that is related to it. Hardrada's claim to the throne was distinct and different from that of William and Godwinson's dispute, which is more central to Edward's narrative. --Jayron32 20:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

June 9

Presidential-style campaign in UK

jessica Elgot of The Guardian writes:[26]

However, she has been prime minister for a mere 10 months, voters barely had time to get to know [Theresa] May, who is not the most natural campaigner. Running a presidential-style campaign based on someone still untested with the public was a gamble.

This seems to mean there is some other style in which a UK party aiming for a majority can run a general election campaign. Does that mean a campaign focusing more on issues and backbenchers than on the leadership personalities, or what? Do they actually do that there some of the time?

Also, what does this mean and is it realistic? It says Jeremy Corbyn is likely to become the next British PM, even though his party will still have fewer seats than the Conservatives. It also says that Boris Johnson is May's most likely successor: does that mean as Conservative leader, rather than as PM? Is it really plausible that the next PM won't be a Conservative, since they're still the largest party by a considerable margin? Thanks. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Tories ran a May v Corbyn campaign. Labour went on policies and many candidates around the country hid Corbyn as much as possible from their leaflets etc. The former is presidential style. On your second question, see minority government and hung parliament. If the Tories form the next government then whoever is their leader will be PM. The rules of the Tory party is that if there's a leadership election, sitting MPs vote. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Although the Independent article (currently) says it's from "an hour ago", i.e. about 9 am, most it was clearly written before the full results were known, though after the exit poll was published, and its "predictions" are mostly based on betting behaviour. At the moment it's very unclear what will happen, though it seems most likely that the Conservatives will continue as the governing party, possibly with support from (if not coalition with) the DUP. Despite her insistence that she won't resign, I can't see Theresa May lasting much longer after her disastrous gamble. Boris Johnson must be sharpening the knives... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Leadership elections in British political parties generally, but especially the Conservative party have a funny way of not turning out the way outsiders might have expected at the outset, particularly when the PM seat is up for grabs. Here's an example: Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1990. And, erm, here's another: Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2016. Not that there is currently a vacancy, but Anna Soubry's comments last night live on BBC were damaging, if not quite like being savaged by a dead sheep. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The term "presidential campaign" in the context of a UK general election means that a particular party is concentrating on the qualities of their leader (as though they being personally elected, rather like a president) rather than on the party's policies. This article from last week says that "the signs are quite literally there that the Conservative campaign will be far less Presidential", suggesting that the party managers had already realised that their original line, “Theresa May and the Conservatives: Strong, Stable Leadership” was mistaken. Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC

Thanks, that all explains. I guess the immediate governance question is sorted for now. Corbyn's personal popularity apparently shot way up towards the end of the campaign ([27], § "May v Corbyn"), so I wonder if Labour is likely to also go "presidential" next time. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Greater London constituencies

Why are the left and right wing areas shaped like that?

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

By the distribution I would say the yellow, brown, and green are regional parties, blue and orange fight for the rural vote and the red represents the cities. The same pattern always occurs in Canada too. 72.38.213.159 (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If you are just guessing, why answer? Fgf10 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That is generally true but I was wondering about Greater London. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking why certain areas vote Labour or Tory in London, or why the constituencies are shaped the way they are? Your question isn't clear to me. Fgf10 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised that the west half of London has a Labour strip from the edge of Greater London to almost the center and the east half has a lot of Tory suburbs. I wonder why left wingers live due southwest but only very far away, the Tory zone that comes right out of the City and Westminster is small and things like that. The shape of each of the dozens of constituencies is too much detail. My London geography is very fuzzy. I don't even know where some well-known things like Heathrow are. Northeast? Southeast? Who knows? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Heathrow Airport is in the London Borough of Hillingdon, which together with the London Borough of Hounslow forms the red Labour holding on the western fringe of Greater London. Hounslow is a less-than-prosperous and racially diverse area, perhaps partly due to its proximity to one of the busiest airports in the world, but also due to post-war housing policy. However, there's no simple correlation between prosperity and support for Labour or Conservative; wealthy Kensington (UK Parliament constituency) has just returned a Labour MP (after three recounts). Alansplodge (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

How to describe opposing justice for minorities?

Bloody Sunday (1972) was an incident where the British army indiscriminately murdered a bunch of peaceful Irish protesters. Two newspapers, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph have written articles in recent years saying that the soldiers who perpetrated this massacre should not be prosecuted for murder.

I am trying to find a phrase to describe these papers' actions. Is it hate speech? Something else?--Feae3 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you're looking for the phrase disagrees with me. --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

See impunity and truth and reconciliation commission. Neutrality^talk 20:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

As part of the Good Friday Agreement paramilitaries were given early releases and basically normalization has involved something a bit closer to what the truth and reconciliation commission did. The British government doesn't want anything formal like in South Africa but in effect everyone is following that path with things like the Saville Inquiry and the military will not be prosecuted for crimes before the peace agreement. Dmcq (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

And the idea that a newspaper expressing an opinion about whether or not something is murder constitutes "hate speech"? I bet there's a word for that too. How to describe that? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong about the Good Friday Agreement. It says nothing about crimes from before the peace agreement. Criminals from the security services and paramilitaries who committed crimes before 1998 are regularly prosecuted. The Bloody Sunday soldiers can be. Early release for prisoners already in prison was the only controversial part of the agreement. The Bloody Sunday soldiers weren't already in prison when it was made.--Feae3 (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If you know that much you know immunity notices have been handed out to many who were on the run and that at most people are prosecuted and then released after six months or so, the limit is two years. As to security forces being regularly prosecuted that hasn't included British soldiers. Two have been recently prosecuted but I see that as a sort of test case to fix the business properly, this is what goes wrong when things are done informally, with something like this it does have to be fixed up properly eventually. Dmcq (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a possibility, that....

...(first: hi to all)....2nd...the Trump Admin be able to...because he said today to the (recorded tapes that the congress gave the limit to june 23rd), Quote: "you will know in the "very near future"", ... (manipulate), or produce (secret) recordings he never made with the meetings with James B. Comey, some that may, or may never have existed (i mean faked recordings), without that Congress (or Robert Mueller as the special investigator) being able to investigate if the taped recordings have been "made" in the timeline between today and June 23rd 2017 ? Knowingly that Trump never gives up, even if he is mostly involved being working with some Mobsters during his time as a Businessman, being suspected even with suspicious russian connections, is tapeproducing in the aftermath of the ongoing investigation, traceable, or possible to be traced back, that the tapes have been produced in the (now) aftermath of Comeys firing ? Or would such a deflecting move be investigated, or being looked into ? Thank you very much for some clearance in this question. Regards. --2001:7E8:D281:3901:61DE:2B93:2764:7943 (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking, but 1) Trump insinuated that tapes exist; 2) he may or may not have been bluffing; 3) Comey described Trump to someone complaining of a meddlesome priest; 4) the point of such a comparison is that it's hard to pin Trump down for actual lawbreaking rather than routine belly-aching; 5) Trump is a more colorful personality than Comey or Mueller, but they are all pariticipating in Byzantinism and none can be treated as perfectly credible or agenda-free. The Russia story has believers and skeptics on both the left and right.

Right now I'd take recent events more as political posturing than the actual uncovering of facts. Richard Wolffe claims[28] that impeachment machinery is warming up for Trump, but doesn't say who is warming it up. I don't personally know anyone who wants Trump impeached. Conservatives want Trump to stay because they like him, and liberals want him to stay because they're even more afraid of Mike Pence than they are of Trump. I don't keep a scorecard, though. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

UK Election - Two Queens speeches and other matters

Some questions about the UK election, but we do seem to have got ourselves into a bit of a tizzy, electorally.

1. The Guardian is reporting that Jeremy Corbyn plans to offer an alternative Queen's speech. What happens when two Queen's speeches are put on the table. Is there a precedent for this or is this unheard of? Surely, Her Majesty will only read one. Are they both voted on before the state opening?
2. If no party is able to form a government what happens. The DUP haven't committed to anything yet and may have demands that the Tories find unpalatable. A minority government would be inherently unsuitable given the Brexit negotiations, presumably, and minority governments in the past tend to have a history of resulting in elections quite quickly but we can't elect a new administration in the middle of Brexit negotiations which may have a completely different brexit strategy
3. Why is nobody talking about forming a national government, where the largest parties agree to set aside their differences in the national interest, like they did in the Great Depression. Brexit is arguably the defining issue of our generation, surely it trounces everything else. A national government would unify the country.
4. Isn't it stupid of the House of Commons to have an even number of seats (650), what happens if there's a direct tie of 325:325. Various media outlets are reporting a return in effect to two party politics in the country, so it could be an issue in the future

Sorry for so many questions --Andrew 23:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If you were truly sorry, you would remove the offending questions.  :)

We certainly cannot answer the last two questions, as they're invitations to debate, so we're down to two already. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As the Queen has already asked Mrs May to form the next government, I very much doubt that the Her Majesty will be asking Mr Corbyn for the script. Alansplodge (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Isn't it the other way round, May asks the Queen? The DUP has only agreed in principle to assist the Tories, not in practice. Negotiations between the two parties could flounder. --Andrew 23:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• If negotiations with the DUP do falter who else would prop her up, the SNP loathe her, the Liberal Democrats already fell for that trick, etc. She has no allies left. --Andrew 23:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Let me phrase them differently then perhaps; 1) Could a national government be formed, and 2) is there a reason why the House of Commons have an even number of seats? --Andrew 23:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

1) No, the Conservatives will form a minority government.

2) One of the seats belongs to the Speaker of the House of Commons who doesn't vote except in tie-breaks. Alansplodge (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Expanding on Alan's last point, this means that a tie vote does not cause a problem, so having an even number of seats is not a problem. In practice seats often become vacant between elections, so the total number of seats varies between odd and even numbers anyway. What could be a problem would be if no one was willing to take the position of Speaker because doing so would cost their party one vote in any case where there isn't a tie. In British Columbia, Canada, they recently had a very close result in their provincial election, and it seems as though this may be an issue there when the new legislature meets in two weeks. --69.159.63.238 (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Surely this is conditional on being successfully able to negotiate a deal with the DUP? If those talks fall flat, the Lib Dems wouldn't help them again, the SNP hate them, the Greens wouldn't either, Sinn Fein don't take their seats, etc. If this informal alliance flounders they have very few options at all. They can't afford to make a deal that's likely to fall apart because there isn't enough time, within the brexit timetable to call another election? --Andrew 23:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• Also, the speaker has the deciding vote on legislation, not on who gets to form the next government. --Andrew 23:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Not just on legislation, also on confidence votes. --69.159.63.238 (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

On motions of any kind. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Historically, in the UK, minority governments often do fall apart. As dreadful as it sounds, it would be entirely within the realm of normal for the UK to see another election during the next 6-12 months. A new election could be called either because the alliance fails, or alternatively because the party in power feels the tide has turned and they can claim an advantage and true majority by having a new vote (though we have just seen how well trying to do something like that worked out). Interestingly, the UK is somewhat worse at this than most of the rest of the world. Many parliamentary democracies have robust multi-party systems. The dominance of just two parties in UK politics for much of the last century, makes minority governments rarer but also less able to sustain themselves. Globally, minority governments tend to survive an average ~2 years, but the relatively few examples we have for the UK have often struggled to last even 1 year. Dragons flight (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

June 10

Research professors in the natural and physical science sectors of academia

I know that research professors are paid by the grant. Without a grant, they have no funding and lose their laboratory and position. Sometimes, a little bit of office politics and diplomacy help in getting ahead or just staying afloat. But in case a research professor fails to receive a grant in a long time, does that mean the university will dismiss the faculty member, provided that the faculty member has no tenure (a tenured professor may receive a deduction in salary, while the salary is paid by the university)? How much time does the faculty member have to make the transition to a new job - working for someone else as a research assistant/associate/scientist, working as a teaching professor, changing career to something else? What kind of dismissal would that be called? Basically, I would like to know what happens when research professors struggle and fail to win a grant. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

A research professor in the US style is paid by soft money (i.e. grants), but is still hired for a fixed period of time. If there is no money at the time the contract is due, it will not be renewed. There is not usually an official grace period. Research professors in the US do not usually have tenure. Tenured professors sometimes use grant money to "buy out" of some teaching obligations (i.e. the university will use some of the grant money to hire a temporary lecturer to stand in) to be able to concentrate on research. If they run out of money, they just have to resume teaching. I've never heard of a tenured professor's base salary being reduced for failing to win grants, but it may be the other way round - a professor may be paid a bonus out of a grant (though that is quite rare), and if the grant is gone, so is, of course, the bonus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

title for replica vessel

I know the Titanic II is a planned vessel. But will it have the title of MS, MV, RMS, or SS? (Please note: I'm not using Wikipedia as a crystal ball or anything like that.)2604:2000:7113:9D00:292B:BF29:E91:CAA5 (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)