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

July 9

Good Soundtracks for beginning singers

My nephews play 5 instruments between them, the eldest being 12. My niece, age 7, sings strongly, and can hit pure notes, but has no idea of key or the scales. I was thinking of getting her the soundtrack to The Sound of Music which she knows and loves. Obviously the "Do Re Mi" song will be a good influence. Are there other "contemporary" albums I can look at that will teach her to sing on key or in harmony without all the artificial nonsense of items like "Frozen" which depend on running an off-key or weak voice through a synthesizer? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with The Sound of Music and suggest adding in Mary Poppins. I particularly like how in A Spoonful of Sugar they sing "dow....wn", with a decreasing frequency as the word progresses. That's a good lesson for beginning singers, so they don't think a syllable always needs to be sung at a single frequency. StuRat (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not thinking of Rock Lobster? --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are videos that may help. Blooteuth (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and I actually did just pick up Mary Poppins before reading Stu's suggestion. μηδείς (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Medeis, can I ask, is there a particular reason these should be soundtracks, or is it just that you think that they will provide the best chances at music jaunty enough to capture and maintain your niece's attention? I ask because Id on't know that soundtrack pieces (even those arising from children's films) are likely to provide any concrete lessons on music basics (other than the previously mentioned Do Re Mi song, for obvious reasons) any more so than musical pieces in any number of genres. If your niece can hit and carry notes across a range, one singer she might find inspiring is Chloe Agnew, as that's the quality I associate most with this flawless, amazingly talented soprano; her music isn't quite as up as a Disney film, but it's entirely appropriate to children: [1], [2]. Not every track in her albums is in English, and some of it is quite technically demanding ([3]), but a majority of pieces are more melodically simple, requiring controlled and sustained notes more than anything ([4]). And I can't imagine any 7-year-old girl who is a singer not loving it all. Do you think she might suit, or is it not bright enough? Snow ^{let's rap} 20:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

July 10

Why'd Hong Kong's post-financial crisis skyscraper boom last so long?

Gluts of skyscraper completions after economic bubbles burst aren't unusual but why'd this one last so long? 73% of Hong Kong skyscrapers opened 1998-2011! (6x the pace of 2012-now). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong is part of china and china shurely was in no economic crisis during the last 20 years with its GDP growth always between 7% and 14%. The IMF and the World Bank even argue china to be the world’s largest economy based on Purchasing power parity, surpassing the EU and USA, both with higher GDP. So there actually is even reason to ask why there are not more skyscrapers build in Hong Kong. --Kharon (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Then why'd they stop? And the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis did hurt Hong Kong. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It affected Hong Kong sure, but you're still making assumptions without any evidence presented. I guess this will be amazing news to you, but as it turns out 1997 was also when the Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong happened. Blew your mind didn't it? Seems multiple things can happen over a short space of time. Point is there's a reason why people studying history need to actually be aware of as much of the related history as possible and particularly major events and not just coming up with one event and proscribing it as the reason for everything. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't find any source really going into reasons for the boom from 1998 nor for it ending although List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong does note it and mentions it was primarily a surge in residential buildings particularly luxury ones (at least partially also mentioned in this source [5]). It also mentions a relaxation of height restrictions on the Kowloon Peninsula due the closure of the Kai Tak Airport lead to more high rises there and increase opposition in later years. These source also seem to be illustrative of what the things are like in HK [6] [7]. Probably Economy of Hong Kong is also a decent read although a little short in some areas. Maybe [8] too. Although of course short opinion articles on news sources should generally be treated with care. I think these all do illustrate that economic situations including related things like construction booms and gluts or busts tend to be quite complex requiring careful analysis (and as anyone with even a basic experience knows, even then tends to result in wide disagreement), and anyone who claims to come up with one factor as the reason for something should be treated with great caution. Well unless you come up with very simple answers like "because people decided to build a lot" and "people stopped building". Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong is also according to Oxfam one of the world’s worst tax havens (1. Bermuda, 2. the Cayman Islands, 3. the Netherlands, 4. Switzerland, 5. Singapore, 6. Ireland, 7. Luxembourg, 8. Curaçao, 9. Hong Kong, 10. Cyprus, 11. Bahamas, 12. Jersey, 13. Barbados, 14. Mauritius, 15. the British Virgin Islands). --Kharon (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The term "worst" here is not really correct. If you're looking for a tax haven, these are the "best". They're only "worst" from the taxman's viewpoint. The better term would be "notorious". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

7-Eleven Inc is wholly owned by Seven & I Holdings Co.

7-Eleven Inc is wholly owned by Seven & I Holdings Co.. Seven & I Holdings Co. apparently completed this purchase in November 2005. How did this happen? How did a child corporation managed to economically overpower its parent?

When a child corporation gets richer, doesn't the parent get richer as well by virtue of its ownership share? How did a slice of the pie get bigger than the pie itself? Scala Cats (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Seven & I was not a subsidiary of 7-11. They were a large Japenese retail industry giant who, among other holdings, owned the 7-11 rights for Japan and later bought out the US operation as well. I learned this in less than 60 seconds by reading the article you linked, which it appears you didn't because your question has so much wrong with it that it could only be answered by correcting the wrongness with facts from the article you cited.--Jayron32 18:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Cats' proper response here could be "D'oh!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

In any case, a child corporation do not need to economically overpower its parent to buy it, it is just a matter of paperwork (exchanging shares in such a way that the "child" now owns the "parent", for instance), usually related to tax issues.

Gem fr (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

July 11

Two embassies in the same building

I just discovered that the Lion Building in Washington DC hosts two separate countries' embassies: Vietnam and South Sudan. How do the normal rules of extraterritorial jurisdiction apply in such a case? Does such a building tend to be operated as an informal condominium between the two missions? Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the building in Google Maps, it's a 7-story office block. The article says Vietnam's embassy is suite 400, and the S Sudanese are in suite 602. That implies to me that there are multiple suites on each floor, and the embassies only occupy part of a floor each. Extraterritoriality will apply to each embassy individually, and not to the rest of the building. Rojomoke (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

As Rojomoke says, in cases like this the embassy is just the suite of offices they occupy. They have territorial jurisdiction over those offices, but not the rest of the building. Such a situation is not uncommon for smaller countries that can not afford to occupy their own free-standing building(s). Dragons flight (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sure Norway and Sweden can afford to occupy their own buildings but nevertheless choose to share one in Sarajevo.[9] Surtsicna (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Think the confusion arises because some think that the grounds of an embassy is the sovereign land of that embassy’s country. Which it is not. It is still the sovereign land belonging to the host country. There are very few examples of exceptions to this. The only two that springs instantly to mind is Great Scotland Yard which was Sottish sovereign land but came under English law and a plot of land in Hawaii which is British sovereign soil but even so acknowledges local US state laws. So one could have any number of trailer-homes parked on an iceberg and call them embassies if some countries so wished. For those that want to get into the nitty-gritty of this – don't for get the Principality of Sealand. Aspro (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're in error; note my use of "extraterritorial jurisdiction", which wouldn't be the case if I'd thought that the embassy was part of the sending country. Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

While diplomatic immunity might have an effect similar to extraterritorial jurisdiction, I did not think "extraterritorial jurisdiction" is usually used to describe diplomatic immunity. I think the similar term that covers diplomatic immunity is "extraterritoriality", i.e. the removal of a thing or place from territorial jurisdiction, a negative quality. By contrast, "extraterritorial jurisdiction" is a positive quality, i.e. jurisdiction exercised outside of one's territory, such as leasing powers sometimes possess in leased territories. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be something which our articles at least cover in a confusing way. Our article Diplomatic mission#Extraterritoriality for example says "Contrary to popular belief, most diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and in those cases are not sovereign territory of the represented state" and "The term "extraterritoriality" is often applied to diplomatic missions, but normally only in this broader sense." It later says "Notable violations of embassy extraterritoriality include". Extraterritoriality just says something similar "Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not generally enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state." Meanwhile Extraterritorial jurisdiction#Diplomatic missions says "Diplomatic immunity of foreign embassies and consulates in host countries is governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations" with no further explanation.

This source [10] seems to support your view of what extraterritorial jurisdiction means in legal parlance at least in the US.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I had no idea our articles on these topics are so confused. Would be great if someone with expertise could clean it up by reference to some proper sources... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

What's that British plot in Hawaii? I don't remember seeing it mentioned in List of enclaves and exclaves. —Tamfang (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be this memorial to Captain Cook.

Except There is some doubt over whether the monument strictly belongs to the Government or the descendants of the consul who bought it ... A Foreign Office spokesman said: "The precise legal status of the land on which the Cook memorial stands is uncertain." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, a plot of land in Runnymede in the UK was granted to the US for the JFK memorial. And typing that into the search box shows that United States territory#Other areas mentions another plot of land in Normandy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It appears that Aspro confuses property with sovereignty, as others sometimes do for the examples that PalaceGuard008 cites. A state can own land within another state without having sovereignty there. For a subsovereign example, the City and County of San Francisco owns San Francisco International Airport, but no map shows the airport's land as being part of SF rather than San Mateo County. —Tamfang (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

How does the hospital determine how much the patient and insurer should pay?

I think some vaccinations require co-pay, while other vaccinations are completely paid for by the health insurance company. How does the hospital determine who pays what? Can the patient ask the hospital in advance how much the patient will be charged for and how much will be paid for by the insurer, as well as ask for a list of all the medical tests and their costs so that the patient will know exactly what he's being charged for? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to link to here, but in my experience, it's the insurance company that makes those decisions, not the hospital. If your insurance policy is a 70/30, it means roughly that you'll pay for 30 percent of the cost. The hospital should also be able to estimate your cost on various specific procedures. What is typically done, though, is that they will submit the entire claim, and once the insurance company has processed it, you'll be billed for the balance, maybe a month or two later (or more). The reconciliation will show the total cost and how much of it is the patient's responsibility. The hospital sets the prices, of course, but it's likely they'll be cognizant of what the insurance company will consider to be a "reasonable" cost. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

How do medical coders tie in? Do they just translate the services into standardized medical codes, send them to the billers, who would send the bills to the insurance company or the patient? Are the prices standardized or do they vary by the hospital? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The hospital will code the insurance forms to indicate what procedures were done. The insurance company and/or the hospital (or clinic, or whatever) will send you a statement showing what was covered and what wasn't. The balance will be what you owe the hospital. You're using the term biller, but generally the hospital itself is the biller, from the patient's viewpoint. Keep in mind we're talking America here. I don't know how it works in Europe and elsewhere. I can't say for sure about pricing. It's conceivable it could vary. The insurance company has a sense of the "maximum" it will allow for a given procedure. It's also worth noting that significant procedures, such as surgery or the like, may require advance approval. That way there should be no surprises. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that coders do more than just code a procedure. The exact same procedure will likely require a different set of billing codes from one insurance company to the next. It is the job of the coder to read the insurance company billing information and customize the claim to maximize payment from the insurance company. That can required the addition of diagnosis codes as well as very specific procedure codes. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No. Medical coding is highly standardized. Coding practices may vary between countries, but are unlikely to vary between insurers or hospitals. See clinical coder, ICD-10-CM, HCPCS, Current Procedural Terminology, and also [11]. In the US, the practice of medical coding and the certification of professional coders is overseen by the AAPC. Dragons flight (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

ICD, HCPCS, and CPT codes are standardized. Exactly WHICH code to use is not standardized. Suppose you do tobacco cessation counseling and you want to get paid. Medicare will require a HCPCS code or refuse to pay. Blue Cross may require a completely different CPT code. Another insurance company may require both an ICD10 and a CPT code to get paid. That is the purpose of clearing houses. You use whatever codes are easiest in your EMR and the clearing house alters them to get maximum payment from the insurance companies. The difference here is that the codes themselves are standardized. Which codes are accepted for which amounts is not. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

A specific example for right now in South Carolina (rules change quarterly and are different from state to state): BCBS requires ICD10 F17.2X and a CPT from 99393 to 99397 to receive payment for tobacco counselling. Aetna requires ICD10 F17 (no extension) and CPT 99401-99404 to receive payment. Medicare requires HCPCS G0436-G0437. All of these are a claim for the exact same procedure, but the codes required are different from insurance company to insurance company. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Most insurance cards have a copay amount written on the card. That tells the office what the copay should be. The medical office can call the insurance company to clarify issues, but they don't have time for that. Instead, clearing houses are used. Medical organizations send all bills to the clearing house and the clearing house works with the insurance companies to get as much money as possible out of them. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Uninsured individuals

I think there are two types of uninsured individuals. The first type is the typical poor guy who just can't afford insurance. The second type is the healthy young adult who thinks he's invincible or immune to disease, because he lives a very careful and conscientious lifestyle. This guy can afford health insurance, but refuses to buy it; or he cannot afford health insurance but doesn't really care about it because he's already healthy. How do hospitals charge the uninsured people? And is there a difference between billing one person who wants healthcare but can't afford health insurance and another person who wants to pay for everything out of pocket but, if the predicted costs are out of reach, he will just refuse treatment? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't immediately speak to hospitals, but the same principles likely apply to pharmacies, which do (at least in some cases) have a set price for the uninsured. Back when I started my current job, I had two choices of health insurance, and one difference between them was that one paid X% of each refill for my maintenance medicine, while the other one paid $X for each refill. In order to learn what I'd be paying under each one, I contacted my pharmacy (and one of their competitors locally), and both were able to tell me what they'd charge someone who had no insurance. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I work with over 1,000 medical clinics in the United States from single doctor clinics to large hospitals. Every single one of them has a sliding scale for service costs to poor people. They even have free services. (There used to be a lot more free services, but the ACA greatly limited free medical services.) The problem is that people lie. A person who makes $500k a year will have no problem saying he is broke and uninsured. So, the clinic will need to try to get him to pay. If he cannot, it will go to the collections office where they will see if it is possible for the person to pay or not. Then, if the person cannot reasonably pay, it is written off. Another problem is the services performed for the poor. As an example, a hospital I work with offers free at-home pregnancy tests. Just swing by and pick one up if you want one. Poor women show up in the ER regularly for a pregnancy test, which incurs an ER visit fee, a nursing fee, a doctor fee, and a lab fee. They are not as prone to discount that service because they want to women to take the free at-home pregnancy test. They therefore want to make the woman feel that going straight to the ER for free service isn't a good idea. Another anecdote? A woman called the hospital closest to me every week for multiple years because she had "heart trouble." When she arrived at the hospital (which is downtown), she would say she felt better and head off to the shops downtown. She was just getting a free ride downtown, cutting down on her bus fare. After three years of her documented abuse of the system, she was finally arrested and charged with insurance fraud. The problem is that she doesn't believe she did anything wrong. She was using a free service that is paid for by taxes and taxes just magically appear, so it isn't like anyone was being harmed in any way. I'll quit before I go further off onto a tangent. Suffice it to say that hospitals do give out discounted and free services. The ACA has greatly limited what can be done for free. People do abuse the system regularly. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

American Express in Canada

How widespread is American Express in Canada, and how widespread is it in its home country of United States? I don't see too many people with Amex cards,but lots of people with Mastercards and Visas,but could that simply be because I'm in Canada where American Express isn't too common?Uncle dan is home (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

For the US, this page says that in 2012 there were an estimated 52 million American Express cards in the US compared to 261 million Visa and 174 million Mastercard; and linked from this page is this diagram showing that in 2015 people spent $717 billion using American Express compared to $2,718 billion using Visa and $1,233 billion using Mastercard.

For Canada, linked from this page on the same site is this diagram showing that in 2012 American Express was used for 5.6% of $554.9 billion of purchases (I don't know which currency "$" is, but it doesn' matter here) compared with 40.7% for Visa and 21.0% for Mastercard; or by number of transactions, American Express was used for 2.5% compared with 26.1% for Visa and 6.3% for Mastercard, with Interac (i.e. direct bank debits) accounting for the other transactions tabulated.

So it looks as though American Express's numbers are somewhat lower in Canada compared to the other two cards than they are in the US, but they aren't all that high in the US either. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The three cards are not equivalent: Note that originally, Visa and Mastercard offered true credit cards while American Express offered only a charge card. A charge card requires the balance be paid in full at the end of the billing period, while a credit card provides longer-term credit by requiring only a portion of the balance to be paid back each month and a finance charge is added to the balance until the balance is paid. In practice, many credit card holders carry balances for many months or even years. It can be argued that American Express cards are used by fewer shoppers simply because there are fewer consumers who are financially able to pay the balance in full each month. --Thomprod (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If people still believe that this is the case, then AMEX are terrible at marketing their brand. I hold 2 different types of AMEX here in the US, and both are what you call "true credit cards", they are not charge cards. --Lgriot (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that I said "originally". The linked article details later versions of American Express cards that are similar to Visa and Mastercard. --Thomprod (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

And what I meant is that if their "original" practice is still the main reason for a poor take-on of their card, then they are terrible at marketing. --Lgriot (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

English football hooligans, Donald Trump

How do English football hooligans feel about Donald Trump?64.134.238.21 (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You will have to ask them yourself. MarnetteD|Talk 21:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's doubtful we can provide you with meaningful references or research which provide any firm, non-speculative, information about how this niche segment of a population feels about the president of another nation entirely. Even given Trump's high profile worldwide, that is just too specific a group of people to be likely to have been the subject of significant inquiry. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Worth noting that the English Defence League, which has been closely linked with football hooligan firms, has been supportive of Trump. Warofdreams talk 22:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Note the existence of List of hooligan firms; I thought "firm" was a mistake, but apparently that really is the actual term for organised groups of hooligans. Nyttend (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Do they have to apply for some sort of license? Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Do they have shareholder meetings? —Tamfang (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Football hooligans have always been a small group and they seem to be diminishing further, but at the end of the day, they're still just British people ("English", if you prefer), so extrapolate from this as you wish:

If Donald Trump is not a popular man in his own country, his public image in Britain is even worse. When our poll asked voters which words they most associated with Donald Trump, the most popular were “dangerous” (50%), “unstable” (39%) and “bigot” (35%). More than half of British adults polled (54%) expect Trump to be a below average (10%) or awful (44%) president. Sixty-four per cent believe that Trump is a threat to international stability and 56% say he isn’t trustworthy." (source)

Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

This YouGov opinion poll has Mr Trump with a UK positivity rating of -64, making him the 2,171st public figure of 2,263 tracked. Those Britons who disliked him used the words (in order of frequency): "arrogant", "awful", "offensive", "annoying" and "idiotic". Meanwhile, those who approve of Trump tend to be middle-aged, male and hold right-wing views, so maybe that fits some of the hooligans. Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I need assistance finding sources

I need a few references for Naval wars fought in ancient times in the Persian Gulf between various folk especially Persians and Arabs. I tried looking everywhere on the Internet, but nothing on Naval wars. Can anybody help me? Please leave a message on my discussion page. -- Thank you--Boxman88 (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably you can't find any such Persian-Greek battles because there weren't any there. The Achaemenid Persians were more of a land power militarily. In the Mediterranean, they used Phoenicians as the backbone of their navy, sometimes augmented with ships from temporarily-allied Greek city-states, but that wouldn't have helped in the Gulf. Alexander used the Gulf only to return troops from India, after he had already conquered Persia... AnonMoos (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Information about Hillary Clinton given to Trump Jr.

What information did the Russians give to Trump Jr. about Hillary Clinton?Uncle dan is home (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently none. Trump Jr's initial comments, at least, indicate he was lured into a meeting that was actually about adoptions, with an empty promise of Hillary info as the hook. This is discussed in Trump Campaign—Russian meeting. You may want to read it quickly, before the yokels delete it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Where "about adoptions" might be better understood as "about lifting sanctions against Russian oligarchs which led to ending adoptions of Russian babies by Americans." Edison (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

True. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

July 12

Trademark Transfer

If the trademark of Company A is transferred to Company B does that necessarily mean Company B owns Company A? I am trying to establish whether Monogram Pictures is a subsidiary of Allied Artists International, a claim made on the articles with the single source of the trademark transfer document. But I also found that trademarks of defunct companies can be transferred, and in this case Monogram Pictures is otherwise a defunct company, so Allied may have simply bought Monogram's trademark (perhaps as part of buying their library). Henry chianski (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. For example, Chrysler could sell the Dodge trademark to Ford if it wanted to, and Chrysler wouldn't have to be owned by Ford. A company could even sell the trademark and promptly lease it back, so as to avoid confusion for customers. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact of the trademark transfer should tell you nothing about their corporate relations. Trademarks can be transferred between completely unrelated parties, parties connected only by a contractual relationship (e.g. one is a supplier or customer of the other), or related parties, and without some other evidence you would have no way of telling. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

See also the complicated story of Rolls-Royce Motors; " Volkswagen Group acquired the historic Crewe factory, plus the rights to the "Spirit of Ecstasy" mascot and the shape of the radiator grille. However, the Rolls-Royce brand name and logo were controlled by aero-engine maker Rolls-Royce plc, and not Rolls-Royce Motors. The aero-engine maker decided to license the Rolls-Royce name and logo to BMW and not to Volkswagen, largely because the aero-engine maker had recently shared joint business ventures with BMW. BMW paid £40m to license the Rolls-Royce name and "RR" logo, a deal that many commentators thought was a bargain for possibly the most valuable property in the deal. Volkswagen Group had the rights to the mascot and grille but lacked rights to the Rolls-Royce name in order to build the cars, likewise BMW had the name but lacked rights to the grille and mascot". It all got sorted out in the end. Alansplodge (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd note in the particular case of a company in administration, it probably isn't uncommon that some key trademarks and perhaps parts of the business may be acquired by some party without acquiring the whole business. See for example Dick Smith (retailer) for a well known case in NZ and Australia. Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

See Apple Inc. vs Apple Corps for a modern example. Detailed in Apple Corps v Apple Computer, Apple Inc. owns the trademarks for Apple Corps and leases them back to Apple Corps. Apple Inc. does not own Apple Corps in any way. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• A trademark is a form of intellectual property, and like any property, it can be sold or transferred from one entity to another without otherwise changing the relationship between the companies. There are even ways to divide the ownership of a trademark, so that different entities own it in different contexts (for example, the convoluted history of the Atari divided the trademark ownership between two different independent companies, one company making arcade cabinet games and one making home video game software; the two companies had no relations with each other) or by geography (in the break-up of large trusts like the Standard Oil or Bell Telephone, successor companies had geographic rights to trademarks, see Standard Oil#Successor companies and Regional Bell Operating Company); when these monopolies were broken up they were actually forbidden from colluding or working together in ways to maintain their monopoly, meaning that there were independent companies with limited rights to a trademark. You can also have simple sale of a trademark from one company to another, for example when ThinkPad was sold by IBM to Lenovo. None of those transactions means that a company has been acquired by or is a subsidiary of another. --Jayron32 16:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Plans

I'm looking for sociological sources on the change over time, particularly in the last couple of decades, in the acceptability of making plans with someone multiple days in advance, not talking to them about it again, and just showing up without having to confirm that day that your plans are still on, or that someone in those few days makes other plans because something "better" was offered. Benjamin (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm somewhat doubting there's actually much research on this but in any case you're asking a very very very broad question because you haven't specified more details. For example the acceptability could easily vary between the case of a person and their boss making a plan for an 2 hour meeting, and a person making a plan for a 15 minute work related catchup with their colleague (during working hours), and a person making a plan for having lunch together with their colleague for social purposes, and a person planning a date night with a long term partner when they haven't had a decent date in a long time due to family, personal or work commitments, and a person planning a date with their serious committed but recent romantic attachment, and a person planning a hook-up with someone their in a casual relationship with, and a person planning to have lunch with their sibling or parent or child for their birthday who they haven't seen in a while, and a person planning to go bowling with a friend they regularly see etc etc. While even if there are studied, you're not going to get one which fits with each specific situation you still need more details to try and work out precisely which study fits best with your specific question. And some of these may be studied together, but often particularly diverse situations like e.g. the work related ones and the personal romance ones aren't going to be. And that isn't even considering that "better" is very illdefined. Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It does sound like they are talking about arranging meetings using a phone where they just decide to do something else on the day. But yes I agree the circumstances can be very different. I'm currently having to schedule things till the middle of next year and some of my friends diaries are so full it can be difficult to get anything in six months in advance. Dmcq (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I am asking in particular about social situations, but any sources would be appreciated. I would be rather surprised if it hasn't been mentioned at all in the sociological literature, even if it hasn't been extensively studied. Benjamin (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

In the old days, we had paper desk calendars and/or pocket diary thingies, and you would write down appointments, and keep them as scheduled, unless a conflict arose, and if you're polite you would give everyone advance notice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I know, I know, but is there a source? Benjamin (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

For what? How people made appointments in the days before iPhones? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Nowadays, it seems, people give advanced notice, whatever that means. —Tamfang (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Before phones or telegraphs, people would need to confirm appointments by mail, which could take some time. So, if the appointment was too soon to confirm by mail, then there could be no confirmation, unless an expensive messenger was used. After the telegraph was invented, it was possible to send confirmations much closer to the meeting time, but this was also rather expensive, so might only be used for more critical meetings. StuRat (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that paper mail (in the UK at any rate) was much more efficient in the 19th century than today. These 1844 London delivery times state that there were seven mail collections and up to twelve deliveries per day in central London. Thus you could post a letter at 8:45 am and expect it to be delivered to a local address at 10 am. Also "Letters posted at the Receiving-houses in London before 6 at night are delivered the same evening at all places within a circle of three miles from the General Post Office; or if posted before 5, they are delivered in the environs the same evening". Further afield, "The NIGHT MAILS FROM LONDON leave the G. P. 0. at 8 p.m., and (with one or two exceptions) arrive at all important towns in England and Wales in time for a morning delivery, beginning before 9 o’clock. The arrival at Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dublin is also in time for a similar delivery". Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting ! I knew that some locations in the US once had twice daily delivery, but that many is amazing. StuRat (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There was a clickbait article that I didn't read[12] in the NYT a few days ago about this. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Creative Commons

Just wondering, can anybody just slap a Creative Commons license on anything that it can be applied to? For example, if I were to post an image on say, Instagram or Google+, and say that the image is licensed under Creative Commons (e.g. Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 International), would it be active? Do you have to apply for a license? Or not at all? Thanks. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 22:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you can, if it's your work. That's the point of Creative Commons: they're permissive copyright licenses that anyone can use. But, when you upload the image to some place such as Instagram, you're also licensing it to them under the terms in their user agreement that you probably didn't read, which are usually, "You agree we can do anything we want with it and we don't owe you anything." (Yes, a work can be under more than one copyright license simultaneously. A reuser can choose which license to reuse it under. We have an article, but it only talks about it in the context of software.) Now sure, it's great to put things under a CC license if you wish for other people to reuse them, but don't be under the misapprehension that this will prevent Instagram, etc. from doing stuff you may not like with them. See the Creative Commons website for more details. For more information on copyright in general, well, we've got that article, and a FAQ page, although that's targeted towards people editing the projects. The CrashCourse YouTube channel has a short series on "intellectual property". --47.138.161.183 (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, only the copyright owner can "slap a Creative Commons license" on a copyrighted work. If you post an image that you did not create, then you cannot put a CC license on it, and unless the copyright owner has explicitly granted you a license of some type, you are in violation of the owner's copyright (with a few exceptions). A CC license is a grant of permission by the copyright owner. You automatically become the copyright owner of a work when you create that work: no registration is required. -Arch dude (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Google+ or Instagram might have terms that you signed up to, which contain inconsistent licensing terms, and that may make your attempt to apply different licence terms ineffective. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everybody! Just to be clear, I was referring to my own work. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 22:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, turns out Google has says this: "Our Services display some content that is not Google’s. This content is the sole responsibility of the entity that makes it available. We may review content to determine whether it is illegal or violates our policies, and we may remove or refuse to display content that we reasonably believe violates our policies or the law. But that does not necessarily mean that we review content, so please don’t assume that we do," so I'm fine. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 22:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Another point: If you have already posted you own works somewhere on the Internet with no License or with a restrictive license, then you are within your legal rights to also post somewhere else with a CC BY SA. However, if you post if here at Wikipedia, our 'bot will likely find the earlier copy on the Internet and will flag the Wikipedia entry as a copyvio, in which case we will aggressively remove the material. We do this because we do not verify your identity as a editor, so we cannot know that you really are the creator of the original. You can avoid this by going back to the original site and adding an explicit CC BY SA there, before you add the material to Wikipedia. -Arch dude (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Patrick Henry fake news

On your Wiki page for Patrick Henry, a comment is stated "he purchased up to 78 slaves" is from a fake Wiki imitation site: Wakipedia. The fake website does not list any credentials nor references but appears to have been created solely for the purpose of being a "reference" page and have links to. I request that Wikipedia remove the line about Patrick Henry owning slaves from his biography as it is referenced via a fake website.

http://teachlearntech.com/henry.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.14.2 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I changed the title from "locked bios", which frankly, made no sense, and seemed to be about a computer hardware/software problem. StuRat (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I've removed the statement along with the invalid reference. In the future, you can make requests like this by placing {{edit semi-protected}} or {{edit protected}} on the article's talk page. —Guanaco 00:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Presumably, "locked bios" meant "locked biography", but I can understand the confusion. "Fake news", OTOH, sounds like a Trumped up story, which this isn't. 2001:8003:536A:CA00:45EF:D69D:58E7:E4ED (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I wondered how he could have run a large Virginia plantation without slaves - so had a look at the Leatherwood Plantation article. That includes the line "Patrick Henry's son, John, was given 1,000 acres of the Leatherwood plantation to farm on his own, along with seven of the 42 slaves held there, in 1778.[4]" Then the Red Hill Patrick Henry National Memorialarticle has the statement "There were also dependencies and slave quarters on the working 520-acre tobacco plantation.[3]" It rather looks as if the man did own slaves! Wymspen (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Technically, it is correct that a person who had 4 slaves did have up to 78 slaves since the clarification of "up to" includes all numbers from zero to 78. You could just as well claim that George Washington Carver completed his work using up to 78 slaves. Why not claim that there is up to 78 slaves working in the White House right now? The issue with this is not the necessarily validity of the source material but the weasel words "up to." 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

July 13

Nerds question

I've grown up seeing most of who I and other people would call a "nerd" as people who are fixated with technology and lacking in social skills. However, it seems like in older films and TV series, when they talk about nerds, they seem to refer to the sense of someone who is fixated on any given thing that is not like the norm; particularly something that is academic or otherwise not having to do with social activities.

Is it really true that this transition happened, or is it just my misperception? People who we'd call "nerds" nowadays are people who are hyperfocused on modern technology (and really more and more people are becoming fixated on technology so that's becoming the norm in some places, so it's not really the classic sense of a "nerd" anymore), but why are there no longer "history" nerds? As a generation Z, I don't recall ever seeing any young people of today who seemed so fixated with the distant past in particular that they allow their social skills to slip severely just to study it. Is it just my perception?

PS: Don't taunt me about using stereotypes, because the entire nerd label is a stereotype and the stereotype IS the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B155:B6F6:2D02:8CF4:7814:22 (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't been in contact with many nerds who aren't concerned with technology? Do you have friends who are concerned with beetles or the syntax of languages?? Dmcq (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I've seen the word "nerd" used since the 60s and the word "geek" used since the 80s. Neither has a true definition. They mean what you want them to mean. So, whatever you want "nerd" to mean is what you want it to mean. Whatever someone else wants it to mean is what they want it to mean. Every couple years, I overhear arguments between students about who is a nerd and who is a geek. I explain to them that those words don't have proper definitions, so stop arguing. (Now, someone will certainly come along and say that they know the true definition and everyone else is wrong.) 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I used to like Nerds as a kid, but now they hurt my stomach and my teeth. My kids now like them, though. I don't know that N.E.R.D is making a lot of music anymore, but every once in a while they get together for a performance or to record a few new songs. Pharrell has been busy with lots of other projects you know. --Jayron32 18:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

In the news recently, Older dads have 'geekier' sons: "King’s College London research suggests that sons of older fathers are more intelligent, more focused on their interests and less concerned about fitting in, all characteristics typically seen in ‘geeks’". The behaviour patterns identified were: "non-verbal IQ, strong focus on the subject of interest and levels of social aloofness". Alansplodge (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I've always seen it as meaning something along the lines of meaning "boringly/obsessively studious or academic, probably with poor social skills" in general, rather than specifically fixated with technology. The dictionary seems to agree. Interestingly, it seems the original meaning was "stupid person". Iapetus (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 

I think the words nerd and cool, though they never really went out of use altogether, were re-energized in the '70s by Happy Days. In that iteration, "nerd" didn't have that much to do with love of technology or science per se. A nerd was just anyone who wasn't cool, for whatever reason. It was more about high-school social hierarchy than any particular set of interests or personality traits, with nerds on the bottom rung of the ladder.

Over time, the word came to mean something more specific, or various things more specific, and at that point it was possible to note that some of those things were not entirely bad, and that just as it can be Hip to be Square, it can also be cool to be a nerd. But as a good hipster nerd, I was a nerd before it was cool. --Trovatore (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the film Idiocracy illustrates well how anyone who is a bit more intelligent can be seen as a nerd or geek, "“You talk like a fag, and your shit’s all retarded” is the sort of thing cool people say to them. Any wonder that they might not be totally immersed in society? Dmcq (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

White people becoming a minority

When are white people predicted to become a minority group in United States? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.228.62 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/percentage-non-hispanic-whites-hits-all-time-63-article-1.1371772 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The article notes that Hispanics can be most any race. However, there are lots and lots of Hispanics who are at least partially of Spanish descent, and hence can be considered at least partly Caucasian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Caucasian is an arbitrary and artificial construct; it has no functional definition beyond what is necessary to enforce whatever bit of racism a particular hegemony wishes to. The word (and indeed, even the concept of "race" in terms of White, Black, Red, Yellow) entered into the popular lexicon during Scientific racism and has been utterly debunked. The sooner we eliminate such concepts from our thinking the better we'd be. "Hispanic" is at least a linguistic-cultural grouping and has some basis in a shared cultural heritage, though one that is evolving (as all cultural groups are). In simplest terms, as understood in the United States according to classifications used by the U.S. Census and other agencies that use this data, Hispanic is an ethnicity and White is a race and one could be both, one, the other, or neither. According to White Americans, white people make up 72.4% of the U.S. as of the 2010 census. If you exclude Hispanic Whitesm that lowers the total to 63.7%. According to this, White people (irrespective of ethnicity) will continue to make up a majority (in the 70%ish range) for the forseeable future (that article predicts out to 2050), however the trends of larger numbers of Hispanic White population increasing means that by 2043 or so, non-Hispanic whites will drop below 50% of the country, however as noted, total white percentage is projected to drop slightly, but not significantly, in that time. --Jayron32 18:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I fully understand the need for race to be a completely imaginary concept, but in medicine it is very real. Some diseases are far more prevalent in one race and not another. Some treatments work well for one race and not another. Some comorbidities are far riskier for one race and not another. If you pretend race doesn't exist, you will ignore proper treatment for patients. One way to make race-based medicine politically acceptable is to call it genetic-based medicine. So, over the past decade, there has been a large increase in "genetics", but that has been hindered over fears that insurance companies can use genetics to weed out risky patients. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

No, Genetic populations which share medical histories and thus provide valuable insight into understanding their particular health needs are real. Such facts, however, are not much tied to the concept of "race" except in occasionally coincidental ways. For one example the fact that sickle cell anemia tends to predominate in certain, specific, African populations, which also tended to coincidentally be the specific African populations which were moved to America during the slave trade is both true and misleading; it leads to the misconception that "black people get sickle cell disease" as a more common thing, when it is instead simply that Americans have a limited exposure to "African" people because a very small number of people groups were mined for American slavery. However, race is merely a convenient labeling scheme based on skin tone which has no connection to such facts, except coincidentally when we want to cherry pick data to continue to confirm our racism. --Jayron32 01:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. Genetic populations may have unusual occurrences of a given trait. One example is Raynaud syndrome, which tends to be well above average in Jewish women from eastern Europe. Not so common in other groups of women. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

So, every one of these peer-reviewed medical studies is wrong. It appears that some Wikipedia editors need to get JAMA shut down. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

We're working on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Jayron32 labours under the misconception, now fairly widely held by those who went through a particular sort of education, that an artificial construct must be illusory. Race is artificial but it is also real, and the fact that it is abused in connection with prejudices does not make it otherwise. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Nazi troll that usually asks this question considers Jews to be non-white, so his definition is rather narrow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Not soon enough. --Golbez (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Anecdote about a famous European intellectual

I've read an anecdote years ago about a famous European writer (or some kind of intellectual at least), I'm looking for his name.

I think he wanted to experience total isolation from human thought but he attempted this in an urban setting, he traveled to another country (don't know which one) where he knew nobody and they spoke a language he didn't understand and he set himself up in a room, never going out. The end of the story is that even there he got entangled with humans, by sleeping with the girl who was bringing his meals into his room.

Setting: Maybe the 18th century or older.

Languagesare (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The story as related sounds like an urban legend, but the bit about falling in love with the girl who brings him his meals is similar to Silvio Pellico's description of how he fell in love with his jailer's daughter while imprisoned in Austria. That would be in the first decades of the 19th century and his prison memoirs were a huge bestseller at the time. --Xuxl (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's not him.

Languagesare (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Literary reference to renters improving their property - perverse incentives

I started by searching for one particular reference, half-remembering a George Bernard Shaw play, but anything apposite would be welcome.

A privileged young man, wishing to immerse himself in "the life of the people", rents a meagre hut from an avaricious and uncaring landlord. The young man applies the sweat of his brow to clearing the garden of weeds, repairing the leaks on the roof, painting the exterior, etc. At the end of the year, when he assumes his hard work will win him a more secure lease, he finds the rent doubled. He queries this. "What!" the landlord says. "I am a businessman. A tumble-down shack may be worth ten shillings a week, but how could I charge less than twice that for such a beautiful tidy cottage?"

Can anyone find a direct quotation? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that quote, but "improvements" were a perpetual controversial issue between Irish peasants and British landlords during the 19th century; see Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act 1870 etc... AnonMoos (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: the italics above are my paraphrase. I'm seeking the real thing, from a play or novel. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a common French saying about this: Qui construit chez l'autrui, construit pour lui." Wymspen (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

George Bernard Shaw's first play, Widowers' Houses is about slum lords. That would be a good first place to start looking for the exact quote. --Xuxl (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Impact factor requirement to obtain a PhD in the sciences?

I have heard that a PhD student in the sciences has to write a journal article with a specific impact factor in order to graduate. If one paper is submitted to a journal with a low impact factor, then the PhD student may not graduate and has to write another one. But then, I've also heard that some PhD students just have to write one research paper to graduate. Does this requirement vary from university to university? Or is there an international standard? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The requirements are likely to vary from place to place. You could try reading Doctor of Philosophy and see if it leads you to an answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

No, the sentence of interest has "citation needed", which means it's uncited. It did not answer my question. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence "The requirements to earn a Ph.D. degree vary considerably according to the country, institution, and time period, from entry-level research degrees to higher doctorates." should be sufficient to answer your question, but if your looking outside of Wikipedia, this may be a good start. Simply put, your question is far too vague to provide a definitive answer. PhD standards vary by course of study, nation, and individual institution. "I heard once that..." is a poor basis by which to hold a supposition, and especially a shitty way to extrapolate general principles. Any concept that starts with "I have heard that a" should instantly be assumed to be bullshit unless scrupulously proven otherwise, and even more to the point, even if true, such statements should NEVER be taken as a starting point to understand general trends or concepts, but should always be considered entirely unique events which hold no learning value whatsoever. --Jayron32 01:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Some things may be exceptional. If one person says something at one point in time, he has no proof that he has said it. And he can easily deny it. It is impossible to prove something that has happened in the past if there are no historical records! Of course, written records and digital records can be used as evidence that one person has said something. But if there are no records, other people can easily reject it. Also, people assume that there is some kind of constant in the past and present. If something only happens in the past but cannot repeat itself, then that past event probably did not happen. Some things may seem random, but are really completely predictable. Anyway, I think people should just say, "I don't believe you." Saying "I don't believe you" makes more sense to me than saying "You have no evidence." 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You can't believe, to perfect 100% reliability, anything except your own existence, all other things you "know" are merely taken on faith to varying degrees of reliability. See solipsism. --Jayron32 03:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In universities that I'm aware of you don't have to publish any articles as an institutional requirement to get a PhD -- you just write a dissertation and defend it. On the other hand, there's fairly wide latitude for major professors to set expectations for their students. It wouldn't be unreasonable for a professor to say "I won't pass you until you publish an article in a good journal." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This would be considered unreasonable in the UK. If you've done your three or four years, and you have finished a defendable thesis, you're going to pass. Publications or not. A PI that would set additional requirements like this would find themselves overruled by the head of school or similar in a second. Can't delay the student more than a year after finishing the PhD or they can't pass at all, after all. Fgf10 (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• And even if the professor does not require a publication to graduate, the new graduate is going to want to get a job in his discipline, and the better the publication record the better are the chances to get a good job, or any job. Loraof (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There also has been significant change over time. Now, early publication of results is expected, but at least here in Germany, it used to be the case that a PhD thesis had to be all fresh and new results. In my time, I still had to apply for a special permission to publish some results early - although being granted permission was already routine, and the whole process was in practice largely ignored. Also note that there is some ambiguity in the original question. If there is such a rule, it's not the article that has to have a particular impact factor, but the journal. This is to avoid candidates publishing in the Shitty Journal of You Pay We Publish or something similar. The impact of an article can usually only be decided quite a bit after publication. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I meant journal, not the paper. Papers themselves don't have impact factors. But the journals are ranked. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In the US, the "staple thesis" is becoming increasingly common. Though the details probably differ by location and discipline, the basic idea is that if you already have a sufficient number of peer-reviewed articles, then you can just staple them together (perhaps with an added introduction) and call that your PhD thesis. In my experience, the typical number of publications requested is at least 3. Dragons flight (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Same here - it's sometimes called "cumulative dissertation". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It is worth noting that, in my experience, no one except journal publishers takes impact factors as having a high degree of precision. We can all tell the general difference between Science or Nature and a crap journal, but the idea that X is a well-defined amount better than Y is not very defensible. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if an advisor wanted their students to have some number of articles published in vaguely-defined "good" journals before completing their PhD, but I would be very surprised if anyone was writing rules for PhD acceptance that relied on specific impact factor values. Dragons flight (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Anybody know what this documentary on Cambodia war is?

Can anybody tell what this documentary's name is, who made it and when? It has James Gerrand in it (a journalist who dedicated his life to documenting the Cambodian and Vietnamese wars).

It's not listed in the category:Documentary films about Cambodia or in category:Documentary films about the Cambodian genocide. It is clearly one sided, not showing the attrocities by the north and time and again hammering the US and its allies attrocities. But still it has the following important sections in it:

[22:44] James Gerrand [Journalist and film maker]: When we had film of Cambodians cutting open bodies and ripping out the litter and eating them, western opinion was pretty shocked by the Lon Nol forces doing that. But this is what Cambodians are doing, were doing by tradition. It is said that its getting in the spirit, the strength of your enemy. It's a ritual. Quite frequently in the early years of the war, as a mark of friendship they would ask you to come and join them in the eating of the liver of the dead.

[24:20] Nixon: This is NOT an invasion of Cambodia.

[24:26] Cambodian man from border village: You might not know the guns and artillery you are sending, you know, they don't know you are innocent people or you are the Viet Cong. You know, they kill everyone. Into my village my neighbor house were burning and kill the people injured the people... but uh you can do nothing.

[24:52] Southia Chan, Cambodian woman from border village: I ran with my grandmother and aunt. My grandmother was too slow. I let go of her hand and ran with the Viet Cong. The planes shot: chong chong chong chong! And the tanks behind them. We kept running. I was safe when we reached the next village. I returned to my village, and my uncle and aunt, and two cousins were dead. South Saigon soldiers came and slaghtered them.

[28:38] Chhay Yiheang: Advisor of the Royal Government of Cambodia: Saigon troups came pillaging and killing people. Raping women. Raping young girls. Some fathers couldn't stand it and tried to stop it. They were shot on the spot.

[28:57] Southia Chan (then Cambodian village girl): The Saigon troups were more vicious than the Viet Cong. They terrorized the people and the Viet Cong never did that. Girls made themselves ugly so the Saigon troups wouldn't like them. Putting charcoal on their face and in their hair, ching ching ching like that. My aunt had one child and was still pretty. They tied her husband in the middle of the house, and raped her in front of him. No one dared do anything.

Thanks in advance, and @Nihonjoe: thanks for pointing me to the ref desk! פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Screen Australia lists three documentaries associated with James G. Gerrand. The first two roughly match the length of yours. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

July 14

When was the first African-American Southern Baptist pastor?

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

George Lisle or Andrew Bryan in Savannah in the 1770s-1780s. Lisle probably has the best claim, licenced to preach perhaps as early as 1773. The Wikipedia's articles about them and the churches they founded have some contradictions in chronology.--Jayron32 03:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

When was the last US military route march?

Song and story associate the military with marching, and specifically with route march. A route march is a movement of troups that walk from one encampment to another, not a parade, a patrol, or a movement into or out of battle. It was nearly universal before the US Civil War, and I think it no longer happens at all except in excersizes, because troops move in motorized vehicles. When did the last non-practice route march of US troops occur? My guess is the Korean War. -Arch dude (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know but I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to see if any of the experts there can help. Alansplodge (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: Yes, but the link you left them is to 'Humanities', because you missed out the 'Reference desk/' bit at the beginning!  :) take care, — fortunavelut luna 11:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

D'oh! Now corrected. Alansplodge (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The alternatives to marching into position are ground transportation (trains or wheeled vehicles), naval transfer, and air. Most of these require some type of infrastructure to be present (trains and tracks, roads, ports, air bases, etc.) and/or require a specific location, such as near a body of water, for naval transfer. There are exceptions, though. Paratroopers are one, but this is dangerous, and still requires an appropriate landing area. Same for a beach invasion, like on D-Day. Helicopter drops are a bit less dangerous, but still can't be used in all locations and weather conditions, and limited chopper availability limits how quickly you can deploy large numbers of troops. So, it may well be that marching troops into position was still done recently, in a rather wild area. It's certainly not ideal, though, as you don't want troops exhausted, with possible foot problems, when they arrive. StuRat (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The most obvious post-war example was the loaded march or yomp of 45 Commando and 3 Para across 56 miles of East Falkland in 1982. This was made necessary because most of the heavy-lift helicopters needed had been lost when the SS Atlantic Conveyor was sunk by an Exocet missile.

However, we're no closer to finding a US example. The best I could manage was the fighting retreat from the Battle of Chosin Reservoir at the end of 1950, at least part of which was on foot. Alansplodge (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Turkish Wikipedia: black rectangle

Why does the Turkish Wikipedia have a black rectangle covering the WP globe image? Is this vandalism or demonstration of consensus about some ongoing issue?

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 10:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

See 2017 block of Wikipedia in Turkey for the details. Alansplodge (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

"Don't let food go up the first knuckle."

Which culture prohibits this? As a side note, it makes sense. Letting the food go past the first knuckle is just messy eating. 2600:387:0:805:0:0:0:A4 (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Where have you seen that rule? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection of reading Forks, Spoons, Knives, and Chopsticks and the manners that go with them. I don't have the book with me now, because it was a library book, and I borrowed it because it was listed as a recommended book in Childcraft. 2600:387:0:805:0:0:0:A4 (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

India. There are still dishes which are eaten with your hand. You should use only your thumb and first two fingers. No food should touch the palm of your hand or anything past your first knuckle. You should eat with your right hand, not your left. That is reserved for other duties. There are many more specific etiquette rules based on the region. Our article on Etiquette of Indian dining is very lacking in the etiquette of eating with your hand. There are more in-depth answers elsewhere. [13] [14] [15] 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What was the case of Jessie Brown?

From our article Personal Rights Association:

"One of the most prominent cases taken up by the PRA was that of Miss Jessie Brown."

The article was created 10 years ago and hasn't changed much since - no references to help, and I can't find anything with my clunky google-fingers. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It is a case from Glagow. Jessie Brown was illegally arrested. Both constables were fined. How much the PRA was involved is debatable, but they covered the case extensively in their 1913 report. Confusion about this is easy to find. There is the case of "Jesse Brown", who was represented by an organization called the PRA in the United States. She was charged with shooting John Lee in 1903. It was covered in local press around Kansas City. There was an NAACP claim that a woman named "Jessie Brown" was killed by a white farmer in 1965. However, I see no evidence that the PRA was involved in that case. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

alternate wording in Anne Frank diary

I'm wondering about variant wording in the diary. I understand that her Dutch was cleaned up for publication, so maybe one of these was her own wording? Or are there two editions?

In the famous quote where she says she wants to be Dutch after the war, there's:

En al zou ik aan de Koningin zelf moeten schrijven, ik zal niet wijken vóór mijn doel bereikt is.

vs

En als ik aan de koningin zelf moet schrijven, zal ik niet wijken voor mijn doel bereikt is.

I don't speak Dutch, so I can't tell if one has been corrected.

Thanks — kwami (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Kwamikagami you might want to move this to the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language or post a link there to this thread MarnetteD|Talk 21:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Most likely the first because, in that both, form (En al zou ik) and information, pose/imply a similar high degree of Pathos or passion. The second sentences form seems to casual for the message it transports.

Besides that i am very shure that Anne Frank, like most children, was able to learn the new language very fast. Additionally, as i remember her diary, she was an excellent scholar and she also loved to read lots of books. So very likely she had atleast an impressive dutch vocabulary. Maybe even above common native dutch children her age. --Kharon (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There are at least three different editions of Anne Frank's diary ([1] the manuscript as she wrote it; [2] the book as she edited it, and [3] the book as published, edited by her father.). If you want to learn which version is from which edition, you should consult The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised Critical Edition. - Nunh-huh 23:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

July 7th 2017 - Humanities Archive

All the replies (and the pages themselves) have been deleted - all that remains is the index of the questions (which are currently marked red) - Can someone restore these pages? Jaseywasey (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Everything seems to be like it should in WP:RD/H. Looked on a wrong page maybe? --Kharon (talk)

Nope, I was looking at the correct page, StuRat fixed it, feel free to check the page history for yourself Jaseywasey (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)