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.
What happens to the labour force after a country develops? For example, huge projects like zillions of new apartments and houses and roads and bridges and dams are created. Then what happens when it's all complete? What happens to the workforce? Do they get fully absorbed in the home furnishings and bridge maintenance fields and that sort of thing? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Typically they get absorbed in the manufacturing industry and the service industry which has necessarily grown during this economic boom. To over-simplify, these 2 sectors have grown because the workers, while they were employed as builders, were able to pay for goods and services as they were suddenly getting a regular salary above their (previously) survival-only income. --Lgriot (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article Raiatea contains the sentence, "A traditional name for the island is Havai'i, homeland of the Māori people." And the Wikipedia article Hawaiki contains the passage:
Anne Salmond states Havai'i is the old name for Raiatea, the homeland of the Māori. When James Cook first sighted New Zealand in 1769, he had Tupaia on board, a Raiatean navigator and linguist. Cook's arrival seemed to be a confirmation of a prophecy by Toiroa, a priest from Mahia. At Tolaga Bay, Tupaia conversed with the priest, tohunga, associated with the school of learning located there, called Te Rawheoro. The priest asked about the Maori homelands, 'Rangiatea' (Ra'iatea), 'Hawaiki' (Havai'i, the ancient name for Ra'iatea), and 'Tawhiti' (Tahiti).
Both cite a book called Aphrodite's Island by Anne Salmond. Outside of this, there doesn't seem to be much literature equating the Society Island of Ra'iātea with the mythical Māori homeland. So is this a fringe source, or is it even cited accurately in Wikipedia? 50.81.227.4 (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pacific peoples recounted myths of migration from a homeland named Hawaiki to many European travellers. For example:
The Journal of the Polynesian Society, Volumes 6-7, 1897, page 172. "'Tis a fish-hook of mine brought hither from Rangiatea / In those poras, that sailed here from afar.--Old Song, Ngati-Kwia, N.Z....In the above lines we notice the Maori and Rarotonga name of Raitea Island--anciently called Hawai'i--near Tahiti."
and these European writers equated it with various islands:
(Mr Google let me see the rest) "...many people of eastern Polynesia, not just Maori. Whether it is mythical or whether it has a specific location/s, including within New Zealand itself is still debated". Alansplodge (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading that very few german war prisoners captured by the soviet union returned alive, about 1 million died out of 3 million captured according to german estimates, and some captured after battles such as the siege of staligrad, only about 5% of those POW's survived after that. The reasons for their deaths do not seem possible to me even if they were treated poorly. What is the likely hood there were soviet concentration style camps where they were killed? And is there any evidence of this?--User777123 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many of them starved alongside the people of the Soviet Union, who had very little food for themselves, let alone enemies who were ravaging the USSR.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Gulag: "a total of 1,053,829 [Soviet] people died in the Gulag from 1934 to 1953". They weren't going to be nicer to the Germans than to their own people. Alansplodge (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union. It is widely agreed that about 3,000,000 Germans were taken prisoner by the Soviets during the war, though there are differing estimates on how many died, ranging from around 300,000 (Soviet estimate) to 1,000,000 (West German estimate). Common causes of death included disease, starvation, untreated wounds, malnutrition, physical abuse, and general lack of medical care. It was also frequently the case that Germans who surrendered were already in very poor health due to siege circumstances. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the general mistreatment, several of the prisoners were subjected to forced labor, which typically translates to poor living and working conditions: "in October 1949, all but 85,000 POWs had been released and repatriated. Most of those still held had been convicted as war criminals and many sentenced to long terms in forced labor camps – usually 25 years." Dimadick (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
June 14
If rape was historically seen as a crime against the property of the man to whom the woman belonged, then what happened to the women without male guardians?
Maybe a young woman's father dies, leaving the woman a half-orphan or full orphan. Maybe the woman's husband dies, leaving the woman a widow. Or maybe the woman is a prostitute, working for the head of the brothel, who is a woman. In all three cases, does the female belong to a male guardian at all? Would rape exist under these situations? SSS (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be tough to answer without specifics. Does history of rape help? Under Ancient Rome, it says this: "As a matter of law, rape could be committed only against a citizen in good standing. The rape of a slave could be prosecuted only as damage to the owner's property. People who worked as prostitutes or entertainers, even if they were technically free, suffered infamia, the loss of legal and social standing. " There are links to several related articles as well. Matt Deres (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SuperSuperSmarty: in many ancient cultures with customs which would now be considered severely patriarchal -- including Republican Rome and the Biblical Israelites -- society was organized into patrilineal lineages, which were grouped into patrilineal clans, so that their definitions of "family" may be different than you're imagining. AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Theodora (c. 500-548) instigated a few legislative reforms concerning the rights of women in the Byzantine Empire: "Theodora participated in Justinian's legal and spiritual reforms, and her involvement in the increase of the rights of women was substantial. She had laws passed that prohibited forced prostitution "and was known for buying girls who had been sold into prostitution, freeing them, and providing for their future." She closed brothels and made pimping a criminal offense. She created a convent on the Asian side of the Dardanelles called the Metanoia (Repentance), where the ex-prostitutes could support themselves. She also expanded the rights of women in divorce and property ownership, instituted the death penalty for rape, forbade exposure of unwanted infants, gave mothers some guardianship rights over their children, and forbade the killing of a wife who committed adultery. Procopius wrote that she was naturally inclined to assist women in misfortune. After Theodora's death, "little effective legislation was passed by Justinian." " Dimadick (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the acknowledgements to Roy Hattersley's David Lloyd George - The Great Outsider Hattersley writes "It was Roy Jenkins who, many years ago, suggested that I write a biography of David Lloyd George - a politician he disliked so heartily that he could not contemplate writing the book himself". So my question is - why? DuncanHill (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of our biog of David Lloyd George contains text that might be the answer: "He gave weak support to the war effort during the Second World War amidst fears that he was favourable toward Germany.". But this is speculative. It could have been just about anything - there's plenty in his biog that someone might choose to despise, from his policies to his womanising, and I'm not sure you'll get an answer here that's compliant with the Ref Desk's mandate not to speculate. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!10:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having slept on it, I found this by Andrew Adonis in the New Statesman "Hattersley declares in his opening words that Roy Jenkins suggested the idea of this biography of Lloyd George, "a politician he disliked so heartily that he could not contemplate writing the book himself". It would help uninitiated readers if he explained why. Jenkins was not only Herbert Asquith's biographer, but Asquithian to the core, modelling himself on the Balliol-trained, urbane, broad-minded Liberal leader. Asquith's enemies were Jenkins's enemies, Lloyd George foremost among them after their wartime split in 1916. For all its empathetic brilliance, Jenkins's 1964 biography fails to acknowledge Asquith's manifest unfitness as a war leader. It also skates over his womanising and excessive drinking." which seems to make sense (Squiffites have always had a curious ability to detest Lloyd George's domestic arrangements while remaining silent about Asquith's compulsive groping). One is tempted of course to add that Jenkins was from Monmouthshire and Lloyd George from Caernarvonshire (quite apart from the traditional rivalry between North and South Wales, LlG had been given a very hard time of it by the south for his attempts to create a single Welsh Liberal organisation), and that Jenkins, for all his good qualities, was a bit of a snob. DuncanHill (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have just acquired Jenkins's The Chancellors, which includes essays on both Asquith and Lloyd George, and that may provide some more insight. It'll have to wait until I've finished Hattersley, and A. J. P. Taylor's Twelve Essays (which I'm reading in parallel), though. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Railway projects in japan
If Japan railways are privatised, how does Japan Railway Construction, Transport and Technology Agency a government agency get involved in the construction of new lines which the private companies operate? Presumably the government fund the developed proposals, which would be developed jointly with the private operators, but how is it decided which company will operate the new line? And do they just gain ownership or do they buy it off JRTT? 176.250.81.228 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See JTT - For the Future Transportation Networks: "The construction projects are funded by the national and local governments as well as by revenue generated from the sale of existing shinkansen lines. We have already completed three sections on three lines including the Hokuriku Shinkansen (Takasaki - Nagano). After completion, facilities are leased to and operated by Japan Railway companies (JR)". Alansplodge (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List of countries by meat consumption per capita
I want to use this source. How do I get grand totals from that? Are there other sources you might know of?
We have List of countries by meat consumption but that's how much is eaten per capita including what is missing via retail, food service, home preparation, spoilage, downstream waste, bones, and pets foods.
Hi User:Anna Frodesiak, I'm not sure I understand your question: are you just asking how to transfer that OECD data into a wiki page? When I look at the OECD page I see CSV download links that let you pull the data into a spreadsheet. Then you can easily get rid of unwanted columns or figure out totals. You can re-export your modified table as CSV, then paste the CSV here to get a Mediawiki table that you can then plop into an article. Web search on "CSV to mediawiki table" finds a lot of other tools for doing such conversions if the mlei.net page isn't suitable. If you meant something else or want more help with the conversion, please post again. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I'm looking for is totals. The chart seems to show "Beef and veal", "Pork meat", "Poultry meat", and "Sheep meat" rather than the total of all those meats. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At Souliotes a claim that the Italian word Albanese means (among other things) "Albanian soldier" was removed as synthesis because it was sourced to a military, rather than a general dictionary. At Islamic calendar there is a far more blatant synthesis which has defied removal for nine years despite having no source whatsoever. Its basis is that a picture coincidentally appears at a point in Al-Biruni's text where he discusses Muhammad's prohibition of intercalation and must be, therefore, a picture of that event. When it is pointed out that Muhammad made the ruling while seated on a camel far from the nearest mosque the supporters of the description just roll their eyes and say nothing. I say "coincidentally" because the next picture, two folios along, is "Isaiah sees the Messiah accompanied by the prophet Muhammad", but Isaiah is not mentioned in the book. Can we get consensus to remove this description once and for all? 80.47.0.15 (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Humanities reference desk. discussions of article content should go to the article's talk page, and if consensus cannot be achieved, shou8ld follow the dispute resolution procedures. See WP:DISPUTE. Note that "synthesis" is often brought into these discussions in various inappropriate ways, so you have my sympathy. See WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTSYNTH, and the many related essays. -Arch dude (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article's talk page is not protected and has never been protected as far as I can tell from the logs. If I am wrong, please provide a link to the log. In any case the humanities reference desk is not the forum for any stage of the dispute resolution process, so even of you cannot edit the talk page, you still need to go elsewhere. See WP:DISPUTE. Further attempts to use this page inappropriately will cause someone, probably me, to recommend that you be blocked. This has nothing to do with the validity of your arguments: I have no opinion on the subject. If you want your arguments to be considered objectively, you must take them to the correct forum. -Arch dude (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Teaching history in young countries millenia from now
How would history teachers and professors, and textbooks in young countries like the United States teach a history school class or a college/university course without missing any details 1000 years from now or 5000 years from now? Let me use the U.S as an example because I grew up and live there. How will things like the Civil War, the Great Depression,m, 9/11, etc. be taught millennia from now? Will some details or events not be taught anymore to cram up everything in 1 textbook, class, or course due to time and number of events that have taken place? Can some light into this be shed in how American history was taught 100 years ago or is it still too early and few of years to tell?
On the same line, once a country gains independence, how many years does it usually for textbooks to be written and for school classes and college courses to be made about the full history of that country? Willminator (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As it says at the top of the page, we don't predict or speculate here. In this case we would need to make predictions about the nature of civilization and humanity 1000 years hence. Your question assumes that civilization would teach history approximately as it does today (teachers, professors, textbooks...) which is extremely unlikely. See technological singularity as one of hundreds of alternatives. -Arch dude (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You necessarily have to "miss details" in order to cover 5,000 years worth of history. Consider World War II, where there's a ton of material. Even today, how would you cover every detail of the war in a conventional history class? The answer is that you wouldn't. You would have to summarize, and the more years that pass, the more you would have to summarize, to hold the class down to a couple of semesters. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To address your last point, in the case of Lithuania which became independent from the USSR in 1990, the first history textbooks were produced within a very short time, as the pre-independence books were heavily dominated by Soviet ideology. Lithuanian historians attended various seminars and courses at Western European universities before writing the next generation of textbooks which conformed to modern educational theories and about 50 history textbooks have been produced in Lithuania since 1990. See Contemporary History Textbooks in Lithuania: The Case of Innovations (pdf download). Alansplodge (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are not supposed to make predictions here, but I very much doubt whether any American history will be taught at all in 5000 years (or any British or European history). Such organisations will probably be totally forgotten except possibly for specialist research. Dbfirs19:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, yeah, looking back 5000 years ago, famous cultures included the Egyptians, the Indus Valley Civilization, the Sumerians, the Minoans, the (Shang and Xia dynasties, and the beginnings of the Trojans. The Egyptians are mentioned in what is currently the most widespread religious text (and Egyptology was a huge craze during the Victorian era), while the Trojans are mentioned in a rather popular legend that gets the occasional movie or miniseries. If I met someone offline who had even heard of the others, I would not regard their knowledge of history as "average" by any means. Then there's the nationalist focus that most nations' high school history courses have, and the simplification of complex issues to make things more testable. During the late second millennium, a region called "Murica" occupied a middle strip of modern Norama on Sol IV (at that time Sol III). Murica discovered electric and nuclear power, developed space flight, and began a centuries-long but ultimately successful peasant rebellion in 1776. This rebellion resulted in the most popular model of government until humanity's extinction several centuries later -- anarcho-totalitarian communo-capitalism. Our current system of government was created in response to the flaws of anarcho-totalitarian communo-capitalism, which had not only caused humanity's extinction but had also denied political rights to dolphins.Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nah... all of knowledge of Earth’s history will be forgotten during the dark age that will sweep the solar system after fall of the Martian Empire. Blueboar (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably best off turning to science fiction for explorations of this topic, since any "non-fictional" predictive attempts will probably be as far off-base as Albert Speer's designs of buildings for ruin value turned out to be. Assuming the absence of catastrophic events like civilization collapse of human extinction though, and also the non-occurrence of a technological singularity, there will be a lot more recorded materials preserved than we in the present day have from the time of (say) the ancient Sumerians. So that can possibly give a different understanding. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Five thousand years previously, 3000 BCE, we lack adequate texts to apply the techniques of the modern understanding of the written past (History / Historiography). Currently the scholarly discipline of "History" has a lock hold over adequate accounts of the "written past," (WP:HISTRS) which is how most people perceive "history," as opposed to other disciplines regarding the natural past or physical remains of cultural beings. As far as the dolphins go, Posadas was right, drop the bomb now. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read The Histories by Heroditus? I guess not - I suppose that fate awaits our current histories. Perhaps they will even disappear like many of the histories which disappeared with the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Or perhaps they will just seem strange like the histories of China, much of which was also burnt. Dmcq (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. Regions - Is the U.S. Census Bureau's map definitive?
Hello,
I have used the U.S. Census Bureau's map of the U.S. Regions [1] as a guideline in my work doing market research because it makes sense that their map would be the best one to use to find what the U.S. government considers to be the correct regional borders. However, while Washington DC is listed as part of the South-Atlantic region in the U.S. Census Bureau map, it is listed in the Wikipedia article on Washington DC as belonging to the Mid-Atlantic region. When I clicked on the "Mid-Atlantic" link, it took me to the page on regions, where there clearly is a lot of disagreement about regional borders. I can understand why/how there might be some disagreement at the U.S. Census Bureau about regions before they make their final decision and publish their map - but once it's decided and the map is published, aren't all arguments put to rest?
Thanks
SouthATXEditor (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no level of government between states and the federal government. The federal government lacks the constitutional authority to group states into regions in any mandatory way. Neither the federal or state governments can prevent individuals from speaking or writing about multi-state regions any way they want to. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This might be the way it is in your country but that's not how it is in the US. Although different parts of the Census map have different levels of currency. i.e. New England is pretty much always the states northeast of New York if you're dividing by state but not even Midwesterners and Southerners agree exactly which states are those (besides their own state and usually the ones immediately adjacent) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Southwest Connecticut could still be considered to be not New England. It was surely more New Englandy before commuting to New York became practical but it now has a lot of New Yorkers that moved there for whatever advantage Connecticut has (I'm not making fun, state sales/property/fuel/income taxes, school spending etc. vary between states and I barely know 1 New Jersey tax rate much less anything about the further Connecticut) or just that it had the house/suburb/whatever they wanted and they didn't move for the state. Most NFL and MLB fans there root against the New England Patriots and Boston Red Sox (basically the New England Red Sox) when they're playing their favorite team. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses, but to me they emphasize the point that there needs to be a single point of reference that everyone agrees on. There's no dispute about state borders or time zones; you can refer to a U.S. map and know exactly where the boundaries are between states and where the various time zones are. The same should be true for regions. We should not be in a situation where a bunch of people with various views on whether Virginia is or is not a Southern state are having a battle on Wikipedia -- changing it back and forth from South Atlantic to Mid-Atlantic (or more broadly, from South to Northeast). I just did a little more research, and the General Services Administration (GSA) has different designations on their map of regional borders ([2]) than the Census Bureau. Why do two federally-funded agencies produce U.S. regions maps with conflicting data? Maddening. -- I suppose the answer to the question is that if you are using regional designations in your work, you need to pick whichever map makes sense to you and note that as your standard (similar to designating an editing style, like AP) so others referring to your research know which states you a referring to when you designate a region, such as "the South." - Cheers! SouthATXEditor (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even bother with the GSA's regions, they're really, really bad. North Dakota doesn't even have Rocky Mountains and South Dakota is flat except for a small spot (Black Hills) in the southwest corner which is surrounded by vast plains. At least they got the Great Lakes and New England regions right. Their Heartland region's very, very Heartland (especially the non-Missourian ones) but some will say it's too small. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't NEED Federally mandated regions. The entire concept is just a matter of convenience. For example, most people don't consider Florida to be part of "the South" because it doesn't fit their definition. It causes no harm. No taxes or laws are currently based on regions. So, if you want to make up your own region, it is a free country. 2600:1004:B126:1672:91F1:9E3F:F63A:4842 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Digression: Florida as a whole, particularly urban Southern Florida, is not usually considered part of the South, but it's my impression that the Florida Panhandle is, and some of the swampy inland parts further south might also be. --Trovatore (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid there is no such thing as definitive U.S. regions. The Census Bureau regions were made specifically for collecting and reporting out Census Bureau data, they may or may not be appropriate for other uses, but they certainly weren't intended as anything other than a way to organize the Census' own internal operations. If they're convenient for you go ahead and use them, but other people are certainly going to use other regions, depending on what their own needs are. Kmusser (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By descent Muhammad belonged to the Quraysh from Mecca who were polytheists (kuffaar). Almost everyone in Mecca were polytheists, that is, there were no Jews in Mecca (contrary to, say, Yathrib). However I don't know (and don't recall reading anywhere, though I'm no expert) that Muhammad himself had ever practiced polytheism. Now what I've just stated is the historically informed Western view. But ideologically Islam propounds another view. According to Islam any human being is born a Muslim and stays that way unless the family or circumstances turn them into something else (in which case they may "return" to Islam if they choose by converting, or, as Muslims say, reverting, uttering the Shahada and so on). In the Muslim view Muhammad did not "invent" Islam and Islam was not created. It'd always been the original religion of humanity that Adam, Abraham, etc. belonged to. So it is possible that, if it can't be shown that Muhammad actually practiced the polytheism practiced by his family, according to Islam, as he was born a Muslim he never ceased to be one. Basemetal19:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. In particular if the OP will search for "Muhammad" in the text of that article they'll get more interesting facts that will help them clarify the relationship of Muhammad and his relatives to the religions of pre-Islamic Arabia. Basemetal12:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basemetal, where is this statement that everyone who has ever lived is born a Muslim to be found? Is it in the Qu'ran, Hadith, or elsewhere? 81.139.244.251 (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another piece of information that makes a mockery of the claims one often sees, including in Wikipedia, saying "There are X followers of religion Y in the world." HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, a mockery often seen on Wikipedia is assigning religion to newborns, infants, toddlers, and children in infoboxes and categories. Then again, one could say that having articles about them is a mockery in itself. Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Religions deserve articles. They impact on a lot of people. But you're right, numbers of adherents should only include adults who have publicly stated they believe. No idea where would get such figures, but without them we should include no numbers at all. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should follow what reliable sources say. If they count children we count children no matter how silly it might seem. Wikipedia is not in the business of sticking in our own opinions or original research. Dmcq (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that we have to follow reliable sources... the question is often which reliable sources to follow? Scholarly sources are best. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Religion is a complex mix of beliefs, traditions, values, rituals, etc. Children can believe or partake in many of those. To exclude children out of hand strikes me as taking a very narrow view of what religion (or believing in/following a religion) means. Iapetus (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To include them is simply dishonest. Remember that "children" includes newborns. And I quite deliberately used the word "believers". Newborns are atheists. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In English, Uranian does not mean what you think it does (clicking the link will prove educative). It can also refer specifically to the planet Uranus, but it can't be applied to celestial objects as a whole. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]20:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our chthonic article suggests that the relevant dichotomy may be expressed in English as Olympian versus chthonic. It does seem a bit odd to describe Nordic gods as "Olympian", though, whereas Uranus was apparently the personification of the sky. --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To come to the OP's defence, the OED defines one of the meanings of Uranian as "Relating to or befitting heaven; celestial, heavenly". --Antiquary (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After poking around a little bit in our articles, it strikes me that Odin may make occasional journeys into the underworld, but can hardly be described as an underworld god, nor does he seem much like a nature god. On the other hand our Odin article says In later folklore, Odin appears as a leader of the Wild Hunt, a ghostly procession of the dead through the winter sky.
So I guess I'd say he's more like a sky god than a chthonic god, if those are the only two categories available, but neither really seems to fit all that well. --Trovatore (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the "uranian" term used above, but if it's meant to refer to gods tied to death and the underworld, Odin likely qualifies: leader of the valkyries, he spent time dead, and our article does refer to him as a psychopomp (love that word). Matt Deres (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I get the impression that the OP is using Uranian to refer to gods tied to the sky (Uranus being the personification of the sky). --Trovatore (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The caption at All Saints' Church, Godshill says "Painting of Godshill Church, circa 1910", but it doesn't look like a painting to me. It looks more like a hand-tinted b&w photo, but I'm not sure. Anyone who knows technically what this is, please go ahead and change the caption. Thanks. Mypix (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons credits it to Pictures in Colour of the Isle of Wight by Jarrod and Sons, at Project Gutenberg. The second paragraph of the book's foreword describes its illustrations: "being reproductions from actual photographs they may be relied upon as being true to Nature". In other words, the image was not made by tinting the photo (which presumably was B&W), but by copying it (and therefore adding color). --76.69.118.94 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I read "reproductions from actual photographs" as meaning "reproductions of actual photographs" (possibly with some tinkering). I don't understand it as meaning that a painting was made from scratch by copying a photograph, if that's what you're suggesting. Mypix (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A lithographic reproduction from a photo is not a painting. Even a lithographic reproduction from a painting is not a painting. If the source calls them "pictures" we should call them "pictures" too, the arbitrary change to "painting" smells to me of misguided original research. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]
Maybe more to the point, this would seem to suggest nothing on wikipedia should be described as a painting. For example the image to the right is not a painting or an oil on canvas this is not a painting nor is it an an oil on canvas. It's a digital photograph of a painting/oil on canvas. Nil Einne (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a pixilated computer-screen image of an electronically transmitted digital file encoding a digital photograph of a painting/oil on canvas (or something like that). Scott Adams specifically and graphically (hah!) addressed this issue at length in his Understanding Comics. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.224 (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting a bit academic: we do write captions knowing that the reader can follow one or two levels of metaphor, such that the caption to a photo of a dog can state "This is a dog", the picture of a painting can have "This is a painting" and the painting by Magritte "Painting representing a pipe". My remark was about whether the picture of a lithography reproducing a painting can be called a painting, and I mean: no, you can call it a lithogrphy, not a painting. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]
I have a question about transgender people in Botswana
On wikipedia's LGBT rights in Botswana page it says transgender rights were legalized last year. I would like to know where people in Botswana can go to a gender clinic and get their surgery done? I'm just curious as a lgbt activist. Sphinxmystery (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to [2], gender re-assignment surgery is not available in Botswana. As I understand it, the courts have accepted that a person who has undergone gender re-assignment surgery can have their "official" gender changed. That doesn't automatically mean that such surgery is, in fact, available in Botswana itself. Eliyohub (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone remind me what company labeled its bananas with stickers showing a woman with a flower in the head (possibly pinning the flower to the head)? Not Chiquita. Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How can one prove that one has consummated the marriage?
A marriage is consummated by sexual intercourse. Does one just have to say that relationship has been consummated or not, or is more proof required? Children are obviously proof that the relationship has been consummated, but then, it is also possible that the wife has been unfaithful, and the man is not the father of the child. Where do same-sex couples fit in? Where do infertile couples fit in? Also, if consummation completes the marriage, then does that mean the partners in the marriage are obligated to engage in intercourse? If the wife refuses to engage in intercourse, then the husband can file for an annulment? If money is involved in the marriage deal, then the husband may demand a return of the money? What happens if the husband refuses to engage in intercourse? Can the wife ask for an annulment and a return of the dowry? SSS (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You state "A marriage is consummated by sexual intercourse." as if it is a law. Where is it a law? If we knew the legal system you are referring to, we can help locate laws on the subject. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In most of the United States, "failure to consummate" is considered legitimate grounds for annulment based on either statutory or case law. I'm assuming SSS is American based on prior questions, but I could be wrong. As to part of the question, this does not mean that an unconsummated marriage is not "complete" - the rules are typically rather strict. In California, for instance, it is generally required that one partner be incapable and/or unwilling to consummate, that this incapacity was not known to the spouse prior to marriage, and that annulment be requested within the first year of marriage.[3]Someguy1221 (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In some cultures, it was formerly traditional to pass a bloodstained sheet from the bedroom on the wedding night, this supposedly attesting to the bride's virginity and the groom's virility... However, in Western cultures, the legal tendency has been for the law not to take note of, or examine, what goes on intimately between a married couple, unless there's a dispute and one or both persons are complaining. AnonMoos (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In some cultures, it was not understood that nearly half of all women do not bleed after the first act of vaginal intercourse.
That said, the Catholic Church’s stance has long been that a) a marriage is not perfected until it is consummated, *but* equally b) a marriage is assumed to be true unless one of the parties applies for annulment. Basically non-consummation can be used as a reason to request annulment, but the Church doesn’t stick its nose into random marriages; if the parties don’t mind, neither does the Church.
As for evidence...the Church will of course ask the parties to the marriage if they’ve had sex but other evidence can also be gathered as well - what the parties said to others after the wedding night, for instance, or whether the woman has become pregnant (but given how commonplace modern reproductive procedures such as sperm donation and IVF are, that’s not remotely slam-dunk proof). Given that about half of women don’t possess a large enough hymen to be visible and many others don’t completely lose the hymen until childbirth, a physical exam is useless as evidence, although that wasn’t always understood in the past; even thirty years ago P.D. James had medical examiners in her murder mysteries affirming that a victim was virga intacta as a shorthand for “she wasn’t raped”. In reality it isn’t that easy to tell. --24.76.103.169 (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"...the Catholic Church’s stance has long been that a) a marriage is not perfected until it is consummated". There are many examples of older, widowed people marrying. It would be my guess that some never engage in sex. Is that against Catholic church rules? HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many older Catholic women go to the altar after having informed their partners the marriage will be sexless. P D James was born in Oxford, educated in Cambridge and moved back to Oxford later. I doubt that she would have mis-spelt a Latin phrase, as suggested by 24.76 above. 86.132.186.246 (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That supposedly dead language, Latin, is showing signs of life. Edward Stourton lamented in Saturday's Daily Telegraph:
Some public figures just don't want their birth details becoming public knowledge, so they never reveal it (except on official forms, which are, or ought to be, protected by privacy laws). If you really need to know, it might be necessary to do a search for a birth certificate, assuming the relevant jurisdiction allows access. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]22:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no record of him being born, then how can you know his identity, his parents (legal guardians when he was a minor), his existence? -- 14:14, 19 June 2018 2a00:801:291:96c8:2946:d6a4:4b07:679e
It is very much not so in the US (or in Canada, for that matter). Birth certificates are not available to the general public. Most people have some kind of government ID - driver’s license, picture ID for non-drivers - but owning ID is not mandatory and birthdates are most absolutely NOT considered anyone else’s business. Not only can’t you look up any random person’s date of birth, trying to do so would make any sensible, reasonable person think you were an identity-thieving scammer. --24.76.103.169 (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that Obama thing always puzzled me.-- 14:14, 19 June 2018 2a00:801:291:96c8:2946:d6a4:4b07:679e
Antiquary -- the title "Civil registration in the United States" wouldn't make all that much sense. In England, the main documentation of births/baptisms, marriages, and deaths was in the local parish registers of the official Church of England, until one day in the 19th century when the government decided to set up a central non-ecclesiastical registry. Analogous events in the United States were much more varied from state to state, and didn't necessarily involve an abrupt ecclesiastical to civil change. AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how closely related this was to the increasing influence of the Wesleyans and the Catholics; as you get more and more Nonconformists, having the Church run everything is less and less useful because it's comprising a smaller and smaller share of the population. Compare that to the USA, where as you note it didn't generally work this way; there's never been a federal establishment of religion, and the last state establishment ended almost 200 years ago, thus necessitating government action if there were to be any centralised register. Outside some (all?) of the original colonies and a few other locations (e.g. Mexican Texas), there was never an establishment of religion in the first place, so registrations presumably didn't exist until the state started them. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The United Methodist Church was formed by the merger of a big Methodist church with a smaller body, the Evangelical United Brethren Church. What was the name of the big church? I always thought it was "The Methodist Church", with an included "The" similar to The New York Times, and this is supported by the 1995 edition of Mead's Handbook of Denominations. However, our article is Methodist Church (USA), not The Methodist Church (USA), and in the body "The" is generally not capitalised. Mead's 2010 edition doesn't capitalise "The". Does "The" appear in other sources? Does anyone have access to official publications from this denomination that would have its full official name? Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the denomenation’s own official publications before the merger with the EUB the name was consistently “The Methodist Church.” Perhaps this was to distinguish it from other “Methodist” denominations such as the Free Methodists, so they were not seen as “just another bunch of Methodists, loosely termed.” When the phrase is used in the article it would seem appropriate to capitalize “The.” But like the article Ohio State University, whose official name is “The Ohio State University,” it is not necessary to include “The” in the article title or in every mention. Manual of style experts can doubtless chime in with rules and precedents. But “The” was clearly part of the denomenation’s self-styled official name before the merger. Edison (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I was working at the head office of a large company we mislaid the file of an important customer. We turned the place upside down looking for it. Eventually the manager found it - the filing clerk (copying from the customer's letterhead) had titled it "The S------ Youth Centre" and filed it under "The".86.132.186.246 (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
June 20
Do media critics who use various theories of literary criticism in their review of a work generally judge the overall quality of the work based on its messages?
For example, if a work has a political message that opposes feminism, would critics who subscribe to feminist theory at least in the academia of the western world be more negative regarding its overall quality because of it even if other qualities such as plots and characterization are solid? Is there any sites or online publication I could go to learn more about how these matters are handled? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"CEO behind the product"
Does the phrase "John Doe, X-Group's CEO behind the new product..." make sense when John Doe is not the CEO of X-Group, but the CEO of an unmentioned subsidiary company that issued "the new product"? --KnightMove (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No; as stated (although ambiguous), John Doe is the implied CEO of X-Group. Perhaps: "...an X-Group CEO who is..." would imply that there are other CEOs in X-Group, but John Doe is the one behind the new product ("...an X-Group CEO behind..." would erroneously imply that more than one CEO is behind the new product). —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
