Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

October 26

American Heritage Foundation

This badge (circa 1960s, I'm guessing late 1960s) indicates that it is issued by the American Heritage Foundation. Is/was that related to American Heritage (magazine) or is it something else? No mention if it in our article on the magazine, nor on the disambiguation page American Heritage and I'm not quickly finding anything relevant with a web search. Or, just imaginably, the badge might say something other than "American Heritage Foundation" and I could be misreading. The logo is hard to parse: it could be the torch of liberty, but it could also be a hand holding (of all things) a bottle! Jmabel | Talk 04:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John F Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum: "American Heritage Foundation - This folder contains materials collected by the office of President John F. Kennedy's secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, concerning the American Heritage Foundation's 1962 "Register, Vote on an Informed Basis and Contribute to the Party of Your Choice" program". Alansplodge (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Freedom Train. "Thomas D'Archy Brophy (of advertising firm Kenyon & Eckhardt) described the Freedom Train as "a campaign to sell America to Americans". The Advertising Council planned an assortment of other events to accompany the Train, including messages in radio programs, comic books, and films. In each city where the train stopped, they organized a "Rededication Week" for public celebrations of the United States. In February 1947, the group formed the "American Heritage Foundation" and named Brophy its president". 08:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I"m not finding too many details about the Foundation itself, but it is mentioned as participating in voter drives as early as 1952 and continuing into the 1960's. (I would estimate the image you have here as from the late 1950s as opposed to your own estimate of late 1960s) And the logo seems fairly unambiguous to me, it is multiple hands holding up the torch of liberty. A few links: https://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1960092100 https://www.jstor.org/stable/25549455?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.amazon.com/Good-Citizen-American-Official-Publication/dp/B000VYM9CM --Khajidha (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: www.lexisnexis.com%2Fdocuments%2Facademic%2Fupa_cis%2F1520_PapersNAACPPart4Supp195665.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0GtJrU8bBsbsddfYJx7rqW

CQ Researcher - Voting in 1960: "A number of private, non-partisan organizations are working to assure a big vote in November. The American Heritage Foundation, in cooperation with the Advertising Council, announced last June 6 [1959] that it would stage an intensive nation-wide advertising drive urging citizens to register and vote, to contribute to the campaign funds of political candidates and parties, and to inform themselves on the issues and work for their chosen candidates". Alansplodge (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've paraphrased most of that at File:Voting badge, circa 1960s (45381557372).jpg. If someone has more to add, please feel free to edit there. - Jmabel | Talk 20:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalism and human sacrifice in ancient Europe

What evidence is there of cannibalism and human sacrifice in ancient Europe, especially in and before Iron Age Europe? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This evidence. --Jayron 32 10:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a lot of information on Wikipedia about Human sacrifice#Europe, especially for the Celts, but also for Germanic peoples, and the Romans and Greeks. A lot of things that happened in Rome can be interpreted as human sacrifice (gladiator games for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US Navy mandate

In 2005 I flew in and out of Kandahar International Airport and ordinary security screening at boarding was handled by (very young) US Navy people. As I remember it the airport was run by the US Navy but our Kandahar International Airport article doesn't mention this and I could be wrong.

Afghanistan is landlocked.

My question is: why was America's naval force operating in a landlocked country? Are there basic rules that define the American armed/uniformed services' roles? I think I remember reading that the US Army is not allowed to operate aircraft but again I could be wrong.

I looked at the loooooong United States Navy page and searched for 'role' and 'mandate' but did not find an answer. How does this all work? Hayttom (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13 years is a long time. Whatever the situation was in 2005 may have changed dramatically. --Jayron 32 16:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding what "role" any of the military services play is "determined by the orders given by their superiors". Ultimately, the President of the United States is Commander-in-Chief of the entire military, but as he is a civilian, the actual top-level administration of the military is handled by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is a committee consisting of the heads of each of the service branches. In conjunction with the civilian United States Department of Defense (aka The Pentagon), decisions on how, and where, and for what purpose to deploy U.S. forces are made. If the U.S. Navy was guarding an airport in Afghanistan, the reason they were is that someone who has the power to decide that they should have been doing that told them to do that. --Jayron 32 16:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously they were operating under orders, and their commanders had their reasons. The question is, why would it make sense for navy personnel to be involved at airports (or driving tanks, for that matter); why would air force personnel be involved on ships or leading cavalry charges? It's a fair question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The US Navy runs lots of airbases: List of United States Naval Air Stations. It may just have been considered most practical for some reason (budgets, available personnel or whatever) to let the navy run this airport at this time. Some flights may have been to and from US carriers. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not only are US Army personnel "allowed" to operate aircraft, it is a vital part of the Army's operations. In fact, there is a whole branch of the Army created for just that purpose, the United States Army Aviation Branch, and dozens of MOSs related to aviation (List_of_United_States_Army_careers#Aviation Branch). Pilots and other aviation personnel are actively recruited by the Army (e.g. [1]).--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 21:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft, yes, but (almost?) exclusively helicopters. I think it is true that the army is "not allowed" to have fixed-wing aircraft, though there may be exceptions I don't know about. Whether this restriction, on balance, improves America's overall defense capability, I couldn't really say, but intuitively it seems — suspicious. --Trovatore (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer may lie in the Seabees - United States Naval Construction Battalions which specialise in building military airfields - who deployed to Kandahar in 2001 according to this. More research tomorrow at a more civilised hour. Alansplodge (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sources [2] mentioned they were involved in repairing the runway at the Kandahar International Airport although that would have been in 2001 or 2002. BTW, in case people aren't aware, the international airport is also a military base (with 26k I think NATO personnel in 2012) and the Kandahar Airfield generally refers to the same thing (perhaps the military part in particular). In other words, don't let the name fool you, this isn't just a civilian airport. Note that according to our article, the 159th Combat Aviation Brigade did have deployments at the Kandahar Airfield/International Airport at one time. "Since" 2011, army aviation at the Kandahar Airfield/International Airport has included Beechcraft King Air aircraft. On that note, while I believe the army still limits their acquisition of fixed wing aircraft as a legacy of the Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966, they definitely have them [3]. Maybe not surprisingly given the significance of the base there, there was still Navy personnel there in 2018 [4]. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, such excellent answers. As far as I am concerned, this is... Hayttom (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

How can a small company have more than two billion shares?

Regarding this official record, how can the fact be explained that such a number of shares is supposed to have been allocated? What exactly is that figure about?--Neufund (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mathematical reason it can't but share prices below a certain range have negative perceptions. See penny stock. Also the bid-ask spread would discourage people trading it if it's too high a percent of the price and the spread can't be smaller than a cent or centicent or whatever tick size a stock's exchange uses. But for whatever reason this company decided to issue billions of shares anyway. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagittarian Milky Way: Thank you for commenting! "this company decided to issue billions of shares anyway" – What exact nature are those shares to be conceived of?--Neufund (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They'd be the same as any other shares of a company -- worth a percentage of the value of the company. It doesn't really matter if I have 1 share of 100 allocated shares or 10000 shares of 1000000 allocated, it's 1% of the company. Perhaps Kim Dotcom thought his shareholders would be happier with lots of shares at a tiny value per share rather than a tiny number of shares with a high value per share. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the massive number of shares only happened after Kim Dotcom fell out with the company. See [5] and [6] which are dated December 2015, the later includes a date of issue. Then see these [7] [8] [9].You can see more here [10]. E.g. [11].

I think the state when Kim Dotcom was still involved would have been [12] or earlier. (I'm not certain when he really fell out. I'm assuming that he was being truthful and not making it up for some reason when he said he's fallen out. While it's hard to be sure sometimes with Kim Dotcom, there are various reasons to think it was probably real here.)

Note that Mega has never been a publicly traded company, so the concerns which apply to them don't really apply here. There was a proposal at one stage for a back door listing via another company which was a penny stock which had about 1.1 billion shares trading at NZ$0.001 at the time. The listing proposed a massive consolidation and issuing of ~700 million new shares to Mega share holders. But they were valuing the company at $200-300 million so 700 million final shares was maybe a little high but not extremely so assuming the valuation was reasonable. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Anyway as mentioned in those sources, the proposal fell through.

It's not the first time TRS was involved in such a back door listing proposal but I don't think any have taken off. [18] [19] While the number of shares in TRS is very high given their size, I'm not sure if it's really odd or just reflective of the a company that failed.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it's possible the Stock dilution related entirely to the fund raising although it seems unlikely to me considering they went from 43529712 to 2049273912, and their previous fund raising mentioned in the Herald article only increased share volume by ~7 times for $7.5 million and I can't imagine they raised that much more. Unless for some reason the company was massive devalued in the time, or of course, if there was something questionable going on. And they also had to get to 43529712 from the 951662 given in the Herald article. It's possible you can tell more from the documents, it's not something I know much about. Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it occurred to me I must be missing something obvious since the Herald story said they got their info from the companies office. I realised I missed the director's certificates which explain what happened. Two 50:1 rights issues were carried out [20] [21], so it was fund raising. The price seems a little low, but maybe not that low compared to the previous one [22] and I assume rights issue are often priced lower than new shares which dilute shareholdings. Of course in this case I think they did, since some shareholders weren't interested or weren't able to put in more cash or at least not all they could have. Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

Did the Italians, Romanians, and Serbs in Austria-Hungary want to join Italy/Serbia/Romania before WWI?

Did the Italians, Romanians, and Serbs in Austria-Hungary (in Trentino, Trieste, Istria, Fiume, Transylvania, Bukovina, Bosnia, Croatia, and Vojvodina) want to join Italy/Serbia/Romania before the start of World War I? Or did the idea of annexing these territories to Italy/Serbia/Romania only become popular in these territories after World War I broke out?

For the record, I am focusing on these three ethnic groups because all of them actually had an independent motherland which they could aim to join. In contrast, the Poles, Ukrainians, et cetera did not have an independent motherland back then.

Anyway, any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some information about the size of the Italian populations in the Austro-Hungarian Empire Austro-Hungarian Naval Policy, 1904-1914 (pp. 2-4), although not much about their political aspirations. Alansplodge (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of a nation annexing territory, which is not part of their country, but which they claim due to being settled by a certain ethnic group, is called irredentism, and the OP is likely to find LOTS of information there. Part of the nationalism of the 19th and early 20th century were many irredentist movements, notably (for answering this question) is Italian irredentism. --Jayron 32 01:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

Are U.S. citizens automatically authorized to work in the United States?

I have found this Wikipedia article: Employment authorization document. However, it exclusively talks about people who aren't U.S. citizens. Thus, are U.S. citizens automatically authorized to work in the United States?

Also, I apologize if this is an extremely stupid question. Futurist110 (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Social-Security Number and a driver's license are enough for most job applications (unless there are special stringent background checks for a particular job). AnonMoos (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: The question seems to be about what is required by federal law. Certainly a driver's license is not. It may be required by an employer, but that's another matter. As for social security numbers, I don't know the law, but I know a lot of falsehoods circulate, including the belief that everyone is required to have one. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All American citizens are theoretically authorized to be employed if they've reached the legal minimum age, but as a practical matter, they may find it very difficult to obtain above-board legitimate documented employment without a Social Security number and a driver's license (or a state ID card as a driver's-license equivalent). AnonMoos (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A non-American here. Obviously not everyone will have a driver's licence, and I don't know how one gets (and proves one has) a Social-Security Number. Are they issued at birth? HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Social Security number talks about the logistics. In principle, you're not required to have one, I think, but in practice it's extremely difficult to manage without. --Trovatore (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48 -- if you don't drive, you can get a state ID card, which is generally also issued by each state's DMV, and is equivalent to a driver's license for identification purposes, but doesn't legally allow you to drive cars on roads... AnonMoos (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is, if the state doesn't move the DMV to an area where pedestrian traffic is both discouraged and unsafe. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I live in a state capital, and there's a DMV attached to the State Trooper HQ (fairly centrally located within the city) which is very accessible by bus. Of course, the wait there may be significantly longer than other DMV locations which are in less public-transit friendly locations... AnonMoos (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In general, sure. But that doesn't mean an employer will hire a given individual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to fill out Form I-9. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the OP's question is still "Yes." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I started working at Behemart about five years ago, all I gave them was a drug test and the routing number for direct deposit to my credit union. Part of my paycheck still went to social security. I suspect the reason they didn't bother even checking ID was that:

-what, am I really going to work to help someone else's Social Security fund?

-the store was in a poor neighborhood where it takes three hours to get to the DMV by bus (assuming both of the transfers are timed right and you don't have to spend up to an hour waiting for the next bus), and an hour away from the two separate offices that provide the documentation you need to get an ID card (though you need an ID card to get that documentation and yet people wonder how voter ID laws could possibly result in voter suppression).

About a year and a half ago, I started working at a nearby grocery store in a neighborhood where you either have a car or you are housebound. There, I not only had to fill out the I-9 but I had to go and get them a copy of my Social Security card because corporate wanted it just in case immigration services ever stopped by with the assumption that only illegal immigrants would ever work as cashiers. For some reason, all my passport did was let corporate give me an extension in getting another Social Security card (family had lost mine while I was in China). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you still had to give WalMart your Social Security number, I assume (even if you didn't show them your physical Social Security card, which actually doesn't mean very much anyway). Where I live, it would be very difficult to have any kind of bank account without a DMV-issued ID (or some more esoteric forms of identification, such as a passport etc., that would be more difficult for most U.S. citizens to obtain than a DMV-issued ID). AnonMoos (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the OP's specific question, even if a SSN is required, every US citizen is automatically authorised to receive a SSN either at birth or later in life, therefore, yes, every US citizen is automatically authorised to work in the USA, if he finds an employer who wants to hire him and legally can hire him (with the obvious limitation that some people on certain registries can't do certain jobs). --Lgriot (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did Noah's son Ham have sex with Noah's wife, Ham's mother?

I heard a passage from Genesis quoted, saying Noah's son Ham sinned by uncovering his father's nakedness.

The same translation of the Bible had a passage in Leviticus saying any man who has sex with his mother has uncovered his father's nakedness.

The use of that same phrase makes one wonder if the passage from Genesis was intended to mean Ham had sex with his mother. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't there 8 people on the ark? 4 men and unnamed wives? In universe that is. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four named men and four unnamed women. Including Ham and Ham's wife. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of details in Curse of Ham. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incest is not mentioned in that article... AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. The OP is jumping to un unsupported conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well... "Ancient commentaries have also debated whether "seeing" someone's nakedness meant to have sex with that person (e.g. Leviticus 20:17).[15] The same idea was raised by 3rd-century rabbis, in the Babylonian Talmud (c. 500 AD), who argue that Ham either castrated his father, or sodomised him.[17]" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to maternal incest, which is what the original question asked about. Sex with a same-gender relative might not even be considered "incest" according to some traditional definitions. The Bible's incest prohibitions in Leviticus 18 are stated in terms of a man's female relatives... AnonMoos (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange that the article doesn't mention the crime of Judah, who uncovered his father's nakedness in a similar fashion.PiCo (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange that people feel it's so important to argue about the meaning of 400 year old translations of considerably older texts written in very different cultural times. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't it the truth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very good original research. And its not incest (cause she's not his mom) its cuckoldry, with a betrayal of family trust. Young new wives of old men will do the trick. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

Are any UK place names of U.S. or Commonwealth origin instead of the other way around?

Not necessarily aboriginal, Lake Itasca and Rego Park are not Native American (veritas caput and Real Good Construction Company) but anything in Britain named after these would still be names of American origin. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you mean just villages, towns, etc.? There are of course very many UK streets named after places which were the sites of battles in the Second Boer War. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No street names then. Are there neighborhoods or suburban subdivisions named after Boer War battle sites or is there nothing that big? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that the OP can find the answer to their own question using a reference such as The Dictionary of British Place Names from Oxford. --Jayron 32 14:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is Toronto, County Durham, which is named after Toronto, which is ultimately a native word. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moderately sure that Mohawk is not native to County Durham. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And not far away is Quebec, County Durham! Also ultimately a native word. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also fairly sure that Algonquin is not native to County Durham. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously I was referring to SMW's original question about aboriginal words. Toronto and Quebec are named after the places in Canada, and those names are from Mohawk and Algonquin, as you mention. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Adam Bishop was using the word "native" to mean Native American; which is common in North American English, in the same way that "aboriginal" is common shorthand for Aboriginal Australian. Of course, the terms are not native to the UK. They are Native American words. --Jayron 32 17:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We tend not to use "native" unadorned to refer to Indigenes nowadays in Britain, it smacks of colonial attitudes. ("The natives are revolting"). DuncanHill (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...it's not the best choice of words in Canada either. Sorry about that, I should have just used the actual names of the languages. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven Californias in England and Scotland. Rojomoke (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one is named after a brickworks, but the others seem to be named after the California Gold Rush. Not sure about Pennsylvania, South Gloucestershire and Pennsylvania, Exeter. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plus this California, just a couple of miles from Toronto. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Pennsylvania, Exeter article: "It was named after the US state by Joseph Sparkes, a Quaker banker who built the first terrace there in about 1820" Alansplodge (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Pennsylvania housing estate at Sedbury, Gloucestershire, is named after the pre-existing Pennsylvania Farm... which was probably also named by a Quaker who supported the ideals behind the US state's establishment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are some interesting examples here: [23] (the article also includes some places named after other world locations, and a few where the similarity of name is a coincidence. Another one is Philadelphia, Tyne and Wear. Warofdreams talk 15:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which mentions New York, Tyne and Wear, but not New York, North Yorkshire nor New York, Lincolnshire. Alansplodge (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting enough there is a Mandela, Lazio. The closest in the UK are streets and parks though [24]. Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several Spion Kops in England. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an area of Stratford, London called Maryland Point notable for Maryland railway station; it was named after Maryland Point on the Potomac River by a returning migrant, probably Richard Lee I.

There is also Botany Bay, London and Botany Bay, Derbyshire; the origin of both names is obscure, but the one in London is either a joke based on its supposed remoteness or was from a farm building commemorating the discovery of the place in Australia.

Alansplodge (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So a the Dakota-type joke? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of thing. It's right on the very northern border of Greater London and boasts a pub, a Rugby pitch a bus stop and an Evangelical chapel but not much else. Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Botany Bay farm in Dorset, where guards and prisoners would rest overnight on the route from Dorchester Assizes to the convict transports at Portsmouth. DuncanHill (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't the ship start from a closer port? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The transports would have carried convicts from all over England, not just Dorset. Portsmouth was the home of the Royal Navy. DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suspect for historical reasons. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and Botany Bay, Monmouthshire, near Tintern, which was an area settled by sea captains who may have sailed there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...close by Barbadoes Hill. The C18 landowners in the area had links with the W Indies (slaves, sugar). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

jack abramoff and lobbying

Hi, I was reading about Jack Abramoff here [25], and I've always been confused a bit. What does he mean by "the chairmen of the committees" and "members don't read the bills", from page 4 of that link? The chairmen of which committees? Members, meaning senators and representatives? Is there something simple I can read that will clear this up? Thanks, IBE (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Committees in the House and Senate. Search for the word "committee" and you will see several examples. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See United States congressional committee for the committees he's talking about. The standard protocol for passing a law in the United States is (see here for more details):

a Bill is written and submitted to one of the congressional committees (based usually on the content of the bill) where the bill is discussed, debated, and polished. Then
the committee holds a vote to send the bill to the full house (either House of Representatives or Senate)
The full house discusses, debates, and ammends the bill
There's a final vote in the house. If it passes, it goes to the OTHER house where the process repeats.
If the two bills are different because of amendments made in the other house, there is a special committee called a "conference committee" which contains members of both houses that work on creating a harmonized bill that will pass both houses.
If both houses pass the identical bill, it goes to the President to sign into law.

Now, Abramoff has noted is how he has used this process to sneak Pork barrel projects into bills. The problem with most legislation is that 1) The Committee Chair holds enormous power because the Chair is the one that sets the agenda for the committee. If he decides a bill is or is not coming to a vote, it does or it doesn't. So Abramoff got his pet projects into bills by focusing on the committee chairs. Since most members of congress do not read the bills they are voting on (they rely on staffers and/or lobbyists to do that and give them an executive summary of it), they rely on what the committees tell them the bill is about. And since the committee's business is largely controlled by the chairperson, if you can corrupt the chairperson, you can control the whole process. Simply get a Rider tacked on to a bill, buried in obfuscatory language, which people miss because a few lines of text in a 100 page bill can often get missed, and then voila, you have your pet project covered. That's what Abramoff's interview is talking about here. --Jayron 32 16:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

Defamation slope

I'm pulling rank and closing this down. It has long since past the point of appropriateness, it seems mainly to serve to give the OP a chance to air their political opinions and that's really not what we're doing here. Thanks to everyone that tried to provide references and evidence, which is what we are supposed to do, but the OP seems to be here to seek affirmation rather than information. --Jayron 32 13:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boldly moved from Village pump (policy) since this seems like the right place for it. zchrykng (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The law of defamation is seen as a "slippery slope" topic within the freedom-ist point of view, because it severely restricts the public's right of free speech in the area of what individuals in the general public can say about individuals in the "private" public. But putting that aside, this question deals with what treaties have direct influence on defamation law.

More to the point, what secrecy protocols are in place which affect such treaties, such that public law has aspects which are affected by the secrecy protocols attached to treaties? And in particular, what secrecy aggreements exist between the United States and Britain exist that restrict American free speech and have an influence on Wikipedia at the policy level? -Inowen (nlfte) 23:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This... seems like a WP:RD kind of question. --Izno (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So because of defamation law, is it de-facto illegal in the United States to say the British monarch has committed a crime? Even though there should be serious limitations on defamation law claims. And how would that "law" have come about, and how is Wikipedia affected? -Inowen (nlfte) 03:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like this is rather more than a hypothetical question. Would you care to provide context? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The protections to free speech provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, cannot be overridden by any law or treaty. Defamation is on the short-list of types of speech not entitled to first amendment protection, but the standards by which a statement would be declared defamatory in a US court do not change because a treaty is involved. The US does not have any Lèse-majesté laws shielding foreign heads of state from disparagement, as for example Germany did until earlier this year. In fact, it is even more difficult to prove defamation against a head of state than against an ordinary citizen, as the Sullivan standard must be met, though in fact such persons tend to have much better lawyers, so this could be easier in a way. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The secrecy thing is somewhat unclear. First I assume it's understood this is distinct from defamation, although first amendment issues still need to be considered. Secret treaties are generally considered rare in the modern era. Most negotiations are carried out at least in part in secret for a variety of reasons, this often includes draft documents. E.g. the Trans-Pacific Partnership which did involve the US (who later pulled out) but didn't involve the UK, and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and failed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership which involved the US and the UK as part of the EU, drew some controversy due to this. Anything which is Classified information in the United States would be restricted in the same way any such information is [26]. Note in particular that while there may be laws preventing the unauthorised disclosure of such information, this doesn't mean it's illegal for anyone to publish it. See e.g. the New York Times Co. v. United States case or this discussion [27]. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, about the weird story on your user page User:Inowen, as well as the articles you've created which have been deleted User talk:Inowen like Protection of women, Original programs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global policy, Cold living, Draft:Protection of children; do understand we have our own policies and guidelines which relate to what we want wikipedia to be. These will often reject stuff even if you're fully entitled to publish it in the US or UK without fear of legal action i.e. they often have nothing to do with defamation (as legally defined) and definitely not secrecy protocols in treaties or whatever. In fact, the foundation and community have often come out against any laws which they feel would unfairly impact what we may publish. Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to emphasise the classified information bit, consider the case of "Malaysian Official 1" [28]. As that source says, it was fairly obvious who it referred to. Even so, I assume any US federal government documents revealing the identity had some level of classification by the same US federal government. But I'm doubtful this had anything to do with treaties between Malaysia and US. It was simply that naming the person was seen as too politically sensitive. Nil Einne (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For those still confused by this, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Removal of talk page comments is particularly illustrative e.g. "is meaningful when its Queen can veto the popular Brexit vote without explanation or account to the people of England" and "it's certainly the case if the Queen of England has meddling in Wikipedia we should know about it". Also Talk:Restoration (England)#Introductione and Talk:Brexit#Internal politics and Talk:Brexit#Overview section and Talk:Anglicanism#Controversies and Talk:Socialism#Meanings of socialism. Don't worry, it isn't just monarchy/aristocracy Talk:Surveillance#Telly "before IPoverPower/PowerOverIP was disclosed it was developed and used to monitor regular TVs."

To Inowen, other than what I said above, please read WP:NOTFREESPEECH and the linked Wikipedia:Free speech. Maybe you're going to dismiss this since I'm from NZ, although I'm actually a republican and am free to say that I think the British monarchy should bugger off without fear of persecution, but I'll say again this has nothing to do with defamation or US-UK treaties or US-NZ treaties or any crap like that. I don't, as with many wikipedians, give a flying flip what the queen wants nor other members of the aristocracy and am definitely not under instruction to censor you. However editing wikipedia is ultimately about building an encyclopaedia, and we do that with reliable sources, not with the theories of random editors. Feel free to start your own website where you can ramble to your hearts content on the evils of the aristocracy and how the UK isn't a democracy etc. I would suggest you don't draw more attention to yourself since you've probably already well earned a WP:NOTHERE block.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)</p.[reply]

No US-UK treaty can override the first amendment to the US Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without regard for whether defamation has actually occurred in any specific case on Wikipedia, defamation is not protected speech. Under U.S. law, libel and slander, where the person writing or speaking the falsehoods, knowingly makes detrimental false statements about someone else, has committed defamation. That is not protected speech. It must be a statement of fact which is knowably false. If I said "John Doe kills kittens!" and he doesn't actually do that, the statement is NOT protected speech, because it is a statement of fact which I know to be false (or for which I have shown a reckless disregard for its truthfulness). --Jayron 32 14:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. But no treaty can override what is considered protected speech in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our lawyers can correct me if I have this wrong, but my understanding is that we are governed by US defamation laws (since WMF is a US based entity, and our servers are in the US). These laws are very similar, but not exactly the same as the laws in the UK. One does not need to be a US citizen to file a suit in a US court. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of my question is with regard to aristocratic ("rule of the best-born") group attacking Wikipedia's American base by using defamation as an argument. So the bizarro logic is that its always defacto-illegal to call a monarch a thief, because by their own law they are immune from prosecution and therefore 'never a thief.' In this context "defamation" is always a red-herring because there is no intent of pursuing legal action in open court under "defamation" law. But secretive ways allow for such bizarro arguments. Wikipedia may be US-based but its connection to US law may be hacked by both secrecy and aristocratic law, under which no act is a crime, and all criticism is "defamation." Does Wikipedia absorb some of this aristocratic law? -Inowen (nlfte) 22:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific examples of an "aristocratic group attacking Wikipedia's American base by using defamation as an argument"? It would be interesting to know exactly what you're referring to. Alssa1 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing is a fantasy formed within your own head, and betrays a profound lack of understanding of United States defamation law. See especially the concept of substantial truth. I agree with Alssa1 - you should show us examples of what you think is going on, and we can help you understand. Or alternatively, you should read about defamation law in general, perhaps starting from our own article on it and following the sources from there. Because it truly seems like you've just come up with a legal argument by yourself, and have decided it's an issue, and want us to discuss your idea. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In additions to the good points above, I would note that bringing up defamation on wikipedia is generally discouraged due to the risk it could be perceived as a legal threat and so result in a WP:NLT block. This is not to say we ignore defamation, Wikipedia:Libel and WP:BLP, but rather experienced editors generally find a better to talk why the material is a problem without having to talk about defamation. As I said above, our policies and guidelines intentionally go beyond defamation. In fact, we would generally be more tolerant of nonsense about the aristocracy and monarchy then we would about random relatively unknown individuals. Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think you would agree the monarchy would be a problem if it was meddling aristocratically with Wikipedia. -Inowen (nlfte) 08:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but Wikipedia has enough problems without worrying about fantasies. One example of a problem wikipedia does have is editors who misuse article talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying, I have no idea what 'meddling aristocratically' is. I would be worried about anyone editing inappropriately or in some way influencing other editors. I'm not worried about the monarchy, in that category for the stated reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I definitely think this discussion is tending towards Reptilians territory. Dmcq (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inowen: You first suggest that there is an "aristocratic group attacking Wikipedia's American base" and then on the slightest investigation of that claim you appear to change entirely and suggest that it might occur in the future. Which is it; are you referring to a specific issue effecting Wikipedia or have you concocted a scenario in your head and you just want to see whether it has some plausibility? Alssa1 (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not accurate. I suspect systematic bias coming from Britain, implemented by Britain's subjects including Canadians and Australians, and my evidence is scattered from a wide sampling of Wikipedia articles, for example the use of British government terms like "Her Majesty's government." The US where I am from is substantially different from the UK; the US citizen believes in freedom and in doing the right thing. The UK instead believes in the loyalism to the monarch and the perpetuation of its monarchy, not the freedom of the individual, and not in the idea 'that every person on Earth have free access to the sum of all knowledge.' The UK currently has no lèse-majesté laws, but it has by default the equivalent, and as another editor pointed out, absolute immunity for the monarch. There can be no promotion of monarchy on Wikipedia. It contributes to systemic bias (sic), not correcting it, and defeats Wikipedia's purpose. -Inowen (nlfte) 20:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the worst example you can find, then there's no crisis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The UK instead believes in the loyalism to the monarch and the perpetuation of its monarchy, not the freedom of the individual, and not in the idea 'that every person on Earth have free access to the sum of all knowledge.'" What utter horse shit. Are you going to try and troll all non-American parts of the world, or just the UK. After spouting off elsewhere that the UK isn't democratic, we now don't believe in freedom of the individual and therefore free access to knowledge? I've seen some idiotic logic in my time, but yours is probably the worst I've come across. You are either trolling, or just too dumb to realise just how wrong you are, and I don't know (or care) which it is. WP:NOT HERE and WP:DNFTT are probably best applied here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inowen: Do you have any evidence to justify your claims (particularly the existence of "aristocratic group attacking Wikipedia's American base") or do you intend to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your rather 'eccentric' opinions/conclusions? Alssa1 (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inowen appears to be engaging in an informal fallacy or cognitive bias known as jumping to conclusions of the "mind-reading" type. That is, Inowen believes he knows what motivates others without having access to information required to reach that conclusion. I was going to say he was engaging in faulty- or overgeneralization (which is actually JoC of the 'labeling' type), but this requires there actually being at least one example of what everyone in a group is being accused of. No evidence or arguments are like to sway him, because, as Swift put it, "Reasoning will never make a man correct an opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired." Someguy1221 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is there is systemic bias coming from the anti-democratic government of Britain, and that its routes need to be investigated. Using "Her Majesty's government" in article text is only one of them. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't be daft. There is probably less there even than there is in the pledge of allegiance to the flag in the US. I get the feeling you've been reading David Icke who says the royal family are inter-dimensional reptillians. Well he also says George W Bush is one. Dmcq (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And all everyone else is saying is that you are misguided and ignorant. Perhaps you'd like to look at the various indecies of democracy:

Democracy Ranking: UK in position 14; US in position 16
Polity IV: UK classed as Full Democracy; US in the lower class of Democracy
Human Development Index: US in position 13; UK in position 14
Democracy Index: UK in position 14 (full democracy); US in position 21 (flawed democracy)
Economic Freedom of the World: UK in position 11; US in position 16

Inowen, you've taken enough time and effort from the grown ups trying to explain just how immature and ignorant your hypotheses are. There is no systematic bias as you perceive it, and using "Her Majesty's government" isn't an example of bias: it's the formal title of the democratically elected government of the day. I suggest you try a proper book that explains just how British politics works, because what you think happens is a long way from reality. - SchroCat (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her Majesty's government is like a Congress where the President not rubber stamping everything would cause a constitutional crisis but he gets to have the Congress called His Majesty's Congress and the use of some palaces and stuff till he dies. Very old palaces. It is the result of a powerful king losing power over the centuries till he's only a figurehead. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inowen: And all I'm asking for is evidence to demonstrate that your claims have some basis in reality. Earlier on you spoke of an "aristocratic group attacking Wikipedia's American base by using defamation as an argument", do you have an example of this? You also said "The US...is substantially different from the UK; the US citizen believes in freedom and in doing the right thing." perhaps you're unaware of this, but many of us non-Americans don't view the USA as a barometer for measuring "freedom" or "doing the right thing". Alssa1 (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Churchill, something like this: "America can be counted on to do the right thing - after it's tried everything else." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: A couple of those indices you list are ranking monarchies with the label "full democracy." There's got to be something wrong there. Two of the indices you list are British, one of them is Austrian. The one by the UN ranks "development" and not "democracy." The UN is well-known for being hacked by the UK, particularly the Security Council. Naturally the CIA follows along, but not with serious data. So your point is that there are reliable sources which say that your country which is a monarchy is also a "full democracy?" How can this be? How can a nation state with a hereditary (unelected) leader who has absolute state immunity be called a "full democracy?" Your personal attacks are out of line.-Inowen (nlfte) 02:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to ignore the independent rankings and indices, let alone the hundreds of thousands of other sources that state the UK is a full democracy with a constitutional monarchy, then I guess there is no help for you. However, Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for your version of ill-informed redneck political theory. Get a blog and talk to yourself, not here: this is the place of reliable sources and reality. - SchroCat (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the sources above, the Varieties of Democracy Project, an international collaboration led by US and Scandinavian universities, in their Annual Democracy Report 2018 has the UK at 15 and the USA at 31 (p. 22/96) in their Liberal Democracy Index. Alansplodge (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

November 1

How often do Catholics have to go to confession?

If one is a Catholic, how often is one required by the Church to go to confession? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Confession (religion)#Catholicism, the answer would appear to be "at least once a year." A better answer might be, "whenever you need to." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that although 1 year is the absolute maximum (when someone is able to confess), as mentioned in Sacrament of Penance#Frequency of reception someone who has committed a mortal sin should not receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church until they have confessed it (if they are able). Also concern over dying with unconfessed mortal sins and the greater complexity surrounding forgiveness for Contrition of unconfessed mortal sins may be an additional motivator. They are those (few I think) who practice Frequent confession. In practice for many catholics, mortal sin concerns arise frequently e.g. masturbation, contraception, skipping mass see for example, this discussion [29]. Note however this doesn't mean that you do the sin, confess, do what acts of penance the priest tell you and it's all good even though you have no plans to stop, or maybe even believe it's a sin. Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also read Indulgence. It also has a history section! B.t.w. the excessive abuse of Indulgence led to the Protestant Reformation by Martin Luther. --Kharon (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 1828

In 1828, Andrew Jackson did extremely well in the Deep South, winning every county in which a vote was held, except for a few Georgia counties that voted for someone named Clarke. However, Adams won several Louisiana parishes, including several with more than 80% support if I'm reading the map rightly. Although Louisiana had just 8,687 popular votes among all candidates, versus 46,966 in the other Deep South states, Adams won almost as many popular votes in Louisiana (4,082) as in the others put together (4,371). Why did he have so much support in Louisiana? Also, who was Clarke? There's a Clarke County, Georgia, but the namesake Elijah Clarke died in 1799, and his article doesn't mention any relatives who used the same spelling. United States presidential election in Georgia, 1828 doesn't mention Clarke; United States presidential election in Louisiana, 1828 doesn't discuss Adams' comparative success; and there's nothing in the election's main article. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's something. The map was created by Tilden76 (talk · contribs). He may be inactive at present, but he might be reachable via email, and could maybe tell you his source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note for Tilden. But what about Louisiana? Unlike Mr Clarke, the data for Louisiana are backed up in the election results (that's where I got the exact numbers I quoted); they just have no explanation why he was more popular in Louisiana than elsewhere in the region. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility: Adams supported a national road from Washington to New Orleans and inland waterways improvements that would bring more business through Louisiana. Rmhermen (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana had a very restrictive franchise, and I suspect that many of the voters were of or beholden to the planter class, which may not have trusted Jackson due to his popular support among the common man.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something else to consider: New Orleans is a very un-Southlike city; historically and culturally, it more resembled New York and Boston than, say, Atlanta. You can see evidence of this in the local variety of English known as "Yat", an accent which closely resembles those of the Northeastern United States; largely because New Orleans was settled by the same sorts of people who settled the Northeastern cities. It isn't surprising that these people had similar political viewpoints. Louisiana is an unusual state, and it was even back then; like Florida, only parts of it are traditionally "southern". --Jayron 32 12:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to Clarke, I strongly suspect, but do not have proof, that this was John Clark (Georgia governor). His article says his name was sometimes spelled Clarke and that he lived in Milledgeville, which is in Baldwin County, Georgia; and, from the map, the county that voted most heavily for "Clarke" seems to have been Wilkinson, which is adjacent to Baldwin, though Baldwin itself voted for Jackson. The thing is that according to multiple sources I found in Google Books, John Clark and his rival George Troup both nominated slates of electors to vote for Jackson in 1828 (with different running mates for VP). If Clark was that active in the election then it doesn't seem surprising that he got some electoral votes himself. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

smoking in class

(Woah, page is unprotected! Attacker must be sleeping).

I started watching a video lecture by Harvard physicist Sidney Coleman from the external links in his biography. Someone asks a question, and while answering, Coleman lights a cigarette! This was in 1975 or 1976! Admittedly before my time, but not exactly ancient history. Was that kind of thing normal back then? I don't think I ever saw anyone smoke in class either in grade school/HS or in college. It just seemed incredibly weird in the video. I'm assuming it was a normal (i.e. not so well ventilated) college classroom. Thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember smoking in class during college, which would have been around the same time. We also served wine and cheese at the departmental seminar, which would be unheard of (or at least very unusual) nowadays. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]