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.

March 6

Determinants of prosperity other than skillbase

I've heard that the UK seems to have relatively low levels of education compared to Germany, and has done so for some time. I am aware of non-negligible differences between educational rankings, but it is my guess that they mean something. I am also well-aware of the high work ethic of the Germans. Given what I know of mineral production (the UK wins here, but not by much), nation branding, and other attributes, there is little obviously to separate the countries other than what I have given. Yet, whilst Germany is richer than the UK it is not so by much, and for some time was poorer. My question: why? What has the UK done well relative to, or had as an advantage over, Germany in the last 20 years?--Leon (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "I have heard" is never the best way to start off any analysis. The differences in educational rankings may be real but our article List of countries by tertiary education attainment shows the UK was 42% and Germany 27%. Comparing 2 year and 4 year show similar stats, UK 49% Germany 30%, 4 year UK 42% Germany 28%. 6 year the UK and Germany are both 14%. These seem to be sourced to the OECD so are probably okay stats. (The graph here is similar [1].)

List of countries by secondary education attainment also shows the UK ahead of Germany for most ages ranges shown except for 25-34 where the UK is 85% and Germany 87%. Admittedly it stops there so it may be that Germany is ahead for those older than 34. Maybe more importantly, the source for this data is unclear. It may be the OECD but I'm not sure. So looking for source data I found [2] and [3] which show the UK is now very slightly ahead of Germany in the 25-34 age range for minimum upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary. The tertiary stats are similar to before. I didn't see any info on levels of secondary qualifications outside this age range.

One thing mentioned in those sources (well the Germany one), perhaps in more detail in this older variant [4] is that Germany has a fairly well developed vocational educational system. (Partly discussed in our Dual education system article.) This is probably one reason for their low levels of tertiary education compared to the UK as I'm not sure how many of these are counted as tertiary education. But that leads to the obvious semantical argument namely whether someone with a Bachelor's degree in automotive retail [5] (albeit perhaps this is counted as tertiary) working for BMW is more educated than someone with a degree in history working for Rolls-Royce? What about if they both move on to work for Vodafone?

Incidentally, if you are interested in analysis of Germany's vocational system from a UK perspective it's easy to find sources e.g. [6] which suggests some UK apprenticeships the example given being "dual fuel smart reader installer" would be considered too specific in Germany. (And so probably the person will be considered less educated if that's all they did after secondary school compared to someone in the German system.)

Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, have you considered asking the person or people who keep telling you this sort of stuff what their source or evidence is [7]? Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this seem to indicate something?--Leon (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A oousin to "I believe..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment. You can probably find stats which do include the Germany vocational educational system. This source says "about 50% of school leavers" [8] which isn't that far off the 49% for UK two years tertiary except that you need to add whatever percent in Germany who didn't enter the vocational system but do have two years tertiary. And you then need to consider where to fit the various UK non tertiary in to this. (Note school leavers is somewhat of a different measure from population within a certain age range so you'd need to find different stats to start off with, I'm just giving it as an example.)

I think these problems illustrate one of my earlier points which perhaps wasn't clear enough: Comparing systems between countries when there are a number of key differences in the structure is not easy. Actually it occurred to me my earlier 4 year degree stuff was a little weird if it's OECD data since the concept of a 4 year degree, I assume a typical Bachelor's degree, is mostly a North American thing in the OECD. Checking the source, [9], there's actually no mention of 4 year degree equivalent that I can see instead short cycle, Bachelor's, Master's and Doctoral. I suspect therefore this was added to our article by someone familiar with the US system, not recognising that 4 year degree equivalent doesn't mean much to people from plenty of other places. And the 3 vs 4 year illustrate somewhat of a difference in focus in Bachelor's degrees between countries, but whether this means someone with a 4 year US degree is more educated than someone with a 3 year UK degree is complicated.

I also was reminded when reading our article Bachelor's degree#Germany that Germany didn't really have a bachelor's degree until recently, probably a factor in the low levels when considering an age range up to 65. The Bologna Process has made the tertiary systems it affected more comparable, but that's recent and still leaves reasonable chunks of the rest of the system untouched and of course getting back to my earlier point the relative popularity of different parts of the system various from country to country for a variety of reasons.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, by rankings do you mean test of school students like PISA? If so, you've mentioned being 'aware' but how closely have you actually looked at the relative difference between rankings? A lot of the press tends to concentrate on how country X is number 20 or heading in the wrong direction or other such concerns, but while such things may be interesting, I question if they're that useful when comparing 2 named countries. For example according to our article Programme for International Student Assessment in 2015, the UK did do worse than Germany in reading and mathematics and ~equal in science (the UK is ranked above Germany). This may seem bad. But then again maths was 492 vs 506. Reading was 498 vs 509. Science both were 509. So the actual difference is fairly small. If we look at previous years, the UK has generally performed worse than Germany in science, fluctuated from beating to losing in reading and lost in maths except for the first year 2003. While you can probably say that the UK has performed slightly worse than Germany on average (although I didn't do the figures), the actual difference seems fairly small. So in so much as they do "mean something", there's no reason they suggest a massive difference. It's not like we're talking about UK vs Singapore here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

n-fold ministry in Christianity

Our article Assemblies of God in Great Britain mentions a five-fold ministry, I have seen elsewhere mention of a three-fold ministry. What are these please? Are there ministries of other foldness? DuncanHill (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article, Threefold office, which describes Christ's roles or "offices" as ~~profit~~ prophet, priest and king. This article from Catholic Answers describes the "threefold ministry" as the orders of apostle, priest and deacon. However, this article from the Evangelical tradition, describes Christ's "threefold ministry" as that he "teaches, preaches and heals the sick", based on Matthew 4:23-25.

'The concept of the five-fold ministry comes from Ephesians 4:11, "It was he who gave some to be (1) apostles, some to be (2) prophets, some to be (3) evangelists, and some to be (4) pastors and (5) teachers."' [10]

Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "prophet, priest, and king". He spoke for God, not made excess cash. --Jayron 32 17:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted Jayron, you win today's prize. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Would anyone know how those theories of ministry might interact with ideas of the universal priesthood? DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it has any meaningful interaction (i.e. conflict or support) with it. In Christianity, the role of a priest is one who acts as a go-between for the believer and god. The believer is unworthy to perform certain rites or to directly commune with the deity, so the priest acts as the intermediary. This role is an outgrowth of the Kohen or "priest" in pre-diaspora Judaism, who were required to perform certain rites, such as perform ritual sacrifice and enter the Holy of Holies, which is where God's presence was directly encountered. The protestant reformation introduced the idea of the "universal priesthood" in the sense that all believers should be able to commune directly with God, in the modern language this is often called the "personal relationship with God", and is a key aspect of daily religious life for Protestants. No special training or sanctification or ordination is necessary to do that, only one's earnest belief. That is different from roles like a pastor; many Catholic priests, for example, are also pastors, so the term gets used interchangeably, but many priests are NOT pastors (for example, many Jesuit priests have a tradition of working as teachers in schools) , and in many protestant denominations, pastors are only priests in the sense that all believers are. Pastor comes from the word meaning "shepherd", and their role is as the leader of a congregation; depending on the denomination this role can vary from preaching the message only, to wide-ranging administrative and executive duties. --Jayron 32 16:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status in the UK of lapsed patent images

Hi. I understand copyright and patents are separate, but I was wondering if in UK law copyright in drawings that are used in lapsed patents will also lapse with the patent (assuming they were created for the application). There are a number I've run across recently that might benefit some of our articles, but I'm unsure if they can be used. Steve ^T • C 18:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve: try asking at WP:MCQ. That's where the copyright gurus hang out. RudolfRed (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a neat question. I looked through the UK government websites and laws related to this, and it's consistently stated that the copyright on a patent application is the same as any copyright on a literary work, with the exception that patents public records generally have their own additional examples of fair dealing (UK's version of fair use). No mention of the copyright expiring with the patent. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Someguy1221: Thanks for the clarification. I'd found similar, but hoped there'd be some provision I'd missed. I thought it odd at first that the copyright wouldn't expire, seeing as the intent of patent terms is to allow others to build on the invention without restriction. But then I realised there's nothing to stop anyone doing their own version in subsequent applications; it's the image that's copyrighted, not the idea. @RudolfRed: Thanks for the link; I'd not even considered asking over there. I'll head on over if I decide to pursue this further. Steve ^T • C 09:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American servicemen in the two World Wars, and their previous travel experience

Reading about the Second World War service of Adele Astaire, I started to wonder what proportion of American servicemen in each of the World Wars had been outside the USA before joining up, and then to wonder what proportion had even been outside their home states before their service. Has there been any research into these questions? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that a significant number of WWI servicemen (and quite a few WWII servicemen) were born outside the United States. --Soman (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill -- I don't have any stats, but there was a well known song at the time, "How Ya Gonna Keep 'em Down on the Farm (After They've Seen Paree)?"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very reminiscent of Kipling's post-Boer War Chant-Pagan: "Me that 'ave been what I've been - / Me that 'ave gone where I've gone - / Me that 'ave seen what I've seen - / 'Ow can I ever take on / With awful old England again..." Alansplodge (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

The Killing Of Georgie - Rod Stewart

Do we know who Georgie was? 02:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC) DuncanHill (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article states the Rod couldn't remember Georgie's surname. There are some details that might help other editors track down your answer. MarnetteD|Talk 02:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of Liability Insurance

I've asked a question at the Talk page for Liability insurance, but that page appears not to be frequently monitored, so I'm trying again here:

== History ==

I would have appreciated some discussion of the history of liability insurance in this article. About the only source I've found online is here: [11], which is really concerned with employee injury. Specifically I'm wondering if a small unincorporated US company dealing with the public on its premises would, or might not, have been expected to carry liability coverage for personal injury to a customer, in the early years of the 20th century. Was such premises liability insurance even available at that time, and if so, was it widely used? Articles on insurance tend not to mention personal injury, and articles on public injury and death, such as the disastrous 1903 Iroquois Theatre fire, make no mention of lawsuits or insurance. Thanks for any help. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not finding much, especially for the US which, judging by information about workmen's compensation, seems to be legislated differently in each state. In England, businesses used to be able to avoid being sued for injury on their property by means of a disclaimer notice, a loophole which was not closed until the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. I imagine that compulsory liability insurance of the sort you describe is a recent phenomenon, especially in the US where these things are often more loosely regulated. I'm regretting now that I gave away my insurance textbooks. Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This states that the first automotive liability insurance plan was sold in 1897 to indemnify someone against causing damage to others or injuring other people with their own car, so the concept of liability insurance must be at least that old. That's a clear liability policy. Whether that was the first liability insurance ever I don't know, but it's a date we can start looking at as a benchmark. --Jayron 32 16:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, whether the US case law at the turn of the 20th century would have made store keepers (for example) liable for an accident which a member of the public might have had on their premises. If so, then that risk would certainly have been insurable. A second question is whether a small company would have thought it worthwhile to buy that insurance, or take a chance and hope nothing went wrong. Alansplodge (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with both of those. Many thanks for all of these suggestions. It's just frustrating not to find any mention of lawsuits or insurance for those old situations where people got hurt or killed. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milkunderwood see Iroquois Theater Fire. Although the owners of the theater were charged with criminal manslaughter, the trial collapsed on various legal issues. A civil case followed: "The courts held the George H. Fuller Company [the builder of the theater] solely liable and the company settled five years after the initial disaster for $750 for each claim. These parties originally sued for $10,000 each but the company only had to pay out $29,750 in the end". Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't know about the specifics about insurance, precise US jurisdictions, when it applies and what it covered, whether loopholes such as that outline by Alansplodge existed etc, I assume there was some concept of premises liability which extended past employees for quite a while in at least some US jurisdictions. Our article notes that

At common law, in the case of landowners, the extent of their duty of care to those who came on their premises varied depending on whether a person was classified as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. ..... Similarly, in the 1968 landmark case of Rowland v. Christian,[2] the Supreme Court of California replaced the old classifications with a general duty of care to all persons on one's land, regardless of their status.

And Rowland v. Christian specifically notes that {{talk quote

Justice Louis H. Burke wrote a dissenting opinion in which fellow conservative Justice Marshall F. McComb concurred. Burke argued that the majority had unnecessarily thrown away centuries of clear precedent for a future of "potentially unlimited liability." He felt that such a dramatic change in the law should come from the legislature.

BTW, Invitee is a very good article, but it may be of interest for research. Nil Einne (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to it, this may be of interest [12]. It looks like it has cases going back to the 18th century e.g. "Defendant shewed a knowledge that the animal was fierce ... by the precaution he used to tie him up" which admittedly was in England (I think) [13], although back then I presume the legal systems were just starting to diverge. BTW, that article only seems to mention with insurance in host-guest situations that I noticed, but it may still be of interest since it suggested an increase in suits and insurance "a few years ago". Since that section is mostly reflecting the difference between a bare licencee in the host-guest situation, and a invitee; this seems to me to strongly imply insurance for invitees to cover at least some aspects of their liability must have existed further back which would seem to put it at least in the early 1940s and probably earlier. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

In France, is the prime minister immune to criminal investigation?

Recently, due to criminal investigations against Bibi Netanyahu, there has been talk about a proposed law nicknamed "The French Law" preventing criminal investigation of the prime minister. Is this actually the law in France? 37.26.148.172 (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article in the French Constitution of 1958 states that the president "shall incur no liability by reasons of acts carried out in his official capacity" -- which was amended to include "throughout his term of office, the president shall not be required to testify before any French court of law or administrative authority and shall not be the object of any civil proceedings, nor of any preferring of charges, prosecution or investigatory measures. All limitation periods shall be suspended for the duration of said term of office."

Source: Harkov, Lahav. "Is Netanyahu the new Chirac?". www.jpost.com. Jerusalem Post. — 107.15.157.44 (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC) -- P.s.: note that France has both a president (Emmanuel Macron) and a prime minister (Édouard Philippe)[reply]

To clarify a little, in the French semi-presidential system... "Although it is the Prime Minister of France, the Government as well as the Parliament that oversee much of the nation's actual day-to-day affairs, especially in domestic issues, the French President wields significant influence and authority, especially in the fields of national security and foreign policy". The role of the President of Israel is largely ceremonial and it is the Prime Minister of Israel that "holds the real power". Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How was the Mexican-American War viewed by Americans decades later?

In his memoirs (which were completed shortly before his death in 1885), former U.S. President and former Union Army General Ulysses S. Grant discussed his opposition to the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas as well as to the subsequent Mexican-American War (1846-1848):

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/america7_brief/content/multimedia/ch14/research_01d.htm

Have there been any other Americans who mentioned their views on the Mexican-American War decades after the end of this war? If so, who were these Americans and what were their views about this war?

Basically, I'm interested in seeing the attitudes of Americans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries towards the Mexican-American War. Futurist110 (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a direct answer to your question, but there was a warming of relations between Mexico & US during the period known as the porfiriato (November 28, 1876 — May 25, 1911).[14] —107.15.157.44 (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that attitudes towards the 1898 war with Spain (American Anti-Imperialist League etc.) would retrospectively color attitudes towards 1848... AnonMoos (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps try your search using the older term, “Mexican War”? For example, there are only three hits at Internet Archive for “Mexican-American War” and a date range of 1868-1918, but there are 399 hits if you change the term to “Mexican War”. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In America we often tend to call it the Mexican War. Maybe because Mexican-American War would seem redundant. (Like in France where what we call French fries, they just call fries.) Although the 1898 conflict is typically called the Spanish-American War. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many French people will be quick to remind you that fries are actually Belgian (not originally French)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, they don't call them French fries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because they don't consider them to be French... AnonMoos (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which certainly was the good choice they made - Belgian fries have been said to be shrinking in size lately brutally hot, dry summer etc.. --Askedonty (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect a pretty widespread view that the war was a good thing. I don't know where you'd find dissent from that in the US. A lot of the contemporary opposition (at the time of the war) was on the grounds getting land from Mexico would most likely be slave territory, and it got rolled into that whole issue. But even before the Civil War, there wasn't talk of giving it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt -- very few people in the U.S. after 1848 ever seriously proposed giving the lands of the "Mexican Cession" back, but that's a little bit different from being retrospectively enthusiastic about the war. I don't think that there's anything necessarily inconsistent about simultaneously feeling that the Mexican war ultimately ended up being a good thing for the U.S. over the long term, and also feeling that it was fought for the wrong reasons, and ended up hastening the coming of the U.S. Civil War... AnonMoos (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discovery of gold in late 1848 probably fed a lot of "it's a good thing we won!" feelings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What time did polls open and close in Great Depression Germany?

Was the voting front-loaded?

How did they do "last call" pre-Reich? Did you have to vote before closing time or just get on line before then (like my state) or could you even join the queue later?

Did this change later?

Did some parties vote earlier than others on average? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia has an article on de:Wahlrecht der Weimarer Republik. About opening times, it says it was usually 8am to 6pm during the summer months, or 9am to 7pm during the winter months. No answers to any of the other questions. I'm not even sure the question about "front-loaded" is meaningful in the first place (or maybe I don't understand the term). What exactly would constitute a "front-loading" effect in an election that happens on a single day with a single counting after all the polling stations close? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it was very front-loaded that would suggest high partisaness and low apathy among those who can safely vote their choice, despite such eagerness not affecting the outcome. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm still not sure I understand what you mean by that term, "front-loaded". The only context I can find it on the web is in discussing the timing of presidential primaries in the US, and it's far from obvious to me how that concept should be applicable to a single-day parliamentary vote. Can you explain? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, time of vote isn't very politically interesting in the US since it's a full workday for many people while primary timing is politically interesting. I was wondering if one can guess anything about different parties' supporters by what is known of the distribution of vote times. Did some parties tend to vote earlier in the day than others, long line before polls opened even, were there lines at closing time? (the US media likes to show places with lines at high turnout elections though this might just be a symptom of many Americans working till ~17:00 up to an hour from the only place they can vote and then having to get on line by 18:00-20:00). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might find some pointers in this [15] (German-language) work on political campaigning in the Weimar Republic. On p.230 the author mentions that the Communist party was known for particularly thorough organization in its campaigns and that their party members were encouraged to vote as early as possible (so that they could then participate in more campaigning and picketing for the rest of the day). Haven't read further through the book to see if it has any comparable info on other parties or about broader classes of voters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it have been legal to tell employees they're fired if they don't work those 10 hours to keep them from voting communist or social democrat? Maybe making Monday a day off and shortening Tuesday 2 hours to compensate? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From 1918 to 1923 that would have been illegal because the maximum allowed workday was 8 hours(German), which excludes break time. Besides that, preventing that exact sort of behaviour by an employer is one of the main points of a union. And yes, it would have been illegal because work on sunday, or specifically Sonntagsruhe in German, prohibited most work on sundays from 1. july 1892 onwards. And Sunday appears to be the traditional election day for Germany, it is nowadays anyway and i spotchecked a few Weimar era ones to confirm. The 'Sonntagsruhe' only got relaxed in recent decades but is still somewhat a thing even in modern day Germany, just as a small sidenote. In other words, no, employers could not order their employees to work on a sunday because only certain types of businesses were even allowed to be open by law. (dealing with fresh produce as a random example, things like that). And perhaps there even was some law in Weimar that would guarantee anyone elligible to cast a vote, although i cannot provide a reference for that as i am unsure what to actually search for. Despite failing, the Weimar Republic actually was quite decent, perhaps even progressive, in some regards. 85.16.226.58 (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add that even if people were allowed to work on Sundays, the workday was generally, but not always, capped at 5 hours according to the 'Sonntagsruhe' article. 85.16.226.58 (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incandescent light bulb in the United States

How common are incandescent light bulbs (or hot bulbs) in the United States compared to cool bulbs? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're still around. Lots have been replaced though. 100-watt incandescents only cost a dollar for multiple bulbs. Some right-wingers and just people who liked them stockpiled them. I think they're still sold. Compact fluorescent bulbs must've been cheaper long-term for room lighting by the early 2000s cause I started seeing them a lot then. LEDs took a lot longer to be more cost effective than compact fluorescents but now even the streetlights are LEDs. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the circumstances. Incandescent bulbs are still used for heat lamp purposes, e.g. at a fast-food restaurant that has a bin for short-term retention of french fries after pulling them out of the cooking oil. Such bins are covered (to prevent objects from falling into the bin) and are enclosed on one to three sides, so they need some sort of lighting if the workers are to be able to see clearly. If they used fluorescent lamps, they'd have to have an extra system to keep the fries hot, but incandescent lamps do both jobs at once. Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is an application where incandescent light bulbs of the right temperature would be a near perfect solution. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna_Frodesiak -- the only connected incandescent bulb in my apartment is the little one in my refrigerator, unless I forgot to change the bulb in my closet before I stacked up so much stuff there that I can't get to it anymore... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The power company (Duke) where I live in the U.S. (S. Carolina) gives away free CFL bulbs. So, there is little reason for an average consumer to buy incandescent bulbs. You have two choices: Go to the store and buy bulbs or sit and home and have the power company mail free bulbs to you. Similarly, the water company gives away free low-flow shower heads. So, I don't clean mine. Every year I just get a new one for free. The fire department gives away free smoke detectors and batteries. Now, I wish the garbage company would give us free trash bags. 12.207.168.3 (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while incandescent bulbs generate a lot of heat (using up more energy in the process), they are also more tolerant of heat, so are still used as appliance bulbs in ovens, etc. (not as a heat source, but to provide light). Other applications that can benefit from the extra heat generated are heating a dog house in winter, older Easy Bake Ovens, or light fixtures in humid areas (such as a shower stall) that would otherwise fog up. Also, an incandescent bulb is like a light and space heater in one, which isn't such a bad combo in winter. For example, a desk light that warms you up a bit might be nice. Of course, these bulbs would need to be replaced with LED bulbs or CFLs in summer, and many would find it annoying to swap bulbs every 6 months. Also, incandescent bulbs work better with dimmer switches. (Some LEDs are dimmable, but tend not to work as well at the very low end, such as instantly going from half brightness to none.) SinisterLefty (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bulb in my lava lamp is incandescent due to the heat that is needed to keep the lava flowing. Though, it just burned out the other day and I haven't yet replaced it. The bulbs in the rest of the house have been getting replaced as they burn out over the years. I don't receive free ones as one of the posters above said. And LEDs are more expensive than incandescent the last time I priced them. †dismas†|^(talk) 22:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the total cost of LED ownership still less expensive? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am far from right wing, I did buy a supply of the 100-watt bulbs prior to them going mostly off sale, in 2011. I wasn't happy about the state of the replacement technology and figured this would tide me over until it matured. In 2017, I mostly converted to LED light fixtures and bulbs.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was it the insufficient color rendering index? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't like the color, if that is what you mean. Additionally, the cost was still high and I had read of issues disposing of used or broken bulbs.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all! That is very interesting.

Good on those organizations for giving out those things. Bloody good.

Yes, I was wondering if USA had broken their incandescent habit. I know old habits sometimes die hard over there. (Please get on board with the metric system. :) Miles and gallons inches are daft.) And here in China, incandescents are seldom seen. Actually, I suspect the transition to cool lights here was hastened by a distaste for the yellowish light of incandescents because that light is what poor people had. They love the bright, white, harsh new cool lights. Here is it is all white lights on the ceiling rather than the lovely yellowish lights at eye level or below.

I was wondering about dimmers and non-incandescents. Now I know.

And as for heat lights, yes, what will everyone do about Easy Bakes and Lava lamps? I wonder if there will be a heater one can buy that screws into a light socket now that incandescents are on the way out. Maybe there is, and that content can go into Infrared lamp. I use incandescents in this yogurt maker a clever young person made for me. It creates wonderful yogurt, although I had to request an extra bit of wood to keep the jar's temperature more even. I stocked up on bulbs because they are getting hard to find.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other countries keep lecturing us about our refusal to adopt a non-human measuring system is all the more reason not to convert. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Countries? It's everyone saying inches are stupid, except inchworms of course. They consider the metric system an attack on their personal identity. See also Inchworms Against the Metric System, an insanely violent direct-action group which has created teensy explosions outside the National Institute of Standards and Technology for years. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The metric system is fine where appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that answers at the Reference Desks were supposed to be based on actual sources as much as possible. Here is a report by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association that states, "By the end of 2015, traditional incandescent lamps were virtually gone from store shelves and manufacturers were no longer shipping those lamps as a result of EISA-2007." Low wattage special purpose bulbs are excluded from the report which focuses on general purpose lighting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the light bulb law sound like something the Republicans would've repealed by now? They didn't? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, incandescent bulbs still seem to be shown over someone's head when they get an idea in cartoons, comics etc. I wonder if some kids now might have difficulty understanding the metaphor? -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their grandparents can explain it to them, along with artifacts like telephones with dials, record players, and Victory Gardens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The continuing use of symbols long after their physical counterparts have become obsolescent may preserve general understanding of them. Other such symbols which young people presumably understand include, off the top of my head, the floppy disc symbol used as the 'save' icon on current computer systems, the steam locomotive symbol used to warn motorists of an open level crossing, and a bellows-lensed box camera symbol used similarly to notify the presence of a speed camera (the latter two are current in the UK, I can't speak to other jurisdictions).

I wonder if there's a general term for such 'fossilised' symbols and whether we have, or should have, an article on the topic? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.27.125 (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

US railroad crossing signs are normal-sized road signs with a black X dividing the sign into 4 parts. The top and bottom quadrants are empty and the other quadrants have one black R. The railroads drive on manmade soil ridges, tunnels, els or trenches where I live so I don't get to see them often. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the "email" symbol an old fashioned envelope, and the "mobile phone number" symbol one of those old-fashioned dial telephones from the seventies? 2A02:C7F:BE3D:8000:DC4D:B980:1C56:F386 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although envelopes are nowhere near obsolete. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet obsolete? I shouldn't have sold my envelope factory. Saaay Bugs, wanna buy my carbon paper company? The stuff is coming back!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably corner the market in liquid paper for a very modest sum.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wise investment, Wehwalt. Our fling with computers is just about done and the century of the typewriter is about to start. All hail. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get plenty of snail-mail, and nearly all of it comes in envelopes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about the US, but here in Australia a number of cafes and restaurants trying to achieve an "olde worlde" look, and some just trying to look chic, in my view, use decorative, overly-large, incandescent bulbs as part of achieving this goal. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, HiLo48. I think LEDs can be yellowish and reside inside a bulb. Almost the same effect, I think. I don't think flourescents can avoid being horrible, harsh, nasty white. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some bulbs using LEDs are made to look like old old style filament lamps, but some definitely have real filaments. Try Googling "filament cafe bulbs" and look at the images. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I think I've seen those. They are very attractive, actually. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside

We have lots of these LEDs (or are they flourescent?) here in the home. Some we never turn off. Those seem to last forever while ones that get turned on and off seem to burn out. Considering the electricity consumption by cool lights is cheap, I suspect that is more cost efficient for the planet and us if we do keep them on always. Does that sound right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turning some bulbs on and off shortens their life but being used also brings them closer to death. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, Sagittarian Milky Way. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicular trespass

Imagine that you park your car in a public place and don't lock it. After you leave, I enter the car, even though I know that it's not mine and that I don't have permission to enter. Later, I get out and don't steal or damage anything, and as I didn't start the engine, I didn't reduce the amount of remaining fuel. I assume that many jurisdictions have laws prohibiting such actions, but what would this concept be called? Vehicular trespass, Trespass to vehicle, Trespass to vehicles, and everything else I've checked are all red links. I found Trespass to chattels, but at least under US federal law, one must prevent the owner from using it to an extent or must cause some sort of damage, so apparently it's not applicable since I enter while you're not there and don't cause any harm to anyone/anything. Nyttend (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Montana, there is Criminal trespass to vehicles: A person commits the offense of criminal trespass to vehicles when the person purposely or knowingly and without authority enters any vehicle or any part of a vehicle. — Many other jurisdiction have similar laws. As to where on Wikipedia this could be added, presumably somewhere under Property torts —2606:A000:1126:28D:5037:449F:59D8:1A33 (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand legislation says that it is an offence to be found without reasonable excuse in a vehicle, but it is a defence if defendant can show he had no intention to commit any other offence. Akld guy (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that "breaking and entering" is a common phrase in movies and television shows. It is not a legal term. It is not necessary to "break" into something to commit a crime. If the door is unlocked and you open it, it is just as much a crime as if the door was locked and you picked the lock. The point being that your scenario of an unlocked car isn't important. It is a car, locked or unlocked. If you are basing your opinion on television knowledge, you surely assume that an unlocked car is different. If you base it on legal knowledge, you won't care if it was locked or unlocked. 12.207.168.3 (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but it's absolutely a legal term, though its definition depends on jurisdiction, and some jurisdictions have no such law. In Virginia, for example, 'breaking and entering' and 'entering without breaking' with intent to commit larceny are covered by different sections of the burglary statute (§18.2-90 through -92). This statute is known as "common law burglary", and indeed as our article breaking and entering notes, this crime has its origins as a common law concept. You're right that "breaking" doesn't necessarily require anything be broken. It doesn't even require unlocking anything - simply deceiving a property owner to gain access to a building you would not have otherwise been allowed within could be considered breaking. This is all to distinguish as a separate or different crime entering property that law abiding persons are prevented from entering by means of a physical barrier. I believe from my search for statutes that only a minority of jurisdictions continue to make this distinction for the purpose of burglary statutes, but of course an act of breaking would be a likely factor in proving intent. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this... Trespass on private property is applicable. You mention trespass to chattels. That applies to the ability to operate a vehicle. In particular, if I park my car in front of your driveway so you can't pull out, I am guilty of trespass to chattels. I have inhibited your ability to properly operate your vehicle. Trespass on private property is what you are referring to. A vehicle is property. Many people pay property tax on their vehicles. Therefore, it should be no surprise that a vehicle is property. By entering a vehicle, you are entering private property. You are trespassing. You can argue that no harm is done by trespassing, but that hasn't traditionally held up in court. The act of trespassing is considered harmful. 12.207.168.3 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a statutory matter, I don't see much of anything that's specific to this. California's burglary statute actually specifies that entering a vehicle with larcenous intent is a crime if the vehicle is locked, though this requirement does not exist for houses[16]. Actually stealing anything from the car is still a crime, however, as is driving it without the permission of the owner (under two different statutes with different intent requirements: [17][18]; if it's just a joyride and not a theft, this is simply called "trespass").

Fundamentally, the common law concept of "trespass" is to be on private property without the consent of the owner. Quoting from the third restatement of the torts, "Consent exists when, regardless of the intent of the possessor, a reasonable person would understand the words, conduct or inaction of the possessor to constitute consent."[19]

This is actually a pretty immensely complicated subject of common law, and one even the Supreme Court has to clarify now and then. It's common sense that a locked door, security guard, or a sign saying "KEEP OUT" means that you do not have the consent of the owner to be present. But when you have consent otherwise, and for how long, or for what purpose, oh... yeah, lots of caselaw there. Lots of nuance.

This is why you'll see references to "with intent to _____" in statutes related to criminal trespass, especially ones that do not specifically deal with "breaking", whether or not that word is used. That is, although it's a hairy question sometimes whether a reasonable person could assume permission to go somewhere, it's safer to assume that the owner of property does not give you permission to rob him, and therefore entering his property with intent to steal is nonconsensual.

Anyway, I find it extremely interesting that under California statute trespass in a vehicle requires you to either break into it or drive it, but simply getting inside an unlocked car on a public street is not a trespass. I mean, I think I'm a reasonable person, but would not assume I had permission to enter anyone's parked car without a crazy good reason. I'll note the curiosity that in the Montana Statute referenced above, further up where "enter" is defined [20], it is stated that the assumption of permission to enter only exists for "land", and not vehicles or occupied structures ("occupied structure" in law usually means 'in use' as opposed to 'abandoned', rather than literally 'occupied at this very moment'). I suppose this is a fair way of clearing any confusion of when you have permission: Never. (Okay, separately the Montana statutes create privilege to enter for surveyors, appraisers, and fire officials, but you're never in doubt whether you are one of those.)

Anyway, very different philosophies here, completely at opposite ends of what you are apparently supposed to assume you can do. I guess Montanans really like their private property private. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, in Indiana, it's only criminal trespass if you are in the vehicle when someone else who doesn't have permission is control 35-43-2-2. (Even if vehicles are also covered under the sections dealing with property, I don't see how the requirements would be met from the scenario outlined above since no one posts signs on their cars saying 'do not enter' or whatever. An exception may be if the vehicle is also a dwelling so e.g. a RV or car owned by a homeless person.)

But it could be "Unlawful entry of motor vehicle" 35-43-4-2.7. Irrelevant but I found that Indiana has a specific offence for sex offenders using UAV for following, contacting or recording people 35-42-4-12.5.

P.S. The links are all to the same page but specific subsections. Because of the large size, it may take a while to go to the right part, or in some cases could fail completely.

P.P.S. In relation to what the IP said above, in Indiana the offence 35-43-2-1 and 35-43-2-1.5 is either burglary or residential entry but the law does specifically use those words "A person who breaks and enters the building or structure of another person, with intent to commit a felony or theft in it, commits burglary, a Level 5 felony." and "A person who knowingly or intentionally breaks and enters the dwelling of another person commits residential entry, a Level 6 felony."

Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that strikes me at least from someone not involved in the legal field is that our articles in this area seem lacking. For example, we have Trespass to land, but the article doesn't really seem to deal very well with the fact that in modern times AFAIK there is often an offence to trespass on someone's real property even if they don't own the land it's on, for example some cases of apartments etc. Maybe to some extent it's derived from the transfer of rights by the owner of the land, but it seems to me more complicated than that. For example, if someone own apartment 4a, it may be trespass to enter apartment 3a or 5a even if these are over the exact same piece of land. I assume more likely trespass to land has evolved to cover real property more generally as modern norms etc changed.

IMO our article also doesn't seem to deal well with the way rights are transferred (or whatever). So for example, the owner of a land or property can in some circumstances trespass on their own property or land, like when they've rented it out. [21] [22] (This also gets into my earlier point, so for example in a 2 storey house with separate entries, if the owner rents out the flat above or below, they could trespass in that flat. But the renter likewise could trespass in the other flat.)

Likewise if the owner doesn't like someone the renter has invited onto the property, depending on the rental contract and local law, they may have cause to terminate the contract and sue the renter. But the invitee (actually from what I read recently legally they may be a licensee) possibly can't be trespassed from the property by the owner until they retake possession. And I think it's often the renter who has stronger cause for action than owner if it's a third party trespassing that neither of them wanted.

More generally, there may be a difference between the land and property on the land. E.g. I'm fairly sure in a number of jurisdictions, if there are no signs and you haven't been told to stay off, it's often fine to enter your neighbours garden if you want to talk to them and maybe even to have a look at something, especially during the day. Actually entering their house unless you've been given some affirmative sign it's okay (at the time or in the past) is more likely to be a problem. Possibly even the door being wide open isn't sufficient. (With likely defences if you were concerned something was wrong etc.) I interpret Indiana's law to likely be one example of this.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your confusion is certainly justified since courts have also been confused by this as well. My mother's specialty is landlord-tenant law - she has written articles about it, and tells me that even practicing lawyers taking continuing legal education courses she's taught on the subject are consistently confused by it. The third restatement goes into this in quite some detail in section 49, "Possessors of land defined". In brief, over many decades courts have moved away from focusing on ownership of land in the context of trespass and liability, and toward control of land. The person in control of land is the person who has, usually with consent of the owner, de facto control over it, and thus is the (or a) possessor. Land here includes buildings and parts of buildings on that land. This section discusses the possibility of possession transfer, multiple possessors, and possession of only a portion of the land or for limited duration. Tenants are explicitly mentioned. Tangentially, I found it interesting you suggested the possibility that trespass in a vehicle might be treated differently if the vehicle is also a dwelling. Indeed, the California burglary statute explicitly states that a mobile home, RV, or similar is to be treated like a house and not a car. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Poland, it's a crime, punishable by 3 months to 5 years in prison, to use someone else's car, for whatever purpose, even for a short time and without breaking in. It's specified in article 289 of the Polish Penal Code. Of course, if you do break in, the penalty may be higher.

§ 1. Whoever takes a motor vehicle which is someone else's property, with the purpose of using it for a short period of time shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between 3 months and 5 years.

§ 2. If the perpetrator of the act specified in § 1 disables a security device protecting the vehicle from the use by an unauthorised person, or the vehicle represents a property of considerable value, or if the perpetrator subsequently abandons the vehicle in a damaged condition or in such circumstances that there is a danger that the vehicle, its parts or contents will be lost or damaged, he shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between 6 months and 8 years.

§ 3. If the act specified in § 1 has been perpetrated with the use of violence or threatening the immediate use thereof, or by causing a person to become unconscious or helpless, the perpetrator shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between 1 and 10 years.

— Kpalion^(talk) 12:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But just to be clear, "take" ("zabierać") would not describe the OP's situation. Henry ^Flower 20:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not. I'm just quoting a law, not giving legal advice. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

Roman debt crisis

The late Roman republic seems to have suffered from various debt crisis in around 63 BC. How did the republic propose to solve it? Is there a way they could have solved it? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In ancient times, a debt crisis was more often due to farmers having fallen into permanently unpayable debts, rather than the government owing money. See Second Catilinarian conspiracy for 63 B.C. Rome, and Seisachtheia for solutions adopted in a different time and place... AnonMoos (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that fine wine is dry and often tanniny cause military wine rations were cheap, vinegary, tanniny and dry?

I've heard that centuries ago discharged French soldiers were given wine grape land or land suited for that and many winemakers were ex-military at some point. Dryness and tannins don't seem so important after drinking spoiled crap for so many years thus not finishing fermentation is now a big no-no. They might've acquired a taste for dry and tanniny too. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

Magic Bean: the rise of soy in America

Matthew Roth University Press of Kansas, 2018 ISBN 0700626344, 9780700626342

Is there any way to get access to this book? I've asked for it on an interlibrary loan, but I was wondering if anyone could provide access online? Thanks for any help! --valereee (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

imPeach

How to imPeach a president? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifik3r8bLk2Zr (talk • contribs) 11:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See impeachment. 12.207.168.3 (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Books in other languages of List of Watch Tower Society publications

Hello there, I am interested to know in which other languages is the book "things in which it's impossible for god to lie" was published. I found yet - thanks to google picture search - the book in these languages:

portuguese (coisas quais é impossível que Deus minta)
spanish (cosas en cual es imposible que dios mienta)
polish (Sprawy, w których u Boga kłamstwo jest niemożliwe)
german (Dinge in denen es unmöglich ist, dass Gott lügt)

I am a bit surprised that its got published in polish but not in french. But I guess that is another story. Does anyone of you have an idea how I may find out in which other languages this book has been published? --46.167.62.33 (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]