Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 22

Charities

In most charity organisations, do volunteers do most of the frontline service delivery with paid staff doing office admin and high level management? 2A02:C7D:B945:6400:2897:1BD0:7DBA:B99D (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That is very variable - and it rather depends on the type of work the charity is doing. Some make a lot of use of volunteers, with very few paid staff, while others who undertake more complex work requiring professional skills may have mainly paid front line staff (with volunteers more involved in fund raising and support roles). In the UK, where I have worked for several charities, the majority of registered charities are, in fact, quite small, local organisations. Those tend to be very dependent on volunteers - some may have no paid employees at all, while others may only have one or two. Wymspen (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

In the UK I expect most charities are as you say but some surprising institutions have charitable status. Most (all?) public schools (exclusive private schools in any other part of the world) are charities[1]and I suppose just about everyone is paid. I used to work for a scientific research institute which was a charity and we all got paid at rates comparable to the public sector. The only volunteers would be (1) young people getting work experience, (2) people doing PhD and MSc research (are they volunteers?), (3) people who have retired but want to continue with their research and (4) members of the public volunteering to take part as subjects in scientific experiments. Thincat (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Could the reported rape rate in Sweden be partly attributed to an increase in immigration?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The closing of the discussion above doesn't help understanding, learning and dismissing racism. That's why I feel the need to rephrase the censored question. In order to make a point that perhaps more Swedish girls report rape, because they are not used to machism which is considered rape to them, while to the immigrants it is considered normal, required, good-faith behavior when it comes to date girls. I know my question is poorly phrased and needs to be completed, and I hope someone here will address it in a constructive way without just closing it. Thanks. Akseli9 (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Any increase in population could be expected to increase the absolute number of rapes. However, the rate, as in percentage of women raped each year, would not be expected to change unless the new immigrants are more likely to commit rape or be raped. There could also be a factor that rapes committed by or to the new immigrants are more or less likely to be reported, due to cultural factors. In the case of male immigrants from fundamentalist Muslim nations, there may well be a factor that where they came from, any woman out alone at night with her face uncovered was a prostitute, and they treated them as such. Doing the same in a Western nation is a serious crime. StuRat (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Prostitutes aren't usually raped. They provide a service for which they get paid. Do you know that Muslims are more likely to rape prostitutes or are you just guessing? I know of one case where a woman (not a prostitute) was raped by immigrants. 194.66.226.95 (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Could we please stop assuming facts not in evidence. First there was absolutely no mention of immigrants or Muslims being part of Sweden's rape rate in the original thread. The idea that there is a culture where "date rape" is considered "Normal, REQUIRED or good faith behavior" is misogynistic claptrap. To quote two items from WP:RD/G "The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions. Editors should strive to accurately and fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources" - that is not happening here - and "The reference desk is not a place to debate controversial subjects. Respondents should direct questioners to relevant information and discussions, but should refrain from participating in any extended, heated debate." - that is also not occurring here. To put it another way how has the reporting of the UNODC statistics in the original thread jumped to speculation about immigrants and Muslims being the problem. When the above thread veered in this kind of xenophobic territory it was closed and is the reason that this one should be as well. MarnetteD|Talk 14:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Our article Rape in Sweden says that the rape rate was up to 69 per 100,000 in 2014. It also says that in 1996 it was published that between 1985 and 1989, half the rapes committed were by immigrants. The catch is that when I take this document and put it into Google Translate, I'm seeing something about 15 percent and 18 percent. I would highly appreciate it if someone who actually speaks Swedish could check this fact; and I would also highly appreciate it if the troll fighters would take less interest in saving the Refdesk from bad questions and more in saving readers of our articles from bad answers. Wnt (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC) If you want things in article fixed then the talk pages for said articles is the place to post your concerns. MarnetteD|Talk 19:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC) @Wnt I speak Swedish. As a cross check to Google Translate, I recommend www.freetranslation.com for translating your Swedish source. The nature of yourthe heading question is too tendentious, in that it invites an inflammatory answer "yes, it could partly" on the flimsiest of possible grounds, and it is therefore closed for discussion here. AllBestFaith (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC) The reported rape rate is increasing. That does not mean that the actual rape rate is increasing. It could even be a positive sign, if you assume that less and less women are letting rapists get away with it. Hofhof (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Exactly. It's even possible that white men are significantly less likely to be accused because they tend to be in positions of power more frequently than immigrants, which discourages rape reports because survivors of rape are often in some sort of dependency relationship with their rapists. This could give the misleading impression that immigrants commit disproportionally many rapes (or other crimes) when they are really just much more likely to be accused, caught, or convicted. (Same with black men in the United States.) White (and male, etc.) privilege is a thing, folks. Scepticism does not mean jumping to the "politically incorrect" conclusion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Who pays to test drinking water for THC?

There is a headline going around currently about a town in Colorado with tetrahydrocannabinol, the active principle of marijuana, supposedly in the drinking water. As described in this report, the idea is ludicrous. It seems more probable that somebody collecting the water or in the lab lit up while working. But there's still a mystery here --- why would any town be paying to test for THC in drinking water? I mean, there were a lot of people in Flint, Michigan drinking water with tremendous levels of lead for a year because no one was testing, and here someone is paying to test for a substance that could not possibly be added to the water in sufficient quantity to be detectable? What budget is this under? Wnt (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You aren't asking the more important question, which is best answered with understanding that the The dose makes the poison. I would expect non-zero quantities of THC to be in any major metropolitan area's drinking water. The question not being asked is if meaningful amounts of it are found in drinking water. One part per trillion would still mean a glass of drinking water would have over a trillion THC molecules in it; but I'm not sure that one part per trillion is enough to have any meaningful effect on the consumer. --Jayron32 15:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The cited article reports a statement that THC was first detected in a vial of tap water meant to serve as a negative result in a drug test. The article about Cannabis drug testing mentions thresholds of 50-20 ng/mL used in urine and saliva tests, though detection levels as low as 0.5 ng/mL may be required for the latter. It would not be ludicrous but a genuine concern to Forensic chemistry labs (whose work is routinely funded by law enforcement) if tap water gave indications near these levels, which appears to have been the case in Hugo, OhioColorado. AllBestFaith (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

More likely the vial was contaminated. THC is not even water soluble. Reporters are not known in this day and age for getting their facts straight, they prefer to make headlines. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not new - it's always been a problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

AllBestFaith Just wanted to let you know that the town of Hugo is in Colorado. I couldn't find a town of that name in Ohio though I'm sure there are at least a few people who go by that moniker in that state :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the correction. AllBestFaith (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

They probably sent this to the same lab that tests parolees, and a certain number of false positives is part of the contract... Seriously though, the science here is no great mystery to me; it's the funding. If someone is actually doing some kind of GC/MS on the water they must have all sorts of peaks to explain from various biological sources, and I'd think it would cost a fortune to figure everything out; yet if they just pulled out some cannabis testing kit, then I have no idea why they'd think to do such a crazy thing. It seems like either the town is being much, much more careful than I thought anyone really was with their drinking water, or else it's doing some kind of weird political stunt, and I don't have any idea which. Wnt (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this has already been answered, both in the cited article and by AllBestFaith above. It was "meant to serve as a negative result in a drug test". I interpret that to mean that they were testing a person for THC use, and concurrently with testing his/her sample, they also tested some tap water so they could compare the person's test result with that of a sample that was presumably known to not contain any THC. The test wasn't done because anyone suspected that the tap water might contain THC. CodeTalker (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Whoooooops! Looks like I gotta learn to read more carefully! Wnt (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

In a followup report it turns out the original tests were false positives. MarnetteD|Talk 18:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Given the situation, I'd say there is no excuse for them to have announced a problem with the water anyway. You should judge water quality based on a water test, not a positive result on a negative control in a test kit for bodily fluids. In any case, it does not sound like any great amount of funds were expended on the test itself. Wnt (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Shocking. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 23:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle

Now that my 7 years of bad luck are over, I'd like to bring to this forum some questions I asked @Talk:St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle#Funeral of Lady Gowrie in 2009, but got no replies.

The 2 questions are:

• Was some special permission required for Lady Gowrie's funeral to be held in the chapel of a royal castle, and if so, why was it given?
• Was Dame Joan Hammond the first woman ever to sing in the Chapel, and if so, why were women previously banned?

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe they wanted to see if her voice could shatter a mirror? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I take your comments with a grain of (spilled) salt. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a very good question Jack, and one which leads me to question our entry. Having looked at the official website of St George's Chapel, I can not see her listed as having received a funeral there. Now it may be that they only list the Royals who have had a funeral at the chapel, and I think that to answer your question properly you would have to contact them yourself and ask them. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This book confirms Lady Gowrie's funeral at St George's Chapel and Joan Hammond's attendance there. I've not been able to find any answers to Jack's specific questions, though. Tevildo (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that he was Deputy Constable and Lieutenant-Governor of Windsor Castle 1945-53. Maybe that came with certain privileges. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that's the most likely answer; the chapel of the Order of St Michael and St George (Lord Gowrie was a GCMG) is in St Paul's Cathedral in London. A reference supporting the funeral at Windsor is at The Governors of New South Wales 1788-2010 edited by David Clune and Ken Turner (p. 504). As to women singing in the chapel, the English choral tradition was an entirely male-voice affair until quite recently, so it's quite plausible that Dame Joan was the first, although why permission needed to be sought is a bit of a puzzle; perhaps nobody wanted the buck to stop with them. What Did Women Sing? A Chronology concerning Female Choristers, by Laura Stanfield Prichard, Northeastern University, Massachusetts, USA discusses the role of women in western choral music, finding the Anglican Church to be particularly reluctant to include female voices in their choirs, but just because they supposed that male voices sounded better rather than any religious conviction. Alansplodge (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't just Anglican churches that were antipathetic to women singers. A case in point is Frédéric Chopin: he died on 17 October 1849, but the funeral could not be held until 30 October, when the Catholic Church of the Madeleine in Paris, after almost 2 weeks of holding out, finally acceded to Chopin's express wishes and permitted the singing of Mozart's Requiem, which includes women as soloists and choristers. The inordinate delay meant that large numbers of people from distant parts, who would not otherwise have considered making the journey, did so; so many came from afar, that the church was full to capacity and many found they had travelled in vain. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

July 23

IQs and political affiliations

First, this is not intended to be a trollish post. I am genuinely interested and am asking seriously.

I wish to know if there are good studies that link IQs and political affiliations, including those with no political affiliations, in the United States.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

High IQ correlates well with self-identification as a liberal, and low-IQ with self identification as a conservative[2]. It's not an enormous difference, with "very conservative"s averaging out at 95 IQ points, and "very liberal"s averaging out at 105 (so a difference between slightly below average and slightly above, rather than a difference between genius and brain damaged as some might suspect). This correlation is consistent in the UK as well. It's interesting to note that intelligence also correlates similarly well with degree of religiosity, so there could be a connection there. Also, now please also consider all of the problems with measuring IQ. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The group of papers that cite the one I linked also provide some interesting reading material [3]. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Someguy1221. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI, that guy Satoshi Kanazawa is a well-known firebrand, and some of his ... let's say "odd" views are described in our article. He used to write blog posts for Psychology Today, but his work seems to have been purged from the site, and he's also written there with similarly sensational and not-that-well supported content, e.g. "Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?" [4]. I'm not saying he's a liar or charlatan, and I do think that he has shown in that work linked by Someguy a very slightly significant and weak correlation between IQ and liberal self-identification, but I think readers should know he is an economist by training who seems completely willing and able to spin statistics into saying nearly whatever he wants, often with controversial and click-baity headlines. Even when an article is peer reviewed, caveat emptor. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

There is some discussion at Biology and political orientation. But a lot of content has been thrown out of the article because people don't like it, e.g.:

According to the ASA, IQ data from the "Add Health" survey averaged 106 for adolescents identifying as "very liberal", versus 95 for those calling themselves "very conservative". An unrelated study in 2009 found that among students applying to U.S. universities, conservatism correlated negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores though there was a greater correlation with economic differences.

In a survey of the perceived severity of moral transgressions, conservatives were more affected by the taste of a bitter drink than liberals. "...taste perception significantly affected moral judgments, such that physical disgust (induced via a bitter taste) elicited feelings of moral disgust. Further, this effect was more pronounced in participants with politically conservative views".

[On moral choices (PMID 20699405) may be relevant but seems hard to summarize - should see full text]

I'll add that I find it interesting that the Republicans refuse to pass any sort of reasonable bill to budget money against the Zika outbreak. As I understand it, Cuba has intensively used mosquito eradication to keep the disease from getting a foothold, while the U.S. has allowed it to spread to the world from Yap Island, has given up Puerto Rico entirely without firing a shot, and now stands poised to accept it as part of life in Florida while Congress is out on vacation. Perhaps they hope that a Zippy the Pinhead brigade will bring them a much-needed demographic counteradvantage in future polling? Wnt (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

But the Northern tier of Florida is majority-Republican so they wouldn't let it spread too far. Republican logic! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

References

If liberals are so smart, how come they keep losing elections? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

1. Cold War 2. Electoral College 3. 9/11. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"Persistence" often trumps "Intelligence" in the real world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

remind me who won the last General Election? Oh, that's right. The non-conservative!DOR (HK) (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

remind me of the makeup of the House and Senate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Easy: They have principles that they don't give up just to win elections. Arguably, sticking to liberal principles is what makes them liberals. With about half the population below average intelligence, elections in a two party system with "The Bright" vs. "The Steadfast" would be about even, so small changes would give the win to one party or the other. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Berlin blockade

Why didn't the Soviets blocked all forms of traffic between Berlin and West Germany? Maybe at a first glance they didn't realize that the airlifts would save the day for West Berliners, but day after day they must have been aware that lots of planes were supplying the city. They could have easily closed the airspace against a non-stop stream of cargo airplanes. What blocked them of doing it? --Hofhof (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The risk of starting a new war, perhaps. Road and rail traffic is easy to block without using force. The only way to reliably block air traffic is to shoot down planes or destroy their airfields. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

But didn't they need to ask East German air traffic for an authorization to enter their air space? That's also simply a question of general safety. --Hofhof (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

See Berlin_Blockade#The_decision_for_an_airlift. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The West Berlin Air Corridor was outside of the control of the Soviet occupation forces (it was then the Soviet occupation zone, the state of East Germany didn't exist until 1949). Air traffic between the US, French and British Zones and Berlin was controlled by the Berlin Air Safety Center, which was jointly operated by the four occupying powers. Blockading the Air Corridor may well have been seen as an act of war. The first Soviet atomic bomb wasn't tested until August 1949, putting the Soviets at a severe disadvantage should a full-scale war break out. It really was "peace through superior firepower" at that point. However, that didn't stop the Soviets from harassing the Allied flights, resulting in the 1948 Gatow air disaster. Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

A more interesting question might be why the Soviet Union didn't try again, including shooting down relief aircraft, to starve West Berlin into submission, after they had tested and stockpiled atomic bombs, gambling that the West wouldn't risk a nuclear exchange. I would argue that the West's propaganda advantage from winning the Berlin blockade made trying something like that again look like a bad idea. Trying to starve a city of innocent civilian bystanders just doesn't look good, no matter what spin you put on it. And TV would have made it look even worse. StuRat (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There's no evidence that Stalin had the slightest concern whatsoever for the starvation of civilians; in fact quite the contrary. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and Purple Triangles

When Jehovah’s Witnesses were imprisoned in Nazi Germany’s Concentration camps they were assigned an identifying mark for identification, a Purple Triangle. (Star of David for Jews, Pink Triangles for Homosexuals, etc)

Were there any others that were assigned Purple Triangles, other than Jehovah’s Witnesses? 74.176.238.227 (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

In Nazi concentration camp badge#Single triangles, it is said that the purple triangle identified "small religious groups", 99% of which were Witnesses. However, this website emphatically disagrees (apparently based on the source given at the end), saying that only a minority of the "Bibelforscher" who were identified with the purple triangle were Witnesses. This is apparently a highly politically loaded question, and as a layperson, I cannot judge. In any case, it is clear that not all inmates who were assigned this badge were Witnesses. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

A reference librarian at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum responded to my Submit a Research Question request with a link to the museum's Holocaust Encyclopedia article, Classification System in Nazi Concentration Camps", which, alas, adds no details on other wearers of the purple star. Two articles in Historical Dictionary of Jehovah’s Witnesses (edited by George D. Chryssides; Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2008 ISBN 978-0-8108-6074-2) read:

PURPLE STAR. A triangular purple badge worn by the Bibelforscher during their imprisonment in Nazi concentration camps during World War II. Approximately 250,000 members of the Watch Tower organization wore such badges. Apart from the Jews, who were forced to display a Star of David on their prison uniforms, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were the only religious group who were formally identified as such. (p. 115)

BIBELFORSCHER. Literally “Bible students” in German, the name continued to be used in Germany for some time after the Watch Tower Society’s adoption of the name “Jehovah’s Witnesses” in 1931. The Bibelforscher were banned by Adolf Hitler in 1935 and persecuted by the Third Reich. Approximately 13,400 Bibelforscher spent time in prison or concentration camps during World War II. Some 2,000 perished, and 270 were executed before the survivors were finally liberated in 1945. (p. 18)

Most promising is the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's annotated bibliography on Jehovah's Witnesses - including hyperlinks to find cited sources in your library. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

July 24

Kevin B Macdonald

How much truth is there to his claims in 'The culture of critique' series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numerologician (talk • contribs) 02:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Some links: Kevin B. MacDonald, The Culture of Critique series. -- ToE 02:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

In response to your question, I don't know that we will be able to give you more than is in The Culture of Critique series#Criticism. -- ToE 02:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Jason Matthews author Red Sparrow

Does Wikipedia contain an entry for Jason Matthews the author or his novel Red Sparrow? Is there a reason?66.168.198.148 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There is not an article for Jason Matthews or for the book. The reason is that nobody has created one yet. Based on this NYT review both could meet WP:GNG but that is just my opinion. Looks like a good project for anyone who is interested. MarnetteD|Talk 19:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If you are thinking of writing such an article, IP user, please read your first article carefully. Well-written and well-sourced articles on notable subjects are always welcome, but it is not easy to write one. --ColinFine (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

What's a fair trade for Detroit? (as is, no warranties, no refunds)

This would never happen but what's a fair trade for giving Canada the contents of the city limits of Detroit with a reasonable amount of connectivity services? (they wouldn't have to build pipes/wires to old Canada or plants to feed them if they get it from new US at fair market price, if more road or rail connections to original Canada are needed we can pay half or proportional to GDPs). Could the US get any land or water for this (all of British Columbia south of the 49th parallel?) or is this actually something you couldn't give away for free (but Canada can try to improve Detroit so it's worth something in the future). They may need to keep the border crossings like Hong Kong, in this case to keep all the illegal handguns and problems out of Windsor. There's apparently a two small incorporated city cities in the middle of it so that has they have to go, too. Congratulations, you are now Canadians. (not a bad change actually) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean how much would the US have to pay Canada to take Chicago off our hands? See: Detroit bankruptcy. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:98E7:59EE:3480:3C03 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

So I'm assuming the part of Minnesota north of 49°N is not even a down payment? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

(Aka: Northwest Angle, presumably) --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:98E7:59EE:3480:3C03 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Canada might agree to take Detroit if the US agreed to take Quebec (the Province, not just the city). Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The U.S. tried twice, once by asking nicely] and once by asking not so nicely. --Jayron32 22:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I would think Canada would have no interest in acquiring Detroit, except for one possible reason. They are quite interested in building the Gordie Howe International Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, to supplement the existing Ambassador Bridge and Detroit-Windsor Tunnel. However, the owner of the Ambassador Bridge, Matty Maroun, is trying to block construction by buying up Detroit property and then refusing to sell it to allow for the new bridge construction. If Canadian law would expedite taking that property from him under eminent domain (or whatever they call that in Canada), then they might like that. The new bridge will presumably increase trade with Canada's largest trade partner, so it's a big deal for them. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, we might be interested in certain assets, but not the whole shebang. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia and US Treasury Securities

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-warns-ofeconomic-fallout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html http://247wallst.com/economy/2016/04/18/can-the-us-treasury-market-absorb-a-750-billion-saudi-arabian-fire-sale/

Can somebody explain why drop of treasury securities of 0,750 trillion scared Obama? I mean what consequences could such act have? And why can it cause global crisis? Such act can decrease price of securities, but only non-matured. Should US Treasury buy non-matured bonds if no one else can?

72.19.61.71 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

As I vaguely understand it, the issue is that if Saudi increases the supply of securities, then their price falls, but their return increases (because the return rate is a fixed percentage of the nominal price, whereas the actual price may be lower than nominal) and so to compete for funds, the US Treasury has to increase the returns it offers on new securities. The fix for this, were one required, is probably quantitative easing, which is pretty much printing money in exchange for bonds - something that seems to be less harmful than once it would have been in these times of low inflation & low interest rates. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, to try to explain it a bit more thoroughly, the important thing to remember is that Treasury securities are loans to the U.S. government. The interest rate, or yield, the U.S. government pays on those loans is determined by the bond market. The yield on a bond moves inversely to its price. This is just a fancy way of restating the law of supply and demand; the fewer the people who want to lend to you, the more you will have to pay them in interest. So, if you own a bunch of Treasuries and want to try to stick it to the U.S. government for whatever reason, you can sell them all on the bond market. A larger supply of bonds on the market means their price goes down and their yield goes up. A big fire sale of Treasuries will also inevitably cause short-term volatility in the Treasury market, as prices and yields will move significantly. Treasuries are a cornerstone of the world financial system, so this has the potential to cause disruption beyond just making it harder for the U.S. government to borrow. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A larger supply of bonds on the market means their price goes down and their yield goes up.

Ok. According Tentative Auction Schedule of U.S. Treasury Securities next auction of 30-Year BOND will be on Thursday, August 11, 2016 . If US government will see huge amount of securities flooded the market, why cannot it just cancel auction and wait while all redundant securities will be sold.

72.19.61.71 (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Because the U.S. government is running a deficit, which means it needs to borrow money to operate. If it can't borrow money, it can't pay its bills, and uh-oh, the world economy just collapsed. This is why people were making a big deal about the "debt ceiling" a while ago. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Government must have some buffer. It can take money through mechanisms different from issuing bonds. E.g. by IMF credit tranches, selling gold, selling securities of other countries. Cannot it? And when situation with bonds will become stable, government can issue bonds again (with usual interest rate) and take gold back. 72.19.61.71 (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

IMF loans have many strings attached and are generally designed for poor countries. A desperation sale of assets like gold reserves would result in the seller getting a lot less than they could by gradually selling them. Also the country may not wish to sell off said assets for political reasons. And in the specific case of the U.S., I don't think the U.S. government has any substantial holdings of other countries' debt. I should have pointed out earlier that there's no reason for a government with monetary sovereignty, like the U.S., to default. If no one wants to lend to the government, the central bank can just print money. Of course this can lead to high inflation. All this stuff about threatened sales of Treasuries and such is really about politics, not finance. Governments hint at threats to extract concessions. It's how the game of international politics is played. The implied threat behind countries selling off Treasuries is not really about trying to bankrupt the U.S. government; it's about potentially knocking the U.S. dollar off its pedestal as the predominant reserve currency, which in turn could diminish the U.S.'s global influence. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about Qin_Shi_Huang

When people found his tomb did they find a mummy and was there a legend about the tomb being cursed? I ask because he was featured in The_Mummy:_Tomb_of_the_Dragon_Emperor he is depicted as a mummy. 50.68.118.24 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, that was Bruce Forsyth. _Muffled ^Pocketed 22:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as is known, the tomb has never been unsealed since he was interred. See Qin Shi Huang#Tomb.--Jayron32 22:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

July 25

"Ah" surnames

Where do the surnames in use in Hawaii beginning with Ah (Ah Choi, Ahnee, Ah Quin, etc.) come from? Cilantrohead (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

see Chinese in Samoa#Names. As that section mentions, it also applies to Chinese-Hawaiian names.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 01:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Wiktionary's listing of Hawaiian given names describes Ah as a "Cantonese informal prefix", presumably borrowed into Hawaiian usage as a result of Chinese immigration. But I don't know what "Cantonese informal prefix" means. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It's used across different varieties of Chinese, not just Cantonese. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

"Ah" is often used as a prefix in informal situations when addressing or possibly referring to someone indicating familiarity or closeness. Normally in front of the given name or sometimes the kinship term. If the person has a generation name, ah is used in front of the personal part and not the generation part AFAIK. I think it's the same if the person has a double character given name even if the first part is not a generation name, it's normally the final character. It's not generally used in front of the surname, probably because there's a contradiction in referring to the person by the surname and the use of the prefix. There's some discussion here [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] here which includes discussion how it was used in various Westernised contexts. Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

"Ah so!" --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:58E2:3708:C2A3:B874 (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, everyone! Cilantrohead (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

July 26

What is the sounding (and written) range of contrabass clarinet?

What is the sounding (and written) range of contrabass clarinet? Different sites are giving different ranges.201.79.52.212 (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

According to our article (Contrabass clarinet)→

Range of Bb contrabass clarinet + LA(3) at 440 Hz

It also mentions that there are two types "EE♭ (aka:contra-alto) contrabass clarinet" & "BB♭ contrabass clarinet". --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:807B:66FA:B5EC:A602 (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Parkinson's shuffle

I believe there is a particular word which describes the failure to lift the feet by people with Parkinson's disease. I think it may begin with C but I don't remember it. Can anybody help please? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Anything in Parkinsonian gait? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Breakdown of victims of Islamic extremism, by category

Excuse the inflammatory nature of this question, but it is, IMHO, a fair one.

When a Muslim kills in the name of their religion (something I accept only a minority of Muslims do) the victim by definition falls into one of three categories. My guess is that they rank in this order:

1. Fellow Muslims, whose version of Islam differs or is perceived to differ from that of the killer, or whose behaviour the killer sees as deserving death in Islam's eyes (shia vs sunni being perhaps the most common, but also religious vs secularised, fundamentalist vs moderate, "honour killings" motivated by Islamic beliefs, etc)
2. "Infidels", or, (to quote the indictment against Abu Hamza al-Masri), "persons not of the Islamic faith" (Westerners, Christians, Hindus, Yazidis, etc) - but excluding Jews
3. Jews (but excluding those killed in Israel or the West Bank by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict)

I exclude direct local victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it has dynamics of its own, with the two peoples forced to engage with each other on a daily basis. Please DO however include Jews killed by Muslims (be they arab or non-arab or even Palestinian) outside Israel and the Palestinian territories. Please also DO include Israelis killed in Israel by Hizballah or other non-Palestinian arabs, who unlike the Palestinians, DO have the option of avoiding contact with Jews.

Can anyone point me to sources which would give me a breakdown on the number of victims which fall into each of these three distinct groups (intra-Muslim, "Infidels" and Jews), either in terms of raw numbers or percentages? Eliyohub (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, formatting error on my part - failure to fill in question title. Now fixed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You haven't posted a question - just a completely irrelevant answer to a question about a medical condition. Wymspen (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot the title line (this is how wikipedia posts questions when you leave the title space blank). My internet connection crashed whilst I was typing the question, so I typed the question in notepad fearing a repeat, and when I cut and pasted it across, forgot to fill in the title line. Now fixed. Answers? Eliyohub (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The OP chooses to guess that victims of extremist murder are to be ranked in terms of some extremist's own pseudo-religious rhetoric. I suggest that someone close the whole question to prevent arguments proceeding on these unproductive categories. AllBestFaith (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree it should be closed, not to prevent arguments proceeding but simply because it is (as the OP himself notes) an inflammatory question that serves no useful purpose, even if answerable. --Viennese Waltz 15:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• This seems to be a source. --Jayron32 15:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee - convention as formality

When is the last time the party's nominee for U.S. president was not known going into the convention? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I would say Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1968 would be the last example of this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There was also the closely contested 1980 Democratic National Convention, where Kennedy tried (and failed) to change rules to allow delegates committed to Carter released from their commitments. While the vote actually went off as planned, there was some possibility of a contested convention had Kennedy gotten the rule changes he sought. --Jayron32 17:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

British political familial connections

Former Conservative minister Virginia Bottomley is certainly well-connected by birth and marriage. I want to clarify two potential connections. Her father was William John Garnett (1921-1997), industrial relations campaigner. Was he related to David Garnett ("Bunny", 1892-1981, of the Bloomsbury Group) and his long line of illustrious forefathers? That seems a tenuous link. The second query, however, is more pointed: various sources state that one of her cousins is Julian Hunt, Baron Hunt of Chesterton, father of Tristram Hunt, MP, both of them Labour politicians. Is Bottomley related to these Hunts? Other sources claim that she is cousin to Jeremy Hunt, the Tory health minister who survived last month's shuffle. Is there any reliable statement - for example, an interview with any of them in a newspaper of record - to the effect that they are related, and how? There are an awful lot of unreliable sources, and I suspect they are circularly reporting our articles. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

According to this website, which is generally pretty reliable, John Garnett's father, James Clerk Maxwell Garnett, also had a daughter Pauline Garnett, who married Roland Hunt, and Pauline and Roland were Lord Hunt of Chesterton's parents. That would make Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone a first cousin of Lord Hunt of Chesterton and a first cousin once removed of Tristram Hunt. There doesn't seem to be any obvious link documented there between her and either David Garnett or Jeremy Hunt. Proteus (Talk) 10:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Turkey

So Erdogan or the other one in USA: who is the good guy, and who is the bad guy? I cant fathom from the news Im reading.--86.187.174.194 (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you read our article on the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt? Reducing the matter to that of the "good/bad guy" is beyond the remit of the ref desk. — Lomn 00:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Define "good guy" and "bad guy". The one is an ally, the other is living in the US. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Are we talking of the official British perspective? Where government policy is friendly to Erdogan, but our newly appointed Foreign Secretary (of an interesting Turkish ancestry himself) publicly penned a deeply insulting limerick against Erdogan? Erdogan, who does not take kindly to journalists seen as criticising him. It is indeed complicated.

The Ataturk state of Turkey was resolutely secular. Erdogan has recently pushed this back and encouraged Islamification of the Turkish political society and government. His dealings with and oil buying from ISIS have been questioned, particularly by those Russians who like to question things with bombing strikes. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the political philosophy that has driven Turkish politics prior to recent decades, see Kemalism, an overtly secular philosophy. While led by a cleric, the Gülen movement is still in many ways aligned to Kemalism, and is diametrically opposed to the Islamist and authoritarian reforms of the Erdogan government. --Jayron32 12:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Another possibility is that they're both bad. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend (e.g. Stalin). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

July 27

Rape Conviction Question

If a person who is accused of rape wins in criminal court but loses in civil court, are this person's employers and potential employers going to be capable of finding out about this person's rape conviction in civil court? Futurist110 (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There probably won't be anything to prevent their finding out about it, but there's no civil version of the sex offender registry if that's what you have in mind. —Tamfang (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Depending on the particular jurisdiction, there is usually an option in a civil court case to apply for an order to prevent publication of the outcome. It would be up to the court to decide about that. With no such order the press and other media would be free to publicise the result and name the person involved. There would be no automatic notification process, nor would a civil court judgement appear if there were any checks on criminal records. Wymspen (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Is a person in civil court found guilty of rape? A conviction is for a crime, and that is handled in criminal court. What is handled in civil court is not at the same threshold of law and evidence and is more for monetary purposes. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Several things spring to mind here:

1. A civil finding of liability is not a criminal conviction. As others have said, it will not show up on a criminal record check, nor will the individual be on the sex offenders register.
2. In the UK, I could imagine that if the Disclosure and Barring Service got wind of the court's finding, they may be entitled to use the information to put in place the relevant measures to refuse the individual clearance to work with children or vulnerable adults. However, only organizations who employ people to work with these groups would have access to such decisions.
3. If the case was reported in the media, there's every chance an employer or potential employer could find the information, whether by reading the media, or a simple google search of the person's name bringing up a link to the media article. What Whympsn says about the power of courts to make non-publication orders is true. However the only times I could imagine this being done was at the request of the plaintiff (the rape victim) in a case where naming the defendant would enable identification of the victim (such as an incest case). I could possibly also imagine a court suppressing publication if the defendant was a minor at the time of the rape. But in general, the media would otherwise be free to report the court's finding, with the potential result of an employer or potential employer stumbling on this information.
4. Note that any court judgement that a person owes another person money will show up in a Credit report, meaning if the person applies for credit (a mortgage, loan, or credit card, for example) the institution he is applying to will be able to see this information, which would definitely include the sum of damages awarded. However, I don't know if this includes why the person was ordered to pay ("rape"), or if it would simply be a record that the person was ordered by court X on date Y to pay a debt in the sum of $x (whatever sum the victim-plaintiff was awarded by the court). So yes, being found civilly liable for rape could cause problems in getting any sort of credit or loan, particularly if the sum of damages awarded was large, but potentially even if it was small. As far as the bank or other institution sees it, someone had to take this guy to court to force him to pay up, which obviously reflects badly on his credit-worthiness. (BTW this applies to any "debt judgement" by a court that the debtor owes the money, and the creditor has had to resort to legal action to force him to pay up - regardless if it's an unpaid bill for goods or services, or a damages award for rape or anything else).

Hope this ramble helps. Others feel free to correct any errors I have made. Eliyohub (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that you are referring to practice in the United States, the court judgment will be a matter of public record, so employers will be able to learn about it. (As Sir Joseph notes, this would not be a conviction, but simply a finding of civil liability for the sexual assault, presumably resulting in monetary damages and perhaps a court order to stay away from the plaintiff.) Settlements, however, can be made confidential, although if the settlement were entered into after the court case was filed, employers would be able to tell that there was some kind of settlement. John M Baker (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

They would be able to learn about it if they went trawling through court records. However, whilst many employers routinely do criminal record checks, how many would in fact go searching for civil judgements? Credit rating agencies do routinely collect info about civil judgements, but would the average employer be likely to actually look for or stumble across what would otherwise presumably be rather obscure information? Eliyohub (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It would depend how obscure it was. In the US in particular, it doesn't seem that rare that these sort of things show up as publicly accessible and indexed on search engines. And I'm fairly sure searching someone's name on the internet isn't exactly rare nowadays as part of the employment process. Note also that credit reports are commonly a part of the employment process in the US although I'm not sure how much info about civil judgements shows up in the info provided to putative employers [11] [12] [13]. This video is IMO particularly illustrative of credit reports and associated agencies (like background check agencies) in the US [14]. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Nordic Royal Orders

Hi,

I'm currently trying to do a page on my great grandfather who was a politician and a Knight first class of "Order of the Dannebrog" and "Order of Vasa". However, I can't publish the article without finding any digital reference to this being the case. I've spent two hours trying to find a complete list of recipients of these titles online, but have so far been unsuccessful. Do you know if the two respective orders keep any online archives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runi Oregaard (talk • contribs) 12:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles about the Danish Order of the Dannebrog and Swedish Order of Vasa. I added a heading to the question. AllBestFaith (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Also note that sources do not have to be online they can be from printed sources as long as they are considered reliable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese shoes

What's the name of these traditional Chinese shoes? They seem to be quite stereotypical appearing in various martial art films as well. Thanx.--93.174.25.12 (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

传统的鞋款

傳統鞋

休闲鞋

AllBestFaith (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Aren't they just spats? _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

They are not spats, they are shoes... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

In modern Chinese the traditional style is usually just called "cloth shoes", 布鞋, which are differentiated from "modern" shoes by the sole, which is stitched from many layers of cloth. The variety with a thicker upper, stuffed with cotton, for winter wear might be called "cotton shoes", 棉鞋. The type with a soft sole and so suitable for tai chi or martial arts might be marketed as "tai chi shoes" or "(martial arts) training shoes", but they are regarded as a sub-type of "cloth shoes". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)