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

April 18

Bishop [firstname] in the CofE

Over the last few years I have noticed a trend for Church of England bishops to be called "Bishop [firstname]" instead of "Bishop [surname]". When did this start, why do they do this, and does it have some kind of official sanction? DuncanHill (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the official protocol for addressing Church of England clergy. The only guidance it seems to give for answering your question is, quoting that page, "In offering the advice below, we do not intend to imply that other practices are necessarily to be discouraged (for example, the use of Father as in 'Father Smith'). A good deal depends on circumstances, and, where a personal preference is known, it is usually good practice to follow it." That is, if the "The Right Reverend the Bishop of Norwich" wants you to call him "Bishop Skippy", and he's expressed such publicly, you're allowed to call him "Bishop Skippy". --Jayron32 12:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If I ever meet a bishop who wants to be called "Bishop Skippy" I'll throw him down the well and not tell Sonny! DuncanHill (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Better Skippy than Jif or Peter Pan. But this reminds me of an Alan King monologue about his uncle's funeral, conducted by a "Rabbi Chuck". Then there was a character played by Flip Wilson called "Reverent Leroy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Good gracious, what pitfalls abound. Ecclesiastical address doesn't even mention CofE. The official line on Addressing the clergy says nothing about the "Bishop John and Jane" phenomenon. Debrett's doesn't help. Crockford's Clerical Directory is only slightly better. An informal guide discusses the realities of talking to Anglicans, but doesn't raise the issue of increasing first names. I wish I could find a clearer resource. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Bath and Wells at the Coronation

The Bishop of Bath and Wells has the right (along with the Bishop of Durham), to walk alongside the monarch as he or she enters and leaves Westminster Abbey, and to stand alongside her throughout. Why does he have this right? I can understand Dunelm having this right, given the history of the Prince Bishops, but why Bath? DuncanHill (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

According to this, [1], the two bishops are supposed to represent the "North and South of England", a traditional (if somewhat fuzzy) division which has existed for some time, possibly back to the Anglo Saxon Kings of England, when Edgar the Peaceful was crowned at Bath, giving the honor to the Bishop of Bath to escort him. Wikipedia's article on Edgar even notes that Edgar's coronation was used as the model coronation for all future kings and queens. --Jayron32 12:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This is hardly a "fuzzy division". England and Wales are divided into two provinces or archdioceses, Canterbury and York, reflecting the north - south divide created by the evangelisation of the south by Augustine from Rome and the evangelisation of the north by Columba from Ireland. 92.13.136.102 (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There you go. --Jayron32 14:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The Church in Wales is not part of the Church of England, and so is in neither the Province of Canterbury nor the Province of York. DuncanHill (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

But that's a fairly recent development. Until 1920 the Welsh dioceses were in the province of Canterbury. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The apostle of the north of England is St Aidan - not St Columba. Columba came from Ireland to Iona and worked to convert Scotland. He later sent Aidan to the kingdom of Northumbria. Wymspen (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In Sir Roy Strong's book Coronation (p. 40), he specifically states that this custom started with Edgar's coronation in 973, and although William I abandoned it, it was reintroduced later. Of course, this predates the conquest of Wales by Edward I by several centuries. Alansplodge (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I did rather wonder if it was some kind of commemoration of Edgar's coronation. Wales is a red herring, so don't worry about that. DuncanHill (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A bit more reading from Strong p.85 quoting from the Liber Regalis of the 1390s (the model text for all subsequent coronations): "The king is to be preceded by the prelates and monks and himself led by the hand by the bishops of Durham and Bath in accordance with ancient custom". Alansplodge (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The honest pharmacist who became minister of health

My Google-fu has deserted me. There was a woman from (West?) Africa (Nigeria??), who trained and worked as a pharmacist. She got ill, and with the comprehensive health insurance that came with the job, was given substantial money up front, to go abroad for specialised treatment. Upon examination in the foreign hospital, the doctors diagnosed a relatively minor problem, requiring minimal intervention. She returned home, delighted with her new lease of life, intending to return all the money she had not needed to spend. No one had ever attempted such a thing before, and no mechanism existed, but she persisted until she had reimbursed the government. Some time later, the president needed a medical person he could rely on, to sort out some intractable problems at the ministry of health. He asked around and heard of the honest pharmacist. He gave her increasingly responsible tasks until she became head of the ministry. What was her name? (And, if you hadn't heard of her before, what clues above led you to a successful search?) Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you are referring to Dora Akunyili, the head of Nigeria's Food and Drug Administration and Control. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have an article Dora Akunyili, it's not great, but its a start. --Jayron32 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Term of Parliament under current law

So, I was reading through a few Wikipedia articles, specifically Next United Kingdom general election (which is about the soon-to-be-called snap election) and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 which seems to have set the regular date for the next election at the first Thursday in May, 2020 (based on being 5 years from the May 7, 2015 election prior). I can't seem to find the answer to the simple question; assuming that May gets the 2/3rds vote in Commons necessary to call this snap election, does that reset the "5 year" clock, or is the clock tied to the scheduled general elections? That is, assuming this goes forward, does that mean that the next election is still scheduled the first Thursday in May, 2020 or will it be 5 years from this snap election (the first Thursday in May, 2022). If anyone can provide an external source to read about this, it may help improve the Wikipedia article on the subject, since it only seems to note that there are provisions for snap elections, but not how such elections affect the regularly scheduled elections. Thanks in advance. --Jayron32 18:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The article includes a link to the actual law, which is only a few pages long. In paragraph 1(3) the 5 years is specified in relation to "the previous parliamentary general election", so yes, the clock is reset.

Almost! The Act still requires the next election to be the first Thursday in May, so if this election happens on June 8th 2017, the next one will be May 5th 2022. Wymspen (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I am slightly amused by this turn of events. Here in Canada Stephen Harper's government introduced a roughly similar law in 2007 calling for elections every 4 years in order to "prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage". The next selection would have been in 2010, only in 2008, Harper decided a snap election would provide short-term political advantage, and was able to get one. That produced a minority government, which fell in 2011, forcing another election. So, in 10 years we've had only one election on the "regular" 4-year date, namely in 2015. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that simple explanation. --Jayron32 19:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Term of Parliament under current law, take two

1. Historically, how have snap elections (barring those triggered by votes of no confidence, loss of supply, and other "problems") been called in the UK? Obviously the PM advises the Monarch to call an election to be held on such-and-such a date, but is this done on his own accord (maybe after getting agreement from other members of the government), or has it typically required an act of Parliament? Also, since government decisions routinely get passed by Commons, how is the two-thirds mandate of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 enforced? Couldn't a bare majority of MPs just pass an amendatory act, i.e. "Notwithstanding the provisions of an Act to make provision about the dissolution of Parliament and the determination of polling days for parliamentary general elections; and for connected purposes, an election of members of the House of Commons shall be held on date X"? It's not as if there's a written constitution by which Parliament must act; they have parliamentary sovereignty, after all. Or would this be seen as a violation of some convention and thus be likely to attract public unhappiness toward the party in power?
2. Under the 2011 act, what prevents an election from being called early? Obviously you can't exactly bind the Monarch, but that hardly matters since she doesn't go out and use her reserve powers because she feels like it. But the act doesn't outright prohibit the PM from advising the Monarch to call an early election.

Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Historically no act has been needed to dissolve Parliament, the PM advises the monarch to do so, and subject to the Lascelles Principles the monarch follows that advice. See Dissolution of the Parliament of the United_Kingdom

No, a simple majority of MPs is not enough to amend an Act of Parliament, it must pass through a series of stages in both Houses. See Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom#Stages of a bill.

The Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom is limited by Statute Law and by a number of legal decisions. DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The 2011 Act itself prevents dissolution except as provided for in the Act. The Crown no longer has the power to dissolve Parliament except under the terms of the Act. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And as for "Obviously you can't exactly bind the Monarch" please read Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights 1688. DuncanHill (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't clearly express my intentions. Can't Parliament amend the 2011 act as they would amend other acts, e.g. the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 or the Public Bodies Act 2011? I don't see why they couldn't just get pass an ordinary-type act getting rid of the two-thirds requirement and then immediately pass another ordinary act calling for an election on such-and-such a date. And the law really prohibits the Monarch from doing something? I was unaware that the Monarch, so rigidly bound as she is by custom and popular opinion (imagine the reaction if she tried to rule by decree...), was legally bound by anything. [after edit conflict and reading Bill of Rights 1689 article] I had been unaware of the nature of the Bill of Rights; I figured that it was a statement of "it's wrong for the law to do X, Y, and Z", i.e. a commitment that Parliament wouldn't agree to enact laws doing those things, backed (not in text by in practice) with the memory that Parliament had gotten rid of two of the last three kings because they actively disagreed. Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Parliament could amend the 2011 Act, it would do so by passing an Act to amend it, following the procedures in the article I linked above. This would take considerably longer than simply passing a motion for an early election under the terms of the Act. DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, understood. I was imagining a situation in which the opposition opposed a new election and was strong enough to prevent a two-thirds vote in favor of the yes-have-an-election resolution (but, since they're the opposition, they couldn't prevent the passage of a bill requiring a simple majority), and in which at least a majority of Lords agreed with the government's plan, so passage of an act was the only possible route. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

PS, on the "majority of MPs", the member of parliament article informs me that this term is restricted to members of the lower house. I had mistakenly believed that the Lords also count as MPs, since the house of which they're members is part of Parliament. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, if the motion under the 2011 Act failed, the government could then seek to amend or repeal the Act, this would take time and given the government's slim majority could be difficult. The Parliament Acts significantly limit the power of the House of Lords to block legislation, but they can delay it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The UK Parliament is constrained solely by prudence. Parliamentary sovereignty is the important principle, sometimes derisively called Elective dictatorship, which is the notion that Parliament is constrained by nothing except its own sense of doing the right thing. If they wanted, they could pass any legislation to do anything, including abolishing elections altogether. They don't, because that would be fantastically stupid, but they could and nothing is constraining them except their sense of not doing fantastically stupid things. --Jayron32 23:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The Lords would still, I think, have a veto over a decision to postpone (as was done during the two world wars) an election or do away with them altogether. It's one of the exceptions under the Parliament Act. There was some discussion about the limits of Parliamentary Sovereignty in R (Jackson) v AG just over a decade ago: some of the Law Lords (as they were then still called) opined that the Lords would still have a veto over any further reduction in their powers or over their abolition (presumably they would have to be threatened into voting their own powers away, as in 1911). Some of them even started making sniffing noises about how they might regard certain kinds of Act as unconstitutional, although we haven't quite had a Marbury v. Madison moment yet. And as a matter of practicality, planning to extend its own life indefinitely was one of the reasons Cromwell threw out the Rump ... Paulturtle (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but Parliament is the Cromwell now. A lot has changed, constitutionally speaking, in 450 years. --Jayron32 01:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how passage of an act could ever be the only possible route, except perhaps with a very, very slim majority (far less than 2/3). If there is a majority ruling party or coalition, they could simply advise their MPs to vote no confidence in their own government and against any confidence motions (such as with a new government). Even if the opposition votes in opposition to the no confidence motion, and in support of any future confidence motions, provided the majority MPs agree to follow this track, a new election will be appointed (I'm not sure whether this will be after the 14 days or what). Whether it would be better for a government to do this, or to amend the fixed term act, in terms of what the voting public will think, I make no comment. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually, this is exactly what German chancellors (Kohl 1982, Schröder 2005) have been doing when they wanted snap elections, since the Bundestag is not allowed to dissolve itself by any majority. But both cases have been considered constitutionally dubious (since they pervert the rationale of a vote of no confidence), and might thus have been stopped by the Constitutional Court - could this also be a problem in the UK?--Roentgenium111 (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A "sham" No Confidence vote like that would be another way of doing it. (Contrary to popular myth, there is no requirement for a government to resign because it does not have the confidence of the House of Commons. A government could not function for long without a majority, because since 1688 the Crown cannot legislate, or raise taxes, or keep a standing army, without going through Parliament - but it is merely convention that a Prime Minister who has just lost an election spares the Monarch embarrassment by resigning.) By and large, our courts have declined to get involved in passing judgement on what goes on in Parliament, provided the correct procedures (which are themselves set by Parliament) have been followed. I wouldn't put it past them to make rumbling noises in the future.Paulturtle (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A no confidence vote does force a general election under the 2011 Act, the wording is quite clear. I find it hard to see any circumstances in which a British government would want to arrange a sham no confidence vote it would go down like the proverbial lead balloon with he electorate. "Vote for us - we have no confidence in ourselves" is perhaps not the most inspiring of slogans. DuncanHill (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It would indeed force an election provided there isn't a "yes" confidence vote or whatever the term is within the time window; Parliament cannot dismiss the government so it effectively dismisses itself in the hope that the government's position would become untenable if it tries to cling on after the election (under the Lascelles Principles the Queen - or rather the Cabinet Secretary, the Head of the Civil Service and the Queen's Private Secretary, clearing their throats in unison in her name - would have refused a second election to a PM who had just lost one and had failed to cobble a coalition together). The possibility of a sham no confidence vote has certainly been canvassed. I suppose it would depend on the circumstances - a new Prime Minister who wants a mandate of his or her own might be seen to be acting perfectly reasonably if the Opposition refuse to play ball.Paulturtle (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Project management office

Do PMO managers generally have less responsibility than actual delivery project managers? Moved recently to learn more about governance etc but feels like it's less responsibility as you don't actually deliver projects and seems more like a business support function. Is this across the board? 2A02:C7D:B8FC:9000:FD0B:BE2A:4210:79F2 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You're asking a lot of VERY specific questions to a VERY general audience here. You've been doing this for weeks on subtle variations of this exact topic, and you're unlikely to get really high-quality advice specific to your needs here, BECAUSE they are so specific. What you really need to do is talk to someone doing the actual job you seek, or get career advice from a career counselor or something like that. Many universities and community colleges offer training programs in project management, if you seek to speak with someone in those programs they can give you advice. You can also perhaps get involved in job shadowing or internship to try out the job and learn what people who do that job actually do. --Jayron32 19:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

But I'm not asking for advice. I'm asking for reference and facts. 2A02:C7D:B8FC:9000:FD0B:BE2A:4210:79F2 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Also career counsellors are useless. They tell you what you already know and just regurgitate what you tell them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B8FC:9000:FD0B:BE2A:4210:79F2 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There aren't references and facts to be given to you. "Generally less responsibility", to take just one turn of phrase you used, that we're going to be able to help you with. We could probably give you salary figures, employment numbers, etc. But every one of your questions is centered around the theme "I have an engineering background, but I'm not sure I want to do what an engineer does. There are other jobs that seem related to Engineering. What are they like". If you want to know what they are like ask a person who does that job. Don't ask Randos on the internet to help you out. You're going to get low quality advice. And if you find career counsellors useless, you know who isn't useless: someone doing the job you're asking about. I'm useless, everyone else here is useless. The people doing the actual job, or perhaps the people who train others to do the job, are eminently useful for you. Find one of them and ask them. They'll tell you. We can't. We're useless. --Jayron32 19:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a strange kind of self-admonitory tone in this post, Jayron. I don't think we should be telling questioners that "we're useless". Clearly, what you mean is that we're "useless" at answering this question, but that's not the way I'd go about responding to the OP. You've made the correct point, that this board is not the right place to ask this question. I'd leave it at that, if I were you. --Viennese Waltz 12:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The OP stated that career counselors were useless for the kind of advice he was seeking. Are you claiming that this board is likely to be more useful? I'm not sure that it is, but if you have better references to provide him that will lead to him not needing to ask the same question over and over, feel free. I still think that the most useful place for him to seek his information is from people actually doing the actual job itself. If you have more useful options, feel free to add them. --Jayron32 13:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not claiming that at all. I'm simply saying that "we're useless" is not an appropriate choice of words. --Viennese Waltz 13:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Really. How much have we done in this current conversation to improve the OPs chances of finding the information they seek? This conversation you and I are having seems pretty useless. Maybe worthless, valueless, of no purpose, if you want a different word we can find a thesaurus. But whatever synonym you want to use for "provides no value for the OP", this conversation we're having now has that in spades. --Jayron32 17:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That is your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.153.130 (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You that you disagree that someone doing the job he's seeking would NOT have any useful information? How so? --Jayron32 12:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Who or what USA thing is closest to UK political parties and recent party leaders?

The US political spectrum's shifted right of the UK's so you can't just say David Cameron's like Bush or Liberal Democrat voters are like USians who chose Trump or Hillary at the last minute. I realize Britain's less religious and maybe less concerned with social conservatism (?) so maybe the economic and social political spectrums are in different locations relative to each other? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you have answered your own question. The issues that divide people in each country, and the political spectrums that result, simply don't line up neatly enough to say "X in the U.S. is the equivalent of Y in the U.K." Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So is it wrong to say things like UKIP is like Trump except XYZ, Corbyn is closest to Jill Stein (or whoever) socially and Bernie Sanders (or whoever) economically, so and so is like a moderate Republican except more into XYZ? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "wrong" (there are parallels on a few issues)... but not "right" either. The XYZs where things are different are greater than the ABCs where things are similar. Blueboar (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The differences are great enough that I would be content to say "wrong". -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Galleria dei Prigioni

The Awakening Slave sculpture by Michelangelo in Galleria dell'Accademia in Florence. Note metal pins on side.

In some of the “Galleria dei Prigioni” sculptures at the Accademia Gallery in Florence one can see traces (side measuring ca. 2–2.5 cm) of metal (iron?) pins. What was (is?) the function of these pins? Were these pins part of the original sculpture or added later? Etan J. Tal^(talk) 21:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It would help to have pics. One possibility is that these were added later to prevent the sculptures from collapsing (however, note that early attempts at conservation often did more harm than good). StuRat (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the pic. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Iron pins, sometimes set in lead, are used to restore broken statues per [2]. The pins in the Bearded Slave (one in this series, though not the one you pictured) repair a hip fracture, according to our article. I haven't found a specific discussion of the pins in the Awakening Slave but it is possible the reason is the same. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the fine explanation. These pins seem indeed to be the same by appearance, but alas, most if not all are positioned along the chiseled OUTER surface of the sculpture, and not IN the sculpture itself. So, they actually could not connect anything done by Michelangelo himself, isn't it so? Perhaps these were added later? Why? Etan J. Tal^(talk) 18:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Can having one or two children in marriage fix poverty?

One child must be a son, and the other a daughter. Another family has one daughter and one son. The children of the two families merge, and the population stays the same. A different scenario involves each family is obligated to have no more than one child. Surely, the population of society will decrease, but won't the families merge, become smaller, and richer? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You must be referring to the old adage that "2 people can live as cheaply as one", extending it to 2 families. This isn't really the case:

1) Food requirements remain the same. There may be some discount by buying in larger quantities, but not much.

2) Living space requirements depend on how closely they can live. If a couple is married, they may share a room, but it probably needs to be larger than the rooms each needed alone, to hold clothes for two, a bed large enough for two, etc.

3) They probably still need as many cars, unless you implement some complex family carpooling plan.

4) They still need their own clothes. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm no economist, but assuming the families have net wealth, it stands to reason that fewer descendants will likely inherit more (other than the offspring of the Bill Gateses of the world). That's sort of what will happen when the baby boomers have boomed their last. ("Wall Street Has Its Eyes on Millennials' $30 Trillion Inheritance".) Of course, in a society where the average individual's net worth rises, the definition of "poverty" may also change. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, with fewer people, you have the issue of productivity: if the younger generations must support the elder (obviously true of society at large, maybe or maybe not true of an individual family), each generation will have fewer people paying all the bills, i.e. each person has a greater percentage of the collective responsibility, so Surely, the population of society will decrease, but won't the families merge, become smaller, and richer won't apply in the long run, unless additional wealth comes in via the productivity of additional people (adoption, immigration, etc.), via importation of wealth, or via increases in the productivity of the average person. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

So much of this is "it depends". What country do you have in mind? China has grappled with the so-called Little Emperor Syndrome, as a result of two generations of the one-child policy. This has resulted in the "six-pocket child": all the resources and hopes for the future of two parents and four grandparents concentrated on one person. Or take India, for example, where marriage payments (both dowry and bride price) are still widespread. Leaving aside the issue of cousin marriage, which clearly has economic aspects (keeping property within an extended family), a situation in which a man from family A marries a woman from family B, and his sister marries her brother, such as the OP describes above, also creates strong bonds and the potential for significant savings. Or Somalia, a country used to living with poverty and conflict: I heard a great proverb today, in translation - "Those who want to be together are able to share one big mat together, no matter how many they are; but those who don't want to be together and don't want to share together, no house of ten rooms can ever fit them." ("Adventures in Social Mobility") Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Related is the demographic economic paradox; the advantage to large families vs. small families differs depending on the local economics. As Carbon Caryatid notes it depends. There is no universal "it is always better..." here. It depends on where along the Demographic transition model a country is. What is bets in Germany is not necessarily what is best in Zambia, which is not what is best in Thailand. --Jayron32 13:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

And I've just remembered the phrase popularised by the data visionary Hans Rosling, which I believe he credits to an unnamed student: in the "developed world", people live long lives in small families, whereas in the "developing world", people have short lives in large families. He then proceeds to demolish the stereotypes that underpin these out-dated assumptions. I highly recommend "The best stats you've ever seen". Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

WWII Eastern Front

I am reading/have read several books dealing with the interplay of ideology, war, atrocity, and counterinsurgency on the Eastern Front in WWII: Ben Shepherd's "Terror in the Balkans," Omer Bartov's "Hitler's Army," Alexander Rossino's "Hitler Strikes Poland," and Geoffrey Megargee's "War of Annihilation." Are there any similar books that are worth looking at? Thanks very much, GAB^gab 23:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Eastern Front (World War II)#Further reading may be a good place to start looking for ideas. --Jayron32 23:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: On counter-insurgency (or, more specifically Bandenbekampfung, as was the name of the German WWII rear security doctrine), please see:

• Hitler’s Bandit Hunters: The SS and the Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood.

It's a grim and sometimes difficult read, but is quite enlightening. For a more general discussion on the interplay of ideology, war and autrocity, see The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality by Wolfram Wette. Specifically on the Wehrmacht's participation in the Holocaust in Belarus under the guise of "anti-partisan" warfare, this would be an excellent choice: Marching into Darkness: The Wehrmacht and the Holocaust in Belarus by Waitman Wade Beorn. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks - I'll get cracking on these . GAB^gab 20:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

April 19

Sodaless Sunday

Can someone help me identify the newspaper mentioned here and pictured here File:Sanford B. Dole holding newspaper.jpg?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR: I did some searching through Newspapers.com. The site requires a subscription to search, but you can get a free 7-day trial. What I found:

• The "Two Killed, Thirteen Hurt" story is from May 2, 1902. The incident was in Clyde, though the story is reported from Syracuse, NY. I found a story on it on the front page of the May 3 edition of the Philadelhpia Inquirer (see middle bottom). This isn't the newspaper you're looking for, but maybe more details about that story will help.
• I found a half match that might be what you're looking for: the front page of the May 3, 1902 edition of The Boston Post (see clipping here). At the bottom left, you can see an identical Sodaless Sundays story - same text, formatting, etc. The problem is that the "Two Killed, Thirteen Hurt" story does not appear below it. I don't know much about newspapers, but I wonder if there were two editions of that day's paper. Seems plausible.

Hope that helps! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Both those stories appear to be national stories from a news service. (The "Two Killed..." story appears on the Boston paper as well, just placed differently.)

This makes sense, since in 1902, Dole was still serving in Hawaii, and so would probably not be reading about local Boston news. Now that User:SuperHamster has nailed down the time frame. (First week of May 1902) I recommend checking either local Hawaiian papers, or national papers around those dates. (Perhaps look a little later for the Hawaiian paper, I'm not sure how quick news would have arrived out there.) ApLundell (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Dole and the white elites in Honolulu read newspapers from across the world and the US since it was a port town also he was educated and had family in the northeast as well. So I wouldn't be surprise if this was a New England paper.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It's curious: the two Sodaless Sundays stories appear to be identically formatted, as Hamster says, except that the Boston Post one clearly has a vertical hairline between the two columns, while zooming in on the Sanford B. Dole photo seems to show that there's no hairline. Still, the image is not perfectly sharp at that level of detail, so maybe the hairline is there but not visible, even though I think the image it looks sharp enough that that shouldn't happen. Anyway, since the headline says "tomorrow" it has to have come from a Saturday paper, and if the formatting is the same, you would think it has to be either another edition of that day's Post or an affiliated paper produced at the same printing plant. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

What Lundell says above (but posted after my item) makes sense. But were news stories in 1902 distributed nationally in a way that included typesetting information, so that the same story might appear formatted identically in unconnected papers? --76.71.6.254 (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Image plates were shared. There is no reason that an article plate couldn't be shared. It would depend on the article. If it was breaking news, it would be sent by wire and typeset in office. It was a filler article, it could be sent by mail as a plate. The problem would be that the text couldn't be altered. So, while I don't see a reason it couldn't be done, I don't see much incentive to do it. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Israel and the Iraq war

Did Israel ever try to pressure the United States into fighting the Iraq war(the war which took place from 2003 onwards)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.233.120.59 (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Israel was more preoccupied with Iran by that time. I'm sure there were some individuals in Israel who weren't sad to see Saddam get his comeuppance, but the war as a whole ended up strengthening Iran... AnonMoos (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

While many influential Israelis and their supporters backed sanctions and war on Iraq, they have long since denied backing the war and vilify those who say that Israel/AIPAC did lobby in support of the war as antisemites. While some congress members, AIPAC leaders, and journalists have stated that AIPAC lobbied congress to go to war, others seem to argue that the lobbying was being done by private people who coincidentally work for AIPAC/Israel. 2001:1970:5DE1:6A00:11AF:371E:C8DD:94FA (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Any who did lobby for it were pretty stupid, since Iran was far more of a threat than Saddam at that point, and it was fairly predictable that the war would end up strengthening Iran's relative position. AnonMoos (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Most would say it was stupid as hundreds of thousands died for no greater good. The ongoing conflict which resulted from the invasion of Iraq has been a boon to nationalist Israeli as it distracts the world from the occupation of Palestine. If there was peace, stability, and wealth across the middle east more people would question why Israeli troops don't return back to Israel. 2001:1970:5DE1:6A00:11AF:371E:C8DD:94FA (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not certain why would Israel support the Iraq War. The article on the Multi-National Force – Iraq lists which countries were involved in the conflict by sending troops: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States. Israel never send anyone.

According to the article on Iraq–Israel relations:

• "In 2003, a US-UK led coalition of nations toppled Hussein's government in an effort called Operation Iraqi Freedom. Although, Israel was not included in the coalition, there were indications for its support. According to John Kerry, Netanyahu (as a private citizen) was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq. It was reported in the Washington Post that Israel is urging United States' officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein. It was also reported that Israeli intelligence provided Washington with alarming reports about Iraq's alleged program to develop weapons of mass destruction."
• "On the contrary, some have argued that Israel did not have much role in pushing for the war. According to former US undersecretary of defense Douglas Feith, Israeli officials did not push their American counterparts to initiate the war in Iraq. In an interview with Ynet, Feith stated that "what you heard from the Israelis was not any kind of advocacy of war with Iraq" and that "[w]hat you heard from Israeli officials in private discussions was that they were not really focused on Iraq... [t]hey were much more focused on Iran." " Dimadick (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Researching the military formation of a WW2 US officer when the source is wrong

According to his obituary, American historian Otto Paul Pflanze "serve[d] as 1st lieutenant in the Air Corps of the U.S. Army [from 1942] until 1946." That's obviously wrong, as the United States Army Air Corps didn't exist anymore and had turned into the United States Army Air Force by then. So it seems obvious that he has served in the United States Army Air Force, but just by conclusion this is not exactly a sourced information. How can this be definitely ensured? And what might be the reason for this error? --KnightMove (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

From the United States Army Air Corps article: "The Congress did not dis-establish the Army Air Corps as a combat arm until 26 July 1947, when the National Security Act of 1947 (61 Stat. 502) became law. Most members of the Army Air Forces also remained members of the Air Corps. In May 1945, 88 percent of officers serving in the Army Air Forces were commissioned in the Air Corps, while 82 percent of enlisted members assigned to AAF units and bases had the Air Corps as their combat arm branch." Perhaps your source is not as obviously wrong as you think. Wymspen (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Follow-up question: Pflanze joined the army but in 1942. So, were officers still commissioned in the Army Air Corps, even after the creation of the Army Air Forces? If so, until when? Maybe until the AAC "ceased to have an administrative structure after 9 March 1942"? --KnightMove (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

According to United States Air Force, the bill was signed on July 26, 1947, but the Air Force was not formally established until September 18, 1947. (Just added to clarify that this Q is between the AAC and AAF, not involving the AF.) StuRat (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"Feast of Victory Over Forces of Evil"

What was the date of this ex-Togo holiday commemorating a failed assassination attempt? I have read about it on multiple biographies of Gnassingbé Eyadéma but I can't find information online on what date this "feast" was celebrated. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like April 24, per [3]. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Why was my answer to Medeis's question deleted

My answer to what? Do you mean an answer to my question? Or a question I posted? I see @Future Perfect at Sunrise: having deleted nothing by me, only by an IP who has been blocked, and who is not me. If something I added was removed, I would expect to be notified directly or indirectly. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. It seems 92's answer to my question here on Ruthenian pseudoseder's was deleted. In any case, I see no reason why it was deemed problematic, have read it, and regret that my mother never discussed the old country with her elders, and my grandmother is deceased. This can be collapsed as a moot side matter if someone likes. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Medeis, the link is My Yiddishe Momme McCoy. 86.176.18.81 (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

'see no reason why it was deemed problematic' - Please remember WP:DENY. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:DENY is irrelevant. See Special:Diff/776653923#Did you see this? 81.147.142.113 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Mysterious Image of Lima, Peru

Hi. I'm trying to figure out as much information as possible from this image of Lima, Peru (see [4]). Can someone help me find the author, art medium (is it a watercolor or colored print?), date, and (if possible) a reliable source (maybe where an art collection where the image may be at). I've been searching around for about an hour, and have thus far only found a black-and-white print of the same image, but with the name "Une Rue de Valladolid a Lima." Please help resolve this mystery!--128.120.145.192 (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

1836 "A street of Valledolid in Lima" It was an engraving made by a crew member of the French ship La Bonite from 1836. We don't have an article on the ship, but I did find it referenced in Charles Gaudichaud-Beaupré, who was a French naturalist on board the ship. It appears the ship was part of a circumnavigation expedition, similar to the types taken by Captain Cook and Charles Darwin, to catalog and observe nature and cultures around the world. That should give you a start on researching if the exact artist can be found. --Jayron32 17:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

More: Auguste-Nicolas Vaillant was also on that expedition, and penned a work titled "Voyage autour du monde execute sur la corvette la Bonite " or "Voyage around the world aboard the Corvette La Bonite" It had 11 volumes, perhaps that is the source. --Jayron32 17:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Bam. Bichebois, Louis Philippe Alphonse created the original lithograph, it is plate 25 from Vaillant's work. --Jayron32 17:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Super! Thank you, Jayron.--128.120.145.192 (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are pricy cigars blended to remove annual variation but expensive wine isn't and has vintages?

Could an oenologist create a tastier super-wine if they blended different wineries and years together? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Supply and demand and Veblen good are places to start learning about the concepts involved in pricing things, especially luxury goods like cigars and wine. --Jayron32 17:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

So why aren't 2003 Montecristo No. 2 cigars a tastier/worse vintage and cost more/less than the poorer/tasty 2004 cigars like how it is with good wine? Where a 2002 Chateau L'Something Bordeaux can be a good year and the 2005's taste terrible because of too little rain or whatever? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the question is more about the distinction between the two luxury items, not a general question about why luxury goods are expensive. ApLundell (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Many apologies from me to the OP. I was not being helpful here. --Jayron32 15:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The answer is "because people are willing to pay that." I'm not sure why that is confusing. That's how economics works. --Jayron32 17:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC) There's an old joke about a balloonist who is blown off course. He descends to just fifty feet and asks a pedestrian where he is. The pedestrian shouts back "You're in a balloon!". It's not confusing. It's not inaccurate. It's unhelpful. This is a humanities question about the history of two industries. Replying with a basic fact about capitalism is unhelpful, however undeniably true that fact happens to be. The question is clearly asking what is different about the two products, or the history of the two markets that caused the two markets to be seemingly complete opposites of each-other. There are many questions like this. If ask how the QWERTY keyboard became standard or why cars have exactly four wheels, "Because people buy them" is correct, unconfusing, but unhelpful. ApLundell (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)0 Well, if THAT'S the case, we're left with "What is the difference between wine and cigars". You drink one. You smoke the other. I'm not sure where else to go. The OP seems to be asking us why different things are different. They are different because the sorts of things that wine drinkers look for in a product are different than what cigar smokers look for in their product. I could answer with references how the QWERTY keyboard became standard or why cars have exactly 4 wheels. The OP asked, essentially "Why does my keyboard cost one price, while my car costs a different price". How are we supposed to find references that compare keyboards to cars in terms of their price? They're different products with different markets. --Jayron32 23:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC) User:Jayron32: "You drink one. You smoke the other. I'm not sure where else to go." Really? Well, since it's apparently trivially obvious to you, perhaps you could explain to us dullards how this obvious difference has caused the effect described in the original question. Why has it become desirable for cigar vintages to be blended, while it has simultaneously become desirable for wine vintages not to be blended. (Yes, yes. Obviously, because people buy those. But why? What's the history of those market forces?) You assert here that the mechanical difference between how the two products are used ("You drink one. You smoke the other.") is the answer to the question. I'd love to see a citation for that. (If I had been forced to guess, I would have thought it had to do with how the two products were produced and/or marketed historically rather than how they're consumed. Clearly you have sources that say otherwise, and I'm excited to read them.) ApLundell (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC) You've forgotten part of the joke. The guy in the balloon says, "You must be an engineer - because what you've told me is factually correct but useless." And the guy down below says, "And you must be an executive - because you're the one that's lost, but somehow now it's my problem." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

As you may or may not know, cheaper regional wines with a brand image (for example, Mateus Rosė) sold in large quantities (so not 'fine') are routinely blended – usually by varying the proportions of wines from the various suppliers, which due to both their terroirs and weather variations over the growing season can be a little different from one another – in order to achieve a fairly consistent taste from year to year. Sherries are also blended from casks of different characters and ages for the same reason, as are Belgian Geuze lambic beers. (Lambic beers are inherently variable due to their production process.)

The production of fine wines has always been focused on the product of a single year's production from a single winery (though in practice vintage wines often employ a small degree of blending), and the resulting products are more valued than blended wines, so the attempt to blend two fine wines would not appeal to their usual connoisseurs, and would be highly speculative, in effect risking the loss of two good products with a ready-made market in order to produce what might be something inferior to both. However, I'd be surprised if no-one has ever tried this on a small, non-commercial scale. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• 90.217.249.244 covers wine well. Regarding the blending of tobaccos in cigars, this seems to be a good introduction. Here and here also seem to cover the topic well. --Jayron32 15:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about Canada's First Nations

Where Canada's First Nations people in Canada at at the same the Ancient Egyptians built the Pyramids, Sphinx and had pharaohs? 184.71.183.70 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Some people were in Canada at the time, but they may not be the same groups that are there now, as there were multiple waves of immigration from Asia. First Nations says "First Nations peoples had settled and established trade routes across what is now Canada by 1,000 BC to 500 BC.". However, the first humans in what is now Canada arrived 15,000 years ago or even earlier, according to Aboriginal_peoples_in_Canada#Paleo-Indians_period.

By comparison, Ancient Egypt is defined over the dates 3100 BC - 332 BC, so there was complete overlap of the two periods. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It is rare to find a group of people which is defined, distinct, and isolated from other groups which remain in one place and isolated for time frames that long. Human history is one of continuous migration, colonization, displacement, temporary isolation followed by periods of interbreeding, etc. In broad terms, the ancestors of the First Nations were in North America during the time period of Ancient Egypt; the last closing of the Bering strait land bridge was 11,000 years ago, or twice again as long as the earliest existance of Ancient Egypt; between 11,000 years ago and 1000 years ago there would have been no genetic exchange between the Americas and Eurasia-Africa, and the populations would have been distinct. (though there are some fringe theories of pre-Viking contacts between the hemispheres, i.e. Kon Tiki and other Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories). Saying THAT, however, is not the same as saying that the cultures we recognize from modern times among Canadian First Nations (i.e. the Cree or the Blackfoot) existed 11,000 years ago, or even 1,000 years ago. As far as we know, there was no meaningful group that we can call "Cree" from the same time as ancient Egyptian, which is fine, because there were also no French or Scottish or Spaniards from that time period either. Culture is highly connected to time and place, and making long-range comparisons between cultures separated by millenia is impossible. So, to answer the question, the answer is 1) Yes, there were humans in Canada who were the ancestors of the First Nations but 2) There were likely no recognizable cultures from specific First Nation groups who we would recognize from that time period as existing today. --Jayron32 18:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

See also the Paleo-Eskimos, who flourished from 2500-1500 BCE, according to our article. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

In general, the Eskimo-Inuit are classified differently than First Nations in Canada. See First Nations, where the first sentence makes clear it excludes the Inuit. --Jayron32 12:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, we have the emergence of distinct cultures in the area. The Woodland period covers parts of Canada and the United States, and there are indications of cultural continuity from 1000 BCE to 1000 CE. The era covers "a continuous development in stone and bone tools, leather crafting, textile manufacture, cultivation, and shelter construction. Many Woodland peoples used spears and atlatls until the end of the period, when they were replaced by bows and arrows". Dimadick (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Where can I fly in a DC-3?

I hope to fly in a DC-3 before I die, which will probably before the last DC-3 dies. But where? (Our article says "The very large number of civil and military operators of the DC-3/C-47s and related types makes a listing of all the airlines, air forces and other current operators impractical.") Hayttom (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I found Buffalo Airways. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 19:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

See http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=289959 and other posts on that site which discuss the question (just search for "DC-3" or "DC3"). Note that unfortunately for you, many of the remaining DC-3s are freighters, not passenger aircraft. And of the remaining airlines with DC-3s still in passenger service, many are in places like Venezuela and Columbia, where airworthiness inspections may leave something to be desired. EDIT: Torana is correct, Buffalo Airways are apparently the last ones with a regular scheduled DC-3 passenger service. But others may still do chartered flights and special occasional flights for aircraft buffs like you. The Buffalo Airways page has the ominous message "All Passenger service has been temporarily postponed, sorry for any inconvenience." They've had some regulatory issues. You'll need to call and see what the exact situation is. According to [5], things do not look good. Eliyohub (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Limits of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides a general immunity for a web hosting service for the actions of its users. Federal crimes and intellectual property are exceptions, but that's not my question. My question is, at what point does a user cease to be a mere "user", and become an "agent" of the service?

Take Wikipedia as a classic example. Anyone (other than banned or blocked users) can edit Wikipedia. Hence the Wikimedia foundation would enjoy the protection of the act for a regular user's actions.

But what about an admin? A bureaucrat? A steward? A member of the Arbitration committee? All of these are volunteers, appointed by the community. (Not sure about stewards? Never had to deal with them But the rest definitely are). But they carry out administrative and management tasks on the site, essentially on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. Would all of them fall under Section 230? Not fall under Section 230? Or would some of them fall under the section, and others not? What's the legal "test" here, so to speak, as to whether such individuals would be deemed "mere users of the site", as opposed to "agents of the site owner" (in Wikipedia's case, the Wikimedia Foundation), and thus the Foundation would be liable for their actions?

Note, I am not planning on suing the foundation or anyone else. Just curious how the law would treat such individuals, and others like them on myriad other sites, who "serve" in voluntary administrative roles, vis-a-vis liability of the site owner.

As the page is semi-protected as I write this (hey, we managed almost a full month without semi-protection! Yay!), if you don't have an account, do post your answer on the refdesk talk page. I still want to hear your views. Eliyohub (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The Wandering Englishman of Dettingen

What is the legend of the "Wandering Englishman" which has been handed down in Dettingen to this day? DuncanHill (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I found this, which tells of the ghost of an English soldier guarding the war chest which the French lost in the Battle of Dettingen. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 22:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Penal inequality

Is there a formal term or word (perhaps judicial) for the worldwide difference between penalties for the same crime (e.g. as envisaged by different penal codes for the same offence, from prison sentence up to capital punishment)? Brandmeister^talk 21:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sentencing disparity. --Jayron32 23:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

April 20

Why do American supermarkets have so many varieties of apples?

For some produce items, there are 2-3 varieties, and some have only one variety. Avocados are typically Hass avocados, but sometimes "Mexican avocados" may appear. But for apples, there may be a whole row of apples. Why are there so many kinds of apples in the United States, even though apples aren't even indigenous plants? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Apples certainly grow in much of the US, and that alone probably accounts for much of the diversity. That is, if importing fruit from the other side of the world, you might stick with a small number of types that travel well, while if they are grown locally, you can buy all the varieties that are for sale. Apples are also popular for different purposes, such as cooking into pies, eating directly, making into juice or cider, or even hard cider or apple jack. So, different varieties may fulfill these different purposes. A similarly diverse crop is potatoes, which also grow in much of the US, and are also available in many varieties. Same for onions. StuRat (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It's partly due to them being "extreme heterozygotes" (follow the link for more). This fellow also played a part. Apples have also long played a part in American symbolism and culture, leading to them being very popular. However, I should point out that the Americans are hardly unique in having several cultivars of apples in their stores; here in Canada, it would be a poorly stocked gorcery store that had less than 8-10 varieties - more when they're in season locally. Matt Deres (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] A relevant factor is that apples readily cross-pollinate to form new varieties and because of their genetics do not breed true when grown from seed, and a tree will be several years old before it fruits and the new variety's properties are evident, after which 'investment' there's incentive to keep it and find its best use (if found desirable, it can be propagated thereafter by grafting and/or cloning to preserve it from further cross pollination – several now-popular varieties of apple in the UK can be traced back to a single original tree). In contrast, a quicker-yielding plant not breeding true may be spotted and eliminated with much less investment of time and effort. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I think apple diversity, or broadly biodiversity, is important. It promotes resistance to disease. Be fruitful and multiply. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

While obviously more than avocados, I'm not convinced apple biodiversity is as high as you seem to think. While there are a lot of List of apple cultivars, I think you'll find a lot of the common ones are actually highly related. Actually this applies to a lot of our cultivated crops. If you really care about biodiversity, probably the most important thing is to conserve those in Kazakhstan. Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note however the hass avocado is also clonal (Vegetative reproduction), as with apple varieties, so I'm not sure how relevant this is in coming up with a reason for the difference. I believe both apples and Hass avocados often even use clonal rootstocks, see also Rootstock. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Because people buy all those different kinds of apples. If people displayed a desire to buy more than cavendish bananas or hass avocados, we'd have those varieties too. Tomatoes also come in a bewildering array of varieties as well. The market determines demand and stores stock what they know people will buy. If people didn't buy a particular variety of food, and it rotted on the shelf, it wouldn't be economically feasible for stores to carry it. This is basic market economics, stuff like supply and demand and marketing. --Jayron32 02:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Then, why do Americans prefer different varieties of apples? Why not just have different varieties of apples for biodiversity's sake but call all the varieties by the same name "apple"? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Because they have different tastes, textures, and qualities. Some are great for eating out of hand but lousy for cooking; some are great for cooking but not for baking; some are sweet, some are sour; some are bland, some are flavorful. And different people like different things. I think a Red Delicious is a completely boring apple; to others, they are the definition of apple. And why do you keep specifying "Americans"? Is there much less apple diversity in other places? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I focus on Americans, because I need to narrow down the scope arbitrarily. I find that being arbitrarily narrow in scope is better than being arbitrarily broad in scope. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried asking google? The Definitive Guide to Apples and their Uses is interesting and came up as the first result.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 03:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You should buy a few different apples and taste-test them for comparison. Variety names distinguish them. It's like asking why automobiles have brand names and model names... or any product, for that matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There are "over 2,000 varieties of apple" in the UK's National Fruit Collection. We like a choice too. Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Part of the answer seems to be that apples store well. Those multiple varieties of apples sold in the supermarket under a bewildering assortment of names and unique characteristics may have last been attached to a tree many months ago. "Here in the U.S. apples generally ripen between August and September. They pick the apples when they’re slightly unripe, treat them with a chemical called 1-methylcyclopropene, wax them, box them, stack them on pallets, and keep them in cold storage warehouses for an average of 9-12 months." Other produce items may be much more fresh. "With many items, like spinach, the leaves may have been plucked no more than a few weeks ago. But with many others, like apples, the fruit probably sat in cold storage for a year before making its way to the supermarket." It is possible to entice the customer into buying more apples by presenting a wide variety of types. It might be possible to entice the customer into buying more of other sorts of produce by presenting a wide variety of types. But other sorts of produce may not lend themselves to long term storage. This may restrict suppliers of other sorts of produce to offering the public a much more limited (if fresher) selection. I'm deriving my information only from this source, at which I read that "the average supermarket apple is 14 months old." Bus stop (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Chicken giblets

All the time, I see whole chickens without giblets. What's up with that? Is this a new trend? Where are the giblets, like the chicken gizzard and the heart? Who cuts up the meat - the butcher at the grocery store/supermarket or the slaughterhouse? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

My local supermarket (Southern California) sells flats full of nothing but hearts and gizzards. If there are too many of them to sell that way, the pet food industry buys whatever surplus chicken parts (also beef tongues and brains, etc.) are cheap enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Most meat packers have provided partially butchered chickens for as long as I can remember (which is a long damn time, certainly pre-internet), such as whole cut-up chickens and bone-in, skin-on breasts and boneless skinless breasts. This is not a new development, and in the U.S. (the OP has a U.S. based IP address) supermarkets have carried a variety of chicken products, from minimally processed whole chickens with innards inact, down to "seasoned in the bag" chicken products that can go straight to the grille/oven. That variety is not a "new trend". It's been standard since the supermarket has reached its modern form; at least since my childhood, which was decades ago. --Jayron32 13:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

True, but there has been a general trend in increasing convenience for the end consumer, which often means that the poultry is in a more advanced stage of preparedness. As a child (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth), I never saw a cooked chicken in the grocery store and my mom always got giblets when purchasing a whole bird. Now the opposite is true: at my local grocer, I'd wager that more chicken meat is available in cooked form than uncooked and poultry giblets of any kind are at least sold separately (I'm sure that's part of the calculus) and perhaps only done via special order. Matt Deres (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It depends. When I buy a whole chicken from a national distributor, its vacuum-sealed in a bag with the giblets (and often the neck) in a paper baggie shoved back in the body cavity. When I buy a whole chicken from the butcher's counter directly (like one sitting in the glass case) OR when I buy one a "store brand" vacuum-sealed whole chicken from the cooler case in the meat aisle, I get the giblets in their natural state. I've not ever bought a whole chicken (i.e. not cut up) that had no giblets that I can recall. The excess giblets you see for sale probably don't come mostly from removing them from whole chickens intended for purchase as whole chickens (which is an small portion of the chicken market) but rather from birds processed for other uses (individual portions, cooked and canned, frozen chicken pot pies, etc.) But I can't say that I've ever just bought "a chicken" (which I do often enough, probably once a month, or maybe once every other month) that didn't have the giblets included in some way. The stores near me all carry packages of giblets, some frozen, and some fresh in sealed plastic tubs like you can get oysters in.--Jayron32 17:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to verify my personal experiences with sources Here is a whole chicken from one of the largest national brands in the U.S. Here is one from the OTHER major national brands. Purdue and Tyson are the Coke and Pepsi of the chicken market. Both of those chickens are sold avec abats. here is a generic "store brand" chicken. Here is another. I'm sure you can find whole chickens without giblets, and maybe its a regional thing, but every whole chicken I buy has some form of giblets present. --Jayron32 18:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Here in the UK, I rarely buy whole chicken, but when I do, there is not a sign of giblets or necks. Would be interesting to find out if this is a National difference. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Chickens in the UK invariably had the giblets tucked inside in a plastic bag until about the early 2000s. My butcher said it was a new EU regulation. Perhaps it was, and perceived as more hygienic. Certainly I knew of cases where an inexperienced cook put the bird in to roast and melted the plastic bag inside. I bought a chicken to roast in France last week and it had a note on it specifying that there were no giblets. Not so long ago you could buy a chicken in a French market not even plucked or drawn. You could also buy a ready-roasted chicken in France in the 1960s. Itsmejudith (talk)

I suspect that your butcher was telling a pork pie: SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION 427.47 POULTRY MARKETING STANDARDS REGULATIONS (2003), Section II, Paragraph 1. "Poultry carcasses shall, in order to be marketed in accordance with this regulation, be presented for sale in one of the following forms: - partially eviscerated (‘effilé’, ‘roped’), - with giblets, - without giblets. The word 'eviscerated' may be added" (pp. 7-8).

However, it's plausible that the preparation required under modern hygiene regulations makes it not worth the hassle. Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

He wouldn't tell me a porkie, but would pass on his understanding. He has had a lot of bother getting good supplies of free range and organic poultry. At one memorable time his main supplier sold out to a supermarket and was no longer allowed to supply independent butchers. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Do UK butchers typically buy from wholesalers? I would imagine that independent butchers would buy animals from livestock farmers, since "butcher" to me means the place that does everything from killing to selling ready-to-cook foods; is there a hole in my understanding? Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Terminology varies; though in the U.S. retail butchers generally don't do the killing and initial preparation of the carcasses. The killing, skinning, basic cleaning, removal of entrails, and often initial cutting is done at an abattoir. We have an article titled meat cutter which would be called a "butcher" in many parts of the U.S. --Jayron32 01:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Average age of first funeral

Today, I heard someone speaking to a group of college students, and I was surprised to hear him describe a graveside service in really basic terms that would be necessary only if he expected his audience never to have experienced such a thing, e.g. "a tent over the grave, and people stand under or around the tent". For Americans, what's the average age upon attending a funeral for the first time? A search of Google found tons of interesting things that unfortunately failed to answer the question. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Any resource will probably have the person living close to the deceased person. Anybody who lives too far away from a deceased person is unlikely to attend a funeral. I have never attended a funeral or a wedding in my life. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

What you are describing is a burial. There may not be a burial, in the case of cremation. Or, even if their is, many people will only attend the funeral or wake, and not the burial. I've attended funerals, but never burials. StuRat (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well yes, but the graveside, if held, is an integral part of the funeral, and anyway the burial is normally done later by the excavating crew; the traditional burial service, in which earth begins to be cast upon the coffin as the service continues, is something I've never heard of in today's America. Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you certain it's an integral part? I don't know much about practices in the US, but at least here in NZ I don't think it's that uncommon that even when there is a burial/graveside, it may only be attended by close family whereas the memorial or religious service may be attended by broader family and friends. This may depend on the nature of the grave site. For example, if the memorial or religious service is held right next to the grave (e.g. a graveyard attached to the church), it would make more sense for the gravesite part to be included as part of the general service. Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

May be a regional thing. The only times in my experience where the funeral wasn't followed by a grave service was if the deceased's ashes weren't going to be buried. I even recall a few times where my family followed the funeral procession to the burial but waited in the distance during said service (usually in cases where we were friends with the family but didn't actually know the deceased). And a couple of instances in 40 °C (104 °F) summers where we decided "the hell with this, let's just go to Shoney's and call them later. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

While only a single random example, see for example [6] which mentions "followed by a private burial for family". Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm now in my mid-30s and I have never attended a burial since I was old enough to remember. I was apparently at my grandfather's funeral and burial when I was 2 or 3, but I have no recollection of that. (My parents tell me I was very excited because it was the first time I had ever seen snow.) Since then, only three family members and no close friends have died. One was cremated, so no graveside service, and the two others were impossible to attend for logistical reasons. I've been to a few wakes for family members of friends, but I didn't know the deceased well and I don't think there was any expectation of attending the actual funeral. I've probably been lucky not to have known more people who have died, but I don't think it is that unusual to live into your 20s without having attended a graveside service. Dragons flight (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've seen plenty of burials in South Carolina. Been to at least four since I was in at least middle school (one of which involved a cremation as the part of the remains we told the priest was all the remains was buried). My mother was the middle child by a stretch and was the last of her siblings to have kids, so my extended family was pretty old. I don't recall anyone casting earth on the grave, though. May be considered to grim (instead of cathartic) these days. I suspect the average age has some kind of inverse relationship with the population pyramid: the more old people you have, the lower the average age people first go to funerals. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It strikes me that there are two related lines of enquiry here, if we unpack the question.

1) What is the median age at which a citizen of country X first loses someone close to them? If you have dozens of cousins and live in a country with high infant mortality, , e.g. Afghanistan, you are statistically likely to experience a death in your family while you are still a child. If on the other hand you have no cousins (as in much of China, with the one-child policy mentioned yesterday), the first death you experience might be one of your grandparents, when you yourself are well into adulthood. If you live in the midst of fighting gangs, e.g. "New York City’s most crime-plagued neighbourhoods" [7], you might well lose friends in high school.

2) Who is expected to attend the funeral service, burial or cremation, wake, reception, memorial, etc.? Highly culturally variable. FWIW I've never seen a tent at the graveside, and I'm in England, where it does occasionally rain. Umbrellas yes, tent no. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why other countries are relevant to For Americans, what's the average age upon attending a funeral for the first time? Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I was extrapolating; apologies if I took matters off course. But I think the distinction that I was trying to make still holds. Afghanistan and China may be too much of a stretch, but given groups of American college students may be from wildly differing cultural backgrounds and home expectations (e.g. recent Central American immigrants, or rich kids from a long-established prosperous suburb). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You also need to take into account the popularity of cremation. Here in Westerm Europe, more people get cremated than buried now. Fgf10 (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you're well aware of this, but the students need not have attended a burial personally as movies and TV shows routinely show this. In my estimation, showing the burial is disproportionately common in movies as it provides an area in which to make it clear that it's raining, while TV shows might eschew the burial because it would require filming on location rather than on-set. Matt Deres (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of my own family in Greece, it typically depends on when your family thinks that you are old enough to handle the funeral service and burial. My paternal grandfather, paternal grandmother, and one paternal uncle died when I was less than 10-years-old and my family thought I was too young to attend the service. My favorite great-grandmother (who had helped raise me and who I used to see daily) died when I was 15-years-old and I was deemed old enough to attend, though I was depressed for months. (Partly because she died due to an accidental fall while walking. She never did take my advice to use a walking stick. )

I have since lost several other relatives, including quite close ones, and my family feels I am obligated to attend the funeral services. I do attend when the funeral takes place in my hometown, but mostly skip them if I have to travel to attend. Weather conditions can also disrupt funeral plans. My mother's funeral took place in winter, the graveyard had sub-zero temperatures, and the mourners were in a hurry to leave before freezing. Dimadick (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Marae Mahaiatea

Can someone help me find the 18th century book in which this this image was first published? Google image brings up many other versions but provide little information on the original image which may not have captioned it with the actual name.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Something seems wrong with the attribution on that image. The date says 1788, but it appears to be a photograph. Even worse, there's apparent motion in the photo, with no blurring. This was well beyond the rather basic photography possible then, if any. The book is dated 1904, which seems like a time when such photography was possible. StuRat (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

To StuRat: it doesn't look like a photograph to me. To the OP: why do you assume that it was first published in the 18th century? To me it looks like a drawing of what the artist reckoned the building looked like in 1788. The image could first have been published anytime, e.g. the 1904 book shown. --Viennese Waltz 07:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

1788 is in the 18th century?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Even aside from the dating issue, I don't see why we must consider it a photo; the style of the trees in the background isn't particularly different from drawings such as File:Colonel Crawford Burn Site Monument drawing.jpg. In both, all the spots in the background are scanning artifacts, for what it's worth. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks quite different to me. Also, there's often some flaw in a drawing that makes it identifiable as such. In the case of your link, it's in the text on the monument. None of it looks quite right, but at least the lower portion is curved to match the stone, while the top portion doesn't appear to be. StuRat (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking at a different scan of the same book, it is clearly a drawing not a photograph on Archive.org. DuncanHill (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

To answer the OP's query, this page has the same drawing and gives a reference to the book in which it was first published, James Wilson's A Missionary Voyage, London, 1799. --Viennese Waltz 14:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Style in the sense of having elements of being drawn, not photographed. You can tell that it's just not "right". Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Spree killers committing suicide in North America, but apparently less often elsewhere

I've noticed something about spree killers committing suicide at the "end" of their rampages; how come in North America, or at least the United States, it seems to be the norm for spree killers to kill themselves, but in Europe and many other regions, it seems to be more common for the suspect to escape? The question is not why spree killers in North America tend to kill themselves, but why this isn't the case at least in Europe. I'm asking this because in the European spree killings I've seen reported in the news, it appears that rarely does the perpetrator commit suicide (suicide bombings don't count) and instead they tend to flee the scene and escape. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there a statistically significant number of spree killings in Europe? Do you have some examples? I give you Breivik, but public killing sprees seem to be rather rare outside the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you include in your list of spree killers. At List of rampage killers it gives a list of the first 15 for various areas of the world and there were 7 suicides amongst those in Europe and 6 in America - so actually more in Europe. But that list does not include school massacres, workplace killings, hate crimes or familicides and I did not bother looking at the full lists. It does not seem to be a big difference though. Dmcq (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

One possible difference, the death penalty is still available in most US states and for Federal crimes, but not available in Europe. In a few European countries even the possibility of life imprisonment has been abolished (or become so rare as to be effectively abolished). Dragons flight (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Why do they do that? Someone could be convicted of disembowelling babies and putting it on YouTube and tell the sentencer if you release me I'll do it again and still be given less than life? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Because the focus of the criminal justice system is on rehabilitation and prevention, not on punishment and revenge. In your example, the perpetrator is obviously either lying or mentally ill, so he primarily need psychiatric attention, not jail time. There is plenty of evidence that a "more lenient" system works better - Norway has prisons that others compare to holiday clubs [8][9], but has 10 times fewer prisoners than the US (per head of population) and a recidivism rate of about 20% (compared to the US at ~75%). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Then they would very likely be found criminally insane, and life long 'treatment' (imprisonment) is still very much an option in many jurisdictions. Fgf10 (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

For example, Liam Ian Brady (UK), convicted in 1966 of killing several children in the Moors murders and still locked up today, aged 79. Alansplodge (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't his first name Ian, not Liam? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

D'oh! Alansplodge (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how that is relevant. He was in fact given a life sentence, which is allowed in the UK, so it is not particularly surprising that he is still locked up (though I think it was "life with the possibility of eventual parole"). He was subsequently judged to also be mentally ill, but he wasn't being held just for being mentally ill, but rather because he was sentenced to life. Dragons flight (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• This chart shows that, since 1982 in the U.S., there have been 634 deaths due to spree-style killings. According to Gun violence in the United States, there are an average of about 33,000 deaths due to guns in general in he U.S. per year. Thus, more people die in 1 week from gun related deaths of the "just one person getting killed in one incident" variety rather than the "crazy lunatic trying to kill as many people as possible" variety. From a public policy perspective, the issue of spree killers in ANY society (even in the United States, which as any non-American is glad to tell you, is simply terrible in so many ways) is just not a major issue from a public policy perpective that needs much resources devoted to "fixing". They can be dealt with on a sui generis basis mostly because they aren't common enough to create policy to "stop" ahead of time. --Jayron32 14:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm verging on surprised they're allowed to record how many people are killed with guns each year given that they are forbidden to record how many guns are sold. Dmcq (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"One possible difference, the death penalty is still available in most US states and for Federal crimes, but not available in Europe. In a few European countries even the possibility of life imprisonment has been abolished (or become so rare as to be effectively abolished). "

It largely depends on the country in Europe. Though political agreements and demands by the European Union have sought a continent-wide abolition of the death penalty, there have been wide variations across the continent. According to the Capital punishment by country list:

• Albania last executed someone in 1995. It abolished the penalty in 2007.
• Andorra last executed someone in 1943. It abolished the penalty in 1990.
• Armenia has never executed anyone since its independence. It abolished the penalty in 1998.
• Austria last executed someone in 1950. It abolished the penalty in 1968.
• Azerbaijan last executed someone in 1993. It abolished the penalty in 1998.
• Belarus has not abolished the death penalty, does not intend to do so, and actually has a long list of offenses that are considered worthy of death. Belarus last executed someone in 2016.
• Belgium last executed someone in 1950. It abolished the penalty in 1996.
• Bosnia and Herzegovina has never executed anyone since its independence. It abolished the penalty in 1998, though one of its subdivisions has sought an exclusion from the act.
• Bulgaria last executed someone in 1989. It abolished the penalty in 1998.
• Cyprus last executed someone in 1962. It abolished the penalty in 2002.
• Croatia has never executed anyone since its independence. It abolished the penalty in 1991.
• The Czech Republic has never executed anyone since its independence. The abolition of the penalty precedes its independence, taking place in 1990.
• Denmark last executed someone in 1950. It abolished the penalty in 1978.
• Estonia last executed someone in 1991. It abolished the penalty in 1998.
• Finland last executed someone in 1944. It abolished the penalty in 1972.
• France last executed someone in 1977. It abolished the penalty in 1981.
• Georgia last executed someone in 1995. It abolished the penalty in 2006.
• Germany has never executed anyone since reunification. West Germany abolished the penalty in 1949, and East Germany abolished it in 1987.
• Greece last executed someone in 1972. It abolished the penalty in 2004.
• Hungary last executed someone in 1988. It abolished the penalty in 1990.
• Iceland has never executed anyone since its independence. The abolition of the penalty precedes its independence, taking place in 1928.
• The Republic of Ireland last executed someone in 1954. It abolished the penalty in 1990.
• Italy last executed someone in 1947. It abolished the penalty in 1948.
• Latvia last executed someone in 1996. It abolished the penalty in 2012.
• Liechtenstein last executed someone in 1785. It abolished the penalty in 1987.
• Lithuania last executed someone in 1995. It abolished the penalty in 1998.
• Luxembourg last executed someone in 1949. It abolished the penalty in 1979.
• The Republic of Macedonia has never executed anyone since its independence. It abolished the penalty in 1991.
• Malta has never executed anyone since its independence. It abolished the penalty in 2000.
• Moldova has never executed anyone since its independence. It abolished the penalty in 2005.
• Monaco last executed someone in 1847. It abolished the penalty in 1962.
• Montenegro has never executed anyone since its independence. The abolition of the penalty precedes its independence, taking place in 1995.
• The Netherlands last executed someone in 1952. The European part of the Kingdom abolished the penalty in 1982, and the Netherlands Antilles abolished it in 2010.
• Norway last executed someone in 1948. It abolished the penalty in 1979.
• Poland last executed someone in 1988. It abolished the penalty in 1997. An attempt to re-introduce the penalty in 2004 failed.
• Portugal last executed someone in 1846. It abolished the penalty in 1976.
• Romania last executed someone in 1989. It abolished the penalty in 1990.
• Russia last executed someone in 1999. It has yet to abolish the penalty, though there is a moratorium on executions since 2009.
• San Marino last executed someone in 1468. It abolished the penalty in 1865.
• Serbia has never executed anyone since its independence. The abolition of the penalty precedes its independence, taking place in 1995.
• Slovakia has never executed anyone since its independence. The abolition of the penalty precedes its independence, taking place in 1990.
• Slovenia has never executed anyone since its independence. It abolished the penalty in 1991.
• Spain last executed someone in 1975. It abolished the penalty in 1995.
• Sweden last executed someone in 1910. It abolished the penalty in 1973.
• Switzerland last executed someone in 1944. It abolished the penalty in 1992.
• Turkey last executed someone in 1984. It abolished the penalty in 2004. Since 2016, the current President is trying to reintroduce the death penalty for political prisoners.
• Ukraine last executed someone in 1997. It abolished the penalty in 2000.
• The United Kingdom last executed someone in 1964. Its overseas territory of Bermuda last executed someone in 1977. Efforts of abolition of the penalty throughout the United Kingdom and its various dependencies started in 1965. The last of them, Jersey, abolished the penalty in 2006.
• Vatican City has never executed anyone since its independence. It abolished the penalty in 1969.

The current outliers are Belarus (which regularly executes people), Russia (which retains the right to restore the penalty at will), and Turkey (where there is an ongoing effort to restore it). Dimadick (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

True, many countries no longer have the death penalty, but there is still suicide by cop. 79.73.128.211 (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No explanation is needed if there is no such effect as talked about by the original poster. And I haven't seen any figures giving even a halfway plausible demonstration. Dmcq (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

God may forgive you, but I never can

Resolved

What was it that Elizabeth I could not forgive Catherine Howard for? DuncanHill (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing of the quote in that article. Can you link to where you read it? --Jayron32 13:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikiquote. And it's pretty famous. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've found it, it was for her failure to return Essex's ring to the queen. See Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex#The Essex ring. DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The quote from Hume: Of the treasonable attempt of the Earl of Essex, in 1601. Her affection for this gallant and unfortunate nobleman is well known; but later writers do not entirely credit the story of the rebuke given by the queen, in 1603, to the dying Countess of Nottingham, who confessed that she had not returned the ring given by Elizabeth to Essex with the intimation that if he ever forfeited her favor the sight of the ring would insure her forgiveness of him. The queen even shook the dying countess, exclaiming, “God may forgive you, but I never can. Wymspen (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, loads of people said it. It might be famous, but not because of Liz One :D — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, a Google search shows that other quotations are much later in the 18th and 19th century, when just about every educated Briton would have read The History of England (there were numerous abridged editions for school use); from which we might conclude that it is famous because Hume said that Elizabeth said it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

UK general election 1940 cancelled due to war

What legislation cancelled this election? Amisom (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It was a series of laws known as the "Prolongation of Parliament Bills", and they passed one each year to postpone the general election an additional year. Here is the 1940 version from Hansard. There are versions from other years as well. This power was granted by the Septennial Act 1716 and later amendments. That Wikipedia article lists the exact citations for the laws so issued during WWI and WWII. --Jayron32 14:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The link to Hansard does not give the text of the 1940 Act, which I have not been able to find online, but rather the debate on Second Reading. The Septennial Parliament Act did not "give the power" to extend Parliament, it set the length of a parliament to seven years, was amended in 1911 to give a length of 5 years, and the subsequent Acts prolonged the life of the parliament. DuncanHill (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Some more context at The Electoral System in Britain by R. M. Blackburn (p. 48) and Public Law by Michael Doherty (pp. 188 & 202).

For a rather critical (and some might say preposterous) American view, see America the Great by Edward Hawkins Sisson (p. 1673). Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The last general election was the United Kingdom general election, 1935 and the next was the United Kingdom general election, 1945. That Parliament lasted for 10 years. Or, according to the Duration of English, British and United Kingdom Parliaments from 1660, 9 years, 6 months, and 20 days.

Constantly postponing elections due to war conditions kept the MPs in power for too long. And by the way, they were better compensated than their predecessors. According to the article on Stanley Baldwin: "After the coronation of George VI, Baldwin announced on 27 May 1937 that he would resign the premiership the next day. His last act as Prime Minister was to raise the salaries of MPs from £400 a year to £600 and to give the Leader of the Opposition a salary. This was the first rise in MPs' wages since their introduction in 1911". Dimadick (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Neither of which did or does the Prime Minister have the power to do. The Leader of the Opposition was given a salary by the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937, I'm not sure what measure increased MPs pay. DuncanHill (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• It also looked (per Winston Churchill's biography) that they reshuffled the government in 1940, switching from a Labour-led government to a Conservative-led coalition, I guess with the same MP's as before but with the seats rearranged. I have no idea whether that made a new election seem more important, or less important. Any idea what public opinion was? I hadn't heard of that long gap between elections before. I remember Churchill describing his accession to the PM office in "The Gathering Storm" but (either forgot or wasn't reading closely) had thought it was because he had just been elected to it. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the Churchill war ministry was preceded by the Chamberlain war ministry, which was Conservative dominated and had only a very few National Labour members, and no Labour Party members at all. DuncanHill (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

9-day-old pease porridge

Did people really eat 9-day-old pease porridge? I get why some people like hot pease porridge and cold pease porridge, but why would anyone eat pease porridge that is 9 days old? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Most people did. See Perpetual stew, a common cooking technique for many thousands of years. --Jayron32 18:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Huh. It's weird that I once thought about eating soup every day, because the soup pot would constantly replenish with whatever's in stock. I think that's a very efficient method to feed people. Because of the high efficiency, that's probably how soup kitchen gets its name. But modern pictures of soup kitchens seem to serve more solid food than wet food. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some theories are: "Pease pudding is a hot dish made from dried peas - it can be re-heated as often as required (Pease pudding in the pot - nine days old)". [10]

Or a bit less plausibly: "One theory is that the rhyme is a doggerel... disparaging the pretensions of Lady Jane Grey, the “Nine Days Queen”, indicating that she was less than royal–pease pottage being a staple of lower class commoners". [11]

Note that the terms "pease pottage" or "pease porridge" is called "pease pudding" today, an unpleasant yellow sludge made from dried peas (75 p per can from Tesco).

My own view is that folk used to be much less wary of keeping food than we are in the hygiene-obsesed 21st century. My father, brought up in the 1920s recession, recalled that his mother would go to the butcher's just before closing time on Saturday to buy a discounted joint of beef or mutton for Sunday lunch. What wasn't eaten would be cold meat on Monday, meat pie on Tuesday, shepherd's pie on Wednesday, stew, soup and so on, until it was Saturday again. All this was without refrigeration. So if a family could eat 7 day-old meat in the 1920s, they could probably put up with 9 day-old peas in the 18th century if they were hungry enough. Alansplodge (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• PLEASE NOTE: I should add to my anecdote above that I asked my father if he had ever got food poisoning from eating week-old meat and he said that they often had "bilious attacks" which were commonplace in children at that time, so DON'T TRY THAT AT HOME. Alansplodge (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Pease porridge is reputed to be of infinite deliciousness. Remember Esau? He sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Wiktionary explains more. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Pottage is an umbrella term for something stewed in a pot. I doubt that Esau's was made from peas, but the Bible is silent on the issue. Alansplodge (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Related question

If a meat stew is rotten, and I mean left out for days and obviously dangerous to eat, would boiling it for a while make it safe to eat (although obviously bad-tasting)? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"Many forms of bacteria, such as Clostridium perfringens and Clostridium botulinum, produce heat-resistant spores as they multiply. Cooking meat doesn't destroy these spores, even if you boil the food". Can I Get Sick From Eating Bad Meat Even After Cooking It?. Alansplodge (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alansplodge. Of course, I wouldn't. However, I can't imagine spores surviving a long, say, two-hour boil. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not really my field and I can't find a reference at the moment, but I understand that it's not just ingesting the live bacteria which is harmful, but also the toxins that they have produced, which can't be destroyed by cooking. Perhaps somebody more knowledgable can help please? Alansplodge (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

For C. botulinum spores versus botulinum toxin, I think it's actually reversed from that. Our botulinum toxin article has it that [t]he botulinum toxin is denatured and thus deactivated at temperatures greater than 80 °C (176 °F). But the actual spores cannot be destroyed even at the temperature of boiling water (100 °C, 212 °F). That's why canning for low-acid foods (for example, meats) requires a pressure cooker; you just can't get it hot enough in a boiling-water bath. Canning pickles (with enough vinegar) or sufficiently acid fruit (the usual recommendation is anything below pH 4.6; remember that lower pH means more acid) doesn't need a pressure cooker because C. botulinum usually can't grow in that much acid, so your main concern is just to kill molds and bacteria that would cause it to spoil, and boiling water is hot enough for that.

So boiling your stew for a while might destroy any botulism toxin that had formed (even if not the spores), and that's the scariest thing. But I don't guarantee it, of course. --Trovatore (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• (Mostly) fear mongering. Here is a short summary from the USDA: Clostridium botulinum.--TMCk (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• There are two broad types of bacterial toxins, exotoxins (such as the botulinum toxin mentioned above) and endotoxins. Exotoxins are relatively easy to denature with heat treatment. But according to the endotoxin article, it can take temperatures greater than 300C to denature endotoxins (the article also says 250C is sufficient.) According to Depyrogenation#Inactivation.2Fdestruction, "Due to the high temperature levels, this method is also not suitable when purifying proteins.", which may affect the nutritional content of the food, even if such high temperatures could be achieved. If memory serves correctly, salmonella contains endotoxins, and endotoxins are not usually not as toxic as exotoxins, but it's been a few decades since microbiology class.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Another related question

I may have asked this sometime before. My memory is dreadful.

After a tsunami or hurricane, and all water is dangerous unless boiled, people drink it anyway and get sick. Why don't they boil it in an old pot using all that debris lying around as firewood? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I think firewood must be dry. If it has moisture, then it's not a good firewood. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. We have plenty of typhoons here in Haikou. Within 24 hours of it ending, dry fuel is everywhere. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Tools to start fires may not be readily available after a tsunami/hurricane in the numbers necessary. Starting a fire without tools isn't as easy as it sounds - the well known friction methods are difficult to achieve with humid wood (it'll still be less dry than necessary, especially with the high humidity in tropical areas). Alcherin (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Alcherin. Disposable lighters are totally ubiquitous. In third world countries, there is usually a man with a pack of cigarettes and a lighter within five feet. The typhoon ends. The sun comes out. A day later, dry debris is everywhere and men are all sitting around smoking cigarettes. I've been watching that same thing for a decade. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, you asked this in October 2016: Cholera in Haiti. The main answer seems to have been a lack of education. Alansplodge (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. Thanks, Alan. I told you my memory was dreadful. How do I know when the beans are cooked? The house is on fire. :) Dear, oh dear. What happens to one's memory? There's a lovely poem about memory written by...um...it's titled....errr....it goes....hmmmmmm...it was good, though. Spot on. I remember it was spot on. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, water that doesn't contain large amounts of debris is difficult to find in the wake of a disaster. People also simply don't remember to boil water, or aren't educated well enough about the dangers of unboiled water. This news article notes that people weren't following (made aware of?) official advice to boil water. Alcherin (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If it were me, I would filter it through a shirt and boil it. But, you're right about people not knowing. Poor Philippines. Many, many typhoons that hit Vietnam, China, and Japan, first hit the Philippines. It is an inconveniently located place when it comes to weather --much like Poland is when it comes to war. Aside, a doctor friend here says that more than half the people in Haikou believe that flu (or that sort of thing) is caused by food, fans, weather, etc., and not by person-to-person. And, from personal experience, they cannot be convinced of the truth. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

... so why mention it at all? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd argue that the Rhineland and Germany in general has had it much worse over the millenia than Poland, but that's a discussion for another time and place. Alcherin (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

As for wet firewood, if the typhoon hits during the monsoon season, it may be months before everything dries out. StuRat (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear arms race

Why during the nuclear arms race the US and USSR wanted to have more missiles than the other's side, when just several tens of such missiles (around 50-100) would be enough to obliterate all major cities and incapacitate the country? Particularly, the article states that the mutual assured destruction was reached already by the 1950s. So why still bother to have more nuclear ICBMs beyond that point? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Overkill and a margin of error. What if your amount of missiles that would guarantee destruction if launched were all taken out before launch. Better too many than too few. Really, this is very simple game theory. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A little on this at Overkill (term)#Nuclear weapons. -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There's probably an element of pissing contest to this as well "any contest which is futile or purposeless especially ones pursued in a conspicuously aggressive manner" In my town we also called this a "dick measuring contest". --Jayron32 13:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There was also an American General ( maybe Curtis LeMay) who said something to the effect of "If there's two Americans left and one Russky, we win!" That's probably a terrible paraphrase, but maybe it can spark memory of who said it. There was a ref desk question about it a few weeks back. --Jayron32 13:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The Lobbyists representing the Military–industrial complex undoubtedly had an influence as well. (In fact, as per that article, the Cold War was the time period where the phrase "Military-industrial complex" entered the lexicon.) Some people made a fortune on the production of these weapons. It stands to reason they would encourage their senator to keep authorizing more. ApLundell (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

How did apprenticeships work?

I think in the novel and film version of Great Expectations, Miss Havisham gave Pip some money to become an apprentice to Pip's brother-in-law, Joe Gargery. Now, I'm wondering how apprenticeships worked. If a skilled laborer, like a cobbler or tailor, has a child, then can't he just get his own children as apprentices? Or maybe the money is used to bribe the skilled person to teach another family's child how to make stuff? Can the skilled person refuse if he already has a child and intends that his child will succeed him in the trade? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

See Apprenticeship in England for the details. The parent paid a hefty premium in exchange for an indenture or contract that the child would be taught his trade for a specified number of years, usually seven, and the apprentice only had to be paid a wage in the last couple of years, if at all. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

What happens if the parent and skilled craftsman are the same person? Does the parent just pay to himself as he teaches his child the trade, or does he expect that his child will learn the trade and pay back to old papa when he takes over the business? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there would have been the need for an indenture in that case, but it would be useful if your children were grown up or dead or if you didn't have any. Alansplodge (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It depends on relative ages too. A master craftsman might raise their own children and have them as apprentices, but there would be years both before and after this when their own children weren't of apprenticeable age. Many trades relied on apprentices as basic labourers and so a workshop always needed one or two around, it wasn't simply an optional addition to the core business. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Historically, the apprentice paid a fee to be accepted by a master craftsmen into the apprenticeship. In return, the master taught him the trade, and was responsible for room, board, and general oversight and support - in essence, the apprentice was temporarily adopted into his family. This used to be a very formal process, with clearly described rights and duties for both parties. After the apprenticeship had been successfully concluded (which typically took 5-7 years), the former apprentice became a journeyman, and could eventually apply to the proper guild to become a master craftsman and set up his own workshop. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if the master had children, they might not be capable of learning the trade. Girls would not have been allowed in many trades, and a boy with a slight build probably wouldn't make a good blacksmith, etc. StuRat (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Girls weren't excluded from many trades, but did find it difficult (if not impossible) to gain apprenticeships. One way in which women did enter male-dominated trades was by being apprenticed to their fathers, although this was rare too. They also faced difficulties for being recognised as a master, thus able to set up their own business later. One way in which they could might be to move to an area outside the influence of their own misogynist guilds and somewhere recognising women as masters of workshops. This effect led to a number of trades spreading (particularly in the 17th century) from Eastern and Central Europe, where guilds opposed this, to the Netherlands, France and Britain where it was much less of a barrier. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating - any references for the relative willingness of British guilds to allow women as members? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

See Hester Bateman and its see also section for women in the British silversmithing industry, though I am not sure if it falls in the time period you are looking for (which time period are you looking at?) 174.88.10.107 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Being apprenticed to the wrong trade (video) had comic consequences for Frederic. Blooteuth (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

In some cases, the master-apprentice relationship did not work out. Andrew Johnson was placed as an apprentice to tailor James Selby when 10-years-old. He was legally bound to serve until becoming 21-years-old. Johnson did not like the working conditions and run away when 15-years-old. Selby placed a 10 dollar reward for the arrest and return of the runaway. Johnson had to flee North Carolina, lived briefly in South Carolina, and then fled further to Tennessee. Anything to escape apprehension by reward-seekers. Dimadick (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

April 21

Steganography in books

Are there any well-known examples of steganography in books such as novels, biographies, textbooks, etc? I'm wondering if an author has ever concealed a message to someone (a lover, say, or a publisher) using a method such as taking the first letter of each chapter or paragraph, or some similar steganographic technique. Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz 07:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably not what you're after, but I found Stenographer's Hands by David H. Keller (1928) about a bizarre eugenics programme to breed perfect stenographers, which goes badly wrong 200 years down the line (warning - the last page of the story is missing from the Google Books preview dammit!). Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Possibly a trivial example, but the poem at the end of Through the Looking Glass has Alice's full name as an acrostic. See Alice_Liddell#Comparison with fictional Alice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

An example of digital steganography i.e. concealment of a text message in a data file, is found in the "Genesis" or first block of the Bitcoin blockchain. The block's Coinbase entry contains the dated title of a newspaper article, proving that no bitcoins existed before that date. The author's Satoshi Nakamoto identity is uncertain. Blooteuth (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The children's book Chasing Vermeer#Code has a cleverly hidden message in the illustrations, but it's perhaps not what you're looking for, as I believe the code is at least partially explained in the book, and so not truly hidden. ApLundell (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

A._N._Wilson#Betjeman_letter_hoax is an interesting example. He was tricked into including in the first edition of his book, a forged letter including the acrostic "A N Wilson is a shit".[12]. Later editions removed the letter and supposedly had an intentional secret message but it's never been spotted. ApLundell (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The Book of Cerne has an acrostic poem on folio 21r spelling out the name of Bishop Æthelwold of Lichfield.

Apparently, the original publication of Boris Pasternak's epic poem Lieutenant Schmidt contained an acrostic dedication to Marina Tsvetaeva because the author didn't wish to risk dedicating "his famous revolutionary poem to an émigré poet openly". That part was removed in later editions. (Simon Karlinsky, Marina Cvetaeva: Her Life and Art, University of California Press, 1966)

(Finally, James May's dismissal from Autocar came to mind too). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC))

• Roger Bacon coded the recipe for black powder as a cryptogram. See [13]. --Jayron32 16:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Does Masquerade (book) fit the bill? One of the clue-illustrations included numbers; these turned out to refer to certain elements, which spelled out a word that led towards finding the golden hare. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Gödel, Escher, Bach Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Vladimir Nabokov's short story "The Vane Sisters" has an acrostic in the final paragraph, as described in our article. Deor (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• In Artemis Fowl: The Eternity Code, a code is hidden in the way the book is bound. not steganography, but more than just a code. -Arch dude (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
• There's a venerable fringey industry surrounding the Shakespeare authorship question which identifies many purported secret messages in Shakespeare's works, identifying the works' real author as (take your pick) Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, or a cast of thousands dozens of others. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• For a case of people seeing hidden messages where arguably none exist, some devout believers think the Hebrew Bible has numerous Bible codes. Dragons flight (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources concerning Abraham Salamé

I would like to write an article about the interesting life of Abraham Salamé, a Syrian Christian, eye witness of the Bombardment of Algiers (1816) and of the massacre of Mamluks in 1811 by Muhammad Ali of Egypt. There is some short autobiography written in his book A narrative of the expedition to Algiers in the year 1816 (introduction) but am not able to find any contemporary source about him. --Lucius Castus (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Social class in the Far East vs Europe

I was reading peasant and noticed that Europeans (probably English-speaking Europeans) called the Chinese farmers "peasants", even though that's inaccurate. So, if they are not peasants, then what are they? In China before the Communist revolution, the society was based on the Confucian model. Scholar-bureaucrats were at the top and hired farmers to manage the farmland. Farmers were above artisans, and artisans were above merchants. Calling the scholar-bureaucrats "gentlemen" may be misleading, because even though they were like the European gentry who didn't do the actual farm work, their job was more like a local government official, and the local government official that performed religious ceremonies was a Christian cleric, which was at the top of the European model. So, were these Chinese "peasants" hired farmers, as opposed to the Western feudal system? It seems that European social class was based on feudalism and God. God was at the top. Then, there was the clergy. Then, there was the nobility. Finally, the common people (peasants) were at the bottom. Chinese social class seems to be based on Confucianism. The gods and goddesses and spirits of ancestors were respected but not formalized into a bureaucratic religion like Christianity was. The bureaucratic philosophy for long periods of time was Confucianism, so that would make the social class system inherently atheist, even though the people probably weren't atheist at all. Okay, now I'm really confused. Is "separation of church and state" a concept native to Europe because there was really a church that had government-like characteristics? Then, as Western culture spreads, these ideas like "separation of church and state" and "peasants" don't translate that well to other cultures? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you read Use of the term [peasant] for Chinese farmers? Further reading is at Agriculture in China. Blooteuth (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The "further reading" is a misdirect. That article doesn't say anything about the social history and societal structure of agriculture in China. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I know nothing about the Chinese situation, but would just point out that the negative modern connotations of the English word "peasant" do not necessarily carry over to other European languages, e.g. in France today there are still people proud to be called paysans. Input from the Language Desk might add to this discussion. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The French/English difference between "peasant" and "paysan" is due to the etymological fallacy, merely because they share a root doesn't mean the modern terms are identical. There are other French words that have a closer meaning to peasant, including les habitants (especially in Canadian French) or les rustres (c.f. "rustic") --Jayron32 15:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

True, but what I was trying to indicate is that other European languages may have positive words in common currency to describe people in this niche of society; none in English comes to mind. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The conversation reminds me of this. --Jayron32 16:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) China stopped being "feudal" in the strict sense a long time before western Europe, but western Europe also has not been "feudal" in that sense for a long time. If you are comparing the socio-economic structure of rural China in 1890 (say) to that in rural England, it was not all that different. Pre-revolution "peasants" referred to those people who worked in the agricultural sector but who did not own the land, but the way they actually worked differed. Broadly, pre-revolution, there were several types of farmers:

• Some worked the land as employees of wealthier farm-owners. In modern English parlance they might be called "farm workers". However, depending on the way they became employees they might also be indentured, i.e. be employed on terms that restricted their freedom to change employers. These are probably closest to "peasants" in the Western sense.
• Some leased the land from the land-owners as tenants, worked the land and shared the produce with the land-owner as rent. In modern English parlance they would probably be called "sharecroppers". One statistic estimates that during the Republic of China era about 30% of all farmers were sharecroppers. Farm workers and sharecroppers were the primary target market for the Communist revolution.
• Some farmers owned the land they worked. They might work the land alone, or with hired seasonal or permanent hired help. Some farm-owners did not personally work the land at all, or had other occupations elsewhere and left management of the farm to managers.

The "land reform" that came with the Communist revolution aimed to suppress non-working farm-owners, and distribute land to sharecroppers and farm ownersworkers. All families, urban and rural, were classified into castes. A family's caste affected education and employment prospects of its members, and the branding stayed with it until reforms in the late 1970s. For rural families, the relevant castes were:

• "Landlord": those who owned land but did not work the land at all. In many areas, the land they held beyond the per capita average in the village was confiscated; in some areas all their land was confiscated.
• "Rich peasants": those who both worked the land and also either hired help or leased land to sharecroppers.
• "Medium peasants": those who mainly worked the land themselves, but sometimes hired a small number of seasonal help, or even had to supplement their income by working for others.
• "Poor peasants": those who mainly worked for others, either as farm workers or sharecroppers.
• "Hired peasants": those who worked purely for others.

Poorer "medium peasants", "poor peasants" and "hired peasants" were classified as politically reliable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I should also add, the classification of farmers into castes was direclty inspired by the Soviet Union: the Soviet kulaks, serednyaks, bednyaks and batraks roughly corresponded to rich, medium, poor, and hired peasants in China. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

And to address the other part of your question, the "scholar-official", "farmer", "artisan" and "merchant" four-stage stratification of society is a red herring in socio-economic terms, as it stems from Confucian moral philosophy. The scholar-official is deserving of the greatest respect morally, but that does not mean they always held the greatest socio-economic power. It does not map to the pre-revolution rural social structure outlined above: a non-resident farm-owner might be a scholar-official by occupation, but could equally be a merchant. Scholar-officials tend to come from rich, land-owning families, but not all scholar-officials owned real estate, and some members of scholar-official families would even choose to become merchants.

The "gentry" (紳, shen) in pre-modern Chinese society is a separate concept altogether. Being a member of the rural gentry depended on social status. It did not strictly depend on land ownership or occupation. Although typically the local gentry would be composed of scholar-official landowners and their extended family, wealthy merchants were also able to purchase government statuses that elevated them to the gentry. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I've always found it interesting that "Yeomen" were highly praised in traditional histories of England, while the more or less equivalent "Kulaks" were highly despised and persecuted in Stalin's Russia. AnonMoos (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Because a feudal society is not a communist society. The role of property owners is different in both economic systems. Plus, Stalin was an asshole. --Jayron32 16:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

But when did English farmers cease to be admirable yeomen? (Somewhat rhetorical question.) In seeking the poetic dagger that plunged to the heart of this shift, I found two versions. Our article on The London Gazette says this "classic ten-line poem compar[es] the stolid tenant farmer of 1722 to the lavishly spending faux-genteel farmers of 1822". It isn't hard to see why the former (yeomen) would be praised and the latter (kulak-like) despised.

Man to the plough;

Wife to the cow;

Girl to the yarn;

Boy to the barn;

And your rent will be netted.

Man tally-ho;

Miss piano;

Wife silk and satin;

Boy Greek and Latin;

And you'll all be Gazetted.

Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Carbon_Caryatid -- the distinguishing characteristic of English yeoman is that they owned land and farmed it themselves, and earned a moderately prosperous living by it (i.e. definitely above mere subsistence, though of course far below an upper-class lifestyle). I think they might have been already starting to decline a little bit by 1722, and definitely by 1822, when in most areas there had come to be a kind of three-level polarization between large landowners, tenant farmers, and landless laborers... AnonMoos (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There was the Yeomanry, a sort of rural home guard cavalry force started in the 1790s, which was only open to men wealthy enough to supply their own horse and uniform.

Otherwise, perhaps the term "country gentleman" or "landed gentleman" replaced "yeoman", rather like Mr Bennet in Pride and Prejudice, comfortably off but not really rich. The inclosure of arable land during the Agrarian Revolution tended to drive small farmers off the land and increase the holdings of the better off, resulting in the changes noted by User:AnonMoos above. Alansplodge (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

However, in their heyday, yeomen were not gentlemen -- they were independent of gentlemen (unlike tenants) and self-sufficient (unlike landless laborers), but did not really attempt a gentlemanly or gentry lifestyle. AnonMoos (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Medieval Sea Travel - Speed, Length, Time

How fast were medieval European ships (in general) ? How long distances could be travelled over the course of, say, 3 days, 7 days, 14 days and 21 days ?? Now, there would always be variables, of course. Some ships were faster than others, and wind and weather and whatnot would play a part, especially out on open waters... but in general, just to get a general idea.

For a few further examples, if we look at the European map, how long would it take to sail from southwestern Norway to Eastern Britain at the time, or from western Norway to Iceland? Vikings supposedly discovered North America as early as in the late 900s, long before their European neighbours to the south made their way to The New World. Does this mean that Vikings had better ships being able to take that long journey, or simply that they were more adventurous and eager to explore ?? I suppose they would have used Iceland and Greenland as middle-stations on their way to America, unlike Spain, Portugal, England and France etc. But how long would such a voyage take at the time, if they began their journey in Norway or England and made it all the way to Newfoundland (any stops made in Iceland/Greenland excluded)?

From what I have managed to find, there is supposedly slightly above 1000km / 560 Nautical miles from Norway to Britain. I'll assume that's between the two points nearest to each other. Some people, on forums, claim the journey could be made over just 56 hours under favourable conditions. Surely that is too generous, and it would take much longer than that ?

If such a journey could be completed (under favourable conditions) in so short a time, it completely turns upside-down certain things I imagined about the middle ages - such as trade... to think how frequently and quickly ships then could travel from one port to another, bringing goods to and fro.

Krikkert7 (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

We do have a Medieval ships article, although it doesn't really help answer most of your questions...the books in "further reading" section in that article would be a good place to start though. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Plus, our "Types of sailing vessels and rigs" info box (or whatever it's called at the end of an article) gives nine European medieval vessels: Balinger, Birlinn, Cog, Hulk, Knarr, Koch, Kondura, Longship, Shitik. These might be good search terms. too.

But as a shortcut, look in Longship - it gives an average speed of 5–10 knots (9.3–18.5 km/h) and a maximum of 15 knots (28 km/h) and even has a source. Of course, not every voyage would include favourable winds for the entire passage so voyage times were probably highly variable. But this lets you start estimating anyway. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about Medieval ships, but in the past I have worked with ICOADS data. I happen to know that from 1800 to 1875, the average speed of ships in their network was pretty steady at about 8 km/hr. Today, it is about 20-22 km/hr. Dragons flight (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about how quickly they traveled, but the Maritime republics of Italy and Dalmatia depended on their fleets to support their extensive trade networks.: "thousands of Italians from the maritime republics poured into the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea, creating bases, ports and commercial establishments known as "colonies". "

And sometimes this naval trade backfired. See the article on the Black Death. In 1347, Genoese traders at the port city of Kaffa (Feodosia) in the Crimea fled an invasion by the Golden Horde. The armies of the Horde were already infected with the disease, and the disease spread to the traders. Within months, Genoese galleys spread the infection to Sicily, Genoa, Venice, Pisa, and Marseille. From there the infection spread across the continent, following the trade networks of the era. Dimadick (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The Vikings who first discovered Greenland and then the New World didn't do so because they were deliberately exploring, but because they were blown beyond their intended destinations by storms. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your answers. :) Krikkert7 (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Prevailing wind directions are important too. North of the polar front and south of the horse latitudes the wind is mostly from the east, but in the mid latitudes it's from the west. Sailers from Portugal, Spain or France had to travel north (into Viking country) or south (to the Canary Islands) before they would be able to cross the Atlantic, but the Vikings could be blown across by a storm right from their home ports.

There were differences in ship building. Viking ships had hulls able to withstand the waves of the North Atlantic, ships from mediterranean countries could just withstand the waves of the Mediterranean, which are tiny by comparison. The Viking ships however had very primitive sails, so they were practically unable to move in unfavourable winds.

If you want to compare speeds, keep in mind that the fastest ships were not always the ones used for trade. Longships were great as warships and for trade in shallow waters like lakes and rivers, but for trade at sea a knarr was more suited, sacrificing some speed for a smaller crew, more cargo volume and more safety.

I once read a book, A Viking Voyage by W. Hodding Carter, who used a replica knarr to travel from Greenland to Newfoundland. In a favourable, more than 20-knot wind they made 10 knots, even exceeding their hull speed. When they had to row, they made little more than half a knot. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Social class of immigrants

Where do immigrants fit in society? There are rich, highly educated/skilled immigrants, and there are poor, uneducated immigrants. And the highly skilled, rich immigrants may have humble childhoods in a relatively poor country and still have that poor/cheapskate/extremely frugal mindset. Immigrants from poor countries to rich countries may also be more religious than the native population. So, while the native population may be aging and becoming less religious, the new population of immigrants may be younger, hipper, and more religious. Do immigrants get their own special social class? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Not as a group. A lot depends on what country the immigrant moves to and what country he/she came from. His/her social standing in their old country may also play a role in how they are perceived in the new country. For example, a British Lord will probably be considered fairly upper class, no matter where in the world he moves. A working class mechanic from the US, on the other hand, might be considered fairly middle class if he moves to a third world country. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No. Matt Deres (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• You do realize that the world is a diverse place, with a variety of cultures and customs that are in no way identical, right? Your next to last line starts to give me the impression you might be talking certain western countries, but you haven't specified. Instead, you spoke as if there is and was and ever shall be only one culture in this world, to which there is no deviation. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The OP geolocates to central Ohio, which is farm country, but he seems to have lived a sheltered life in that regard. This is the same IP that asked why we have more than one variety of apples, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• The often insidious effects of stereotyping might play a role in shoehorning immigrants into a perceptual cubbyhole within a larger society. Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There has been plenty of research on migration and social class. E.g. ::Immigration and Social Class by Oksana Yakushko (2013).

"Social class and its reproduction in immigrants’ construction of self".

Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

April 22

May 1958 crisis in France

I was reading the May 1958 crisis in France article and have some questions.

1. It sounded like most of the French military supported the coup. Were there any military units that remained loyal to the government?

2. Between the start of the coup on May 13th to its end on May 29th/June 1st, there were about 2 weeks of time. What counter-coup options did the government consider? Did they consider resisting using loyalist military units (if there were any) or the police/paramilitary units?

3. What percentage of the French population at the time was for/neutral/against the coup respectively? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Do the sources on this article not cover this? Is there a source you are looking for? This comes acrost as a homework question (see the quidelines). μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not a homework question. The article made it sound like the government forces had zero resources and were just twiddling their thumbs for the two whole weeks. I was just wondering if there's more to it, that's all. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There hasn't been a king or emperor in France since 1870. Royalist forces didn't come into it. Rojomoke (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a typo for "loyalist"? Alansplodge (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The WP article is not clear on any of the points raised above, and none of the pertinent citations are viewable online, so this IS a valid question. Alansplodge (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I meant "loyalist". ECS LIVA Z (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"preventable illness"

What does it mean when an illness is "preventable"? What if an illness is preventable (if you are a multimillionaire or billionaire) but non-preventable (if you are not a multi-millionaire or billionaire)? What if you don't really know the exact cause of an illness, but doing a series of things seems to prevent the illness, but this set of behaviors cannot be done by everybody for whatever reason? What if the illness is caused by a pathogen, but the pathogen cannot be cured because that specific strain is resistant to all known chemical treatments? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring all of the 'what if's - a preventable illness is one where the actions of a person directly contributed towards the malady in question (including where early warning signs are ignored). Such as a smoker developing lung cancer, an excessive drinker of alcohol developing cirrhosis and also those ignoring . It can also be expanded to those who develop a problem directly related to a effective vaccine that they have refused. See also preventable causes of death. Nanonic (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

So, suicide would be counted as "preventable" because the suicidal person refused to not kill himself? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Suicide isn't an illness, but is included as a preventable cause of death in most statistics. See for example [14] and [15]. Nanonic (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It may be preventable by others, by getting the suicidal individual into proper treatment. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

True, but suicide is not a disease, it's a symptom. So the question is whether mental illness is preventable. The answer would depend on the cause of the illness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Not preventable, just treatable, long enough for them to die from something else. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone ever died in a tai chi accident?

Hundreds of millions do tai chi chuan every day (many elderly) and it has balancing on one leg. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If so, it has eluded Google. However, there are many articles explaining that Tai Chi helps prevent falls in the elderly by a factor of "up to 45%": see Harvard Medical School - Try tai chi to improve balance, avoid falls and National Health Service - Tai chi 'prevents falls in the elderly'. Alansplodge (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Time to update this xkcd? --Trovatore (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This gives me some food for thought as regards my inheritance... μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Fairfield, Connecticut

Resolved

 – 17:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

While researching Fairfield, Connecticut, I noticed a population decrease of −33.6% during the 1870s. Can anybody find a source that might explain this? The decades before and after showed increases, so it is unlikely to be simply a demographic trend. My guess is an epidemic. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:984A:CA94:A2BD:E53B (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Black Rock, Bridgeport and Black Rock Harbor was annexed by Bridgeport in 1870. It was previously part of Fairfield. Nanonic (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks! --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:984A:CA94:A2BD:E53B (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

...However, the article states 1821 and 1895, and none of the other Towns created from Fairfield correspond to the 1870s. Dou you have a source for "annexed by Bridgeport in 1870". --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:984A:CA94:A2BD:E53B (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It's in our Bridgeport article - Bridgeport, Connecticut#19th century and uses [16] as a cite. Page 11 of that document states it was subsumed in 1870. See also [17] and [18]. Nanonic (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:984A:CA94:A2BD:E53B (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the difference between polling and campaign analytics?

I was reading about the 2016 and the DNC "moneyball" strategy of using analytics instead of polling. Analytics are cheaper than polling and supposedly just as accurate.

I don't understand exactly what analytics are though. I did some googling and learned about how it simulates models and stuff. But I don't really understand how it reacts to new information and changes in sentiment without polling. I read one of the factors was volunteer data from calling. Which seems like a version of polling.

Could someone explain the difference? --Gary123 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that some polling data is required to analyze, although actual election results should be included. For example, if candidate X won this district by 1% last election but only got 10% of the vote of ethnicity Y there, and now the portion of people who are ethnicity Y has increased dramatically, that doesn't bode well for candidate X winning that district at the next election. So, election results and demographic info from the census, etc., might be sufficient. StuRat (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Is the March for Science American or global?

My web browser pointed me towards a news article, which then pointed me towards Wikipedia. After reading the article on Wikipedia, I still don't get it. Is this a global or American phenomenon? It seems to be global, because European and American people are doing it. But the central location is Washington, D.C., while the other locations are "satellite locations" (whatever that means). If this is an American movement, then why would a German or British person care about what Americans do or how Trump's politics will somehow affect the average guy in London? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I can only speak for the UK (and then only because my cousin went on the Manchester one, I should have gone but I'm working). We are very much linked to and affected by the USA and whoever is in charge over there. We have had similar issues over here too, with reductions in education funding over the past few years. Plus we just don't like Trump. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

To my knowledge, science is a big industry. There is a lot of money and workers involved in science. If a government or individual wealthy patron does not fund the sciences and puts money elsewhere, then that will cause a great loss of jobs and workers; and of the remaining workers, science may progress more slowly. Even if the government does not sponsor science, it may be possible for wealthy individuals to donate money to science; and there are always private corporations who may hire scientists to enhance a product/service. Even without science, I'm sure people will still live. The people just have to look to other fields for jobs, like medicine. It is possible to have medicine without evidence-based practice, because people did that before. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Human civilisation is currently facing long-term existential threats from matters including (but not limited to) global warming, antibiotic resistance, over-use of pesticides, general pollution, mass extinction of species which may be vital to the ecosphere, and so on. Worldwide scientific activity is vital to detect and measure many clues to these problems, and to devise both technical and behavioral solutions to them (such as discovering new antibiotics and reducing man-made carbon emissions, to mention but two). Because the USA is large in terms of geographical size, population, resource use and global political influence, what it does as a nation effects the whole world. Many of President Trump's current policies aim (often ineptly) at short term financial benefits (mostly for rich industrialists) by ceasing or greatly diminishing the USA's funding of many scientific endeavours relevant to these problems, hence worldwide opposition to his misguided plans. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

But life will still go on without humans around. The fact that there is antibiotic resistance shows that bacteria are thriving. Hopefully, humans will figure out a way to destroy themselves. If humans don't willingly destroy themselves, I'm sure Mother Nature can easily do that job. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sentence 1 of the Wikipedia article, March for Science, says that it is taking place in "over 600 cities across the world". Loraof (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Just curious, was the event originally scheduled for March, but then delayed to April ? That would help explain the name. StuRat (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you're not joking, it means "march" in the sense of a lot of people walking – several other such demonstrations have been called "marches", such as the Million Man March. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.185} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it looked to me like they were going for a double meaning with that title, as there are many ways they could have put it that wouldn't have the calendar month meaning, like using the word "walk" instead of "march". (In the case of the "Million Man March", they were going for alliteration, but that doesn't apply here.) StuRat (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The event was scheduled to coincide with Earth Day so no it was not "scheduled for March and then delayed." MarnetteD|Talk 18:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Tracing Robert Sheckley short story

In Robert Sheckley short stories bibliography it says there is a story called The Rabbi from Perdido. The only reference given is "Crazed World Construct". I have tried googling both to no avail. Can anyone help me track down a copy of this story, ideally online or for sale if not? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amisom (talk • contribs) 18:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I found an Italian translation, Il rabbino di Perdido, which was published in 1991 in Ritorno nell'universo [19] Alansplodge (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Apparently Ritorno nell'universo was a full translation of Crazed World Construct according to this. Alansplodge (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

And according to that ISFDB page Crazed World Construct was "[u]npublished in English", so it's possible that the original English story has never been published. The ISFDB page for the story itself does not cite an English publication. Deor (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

But how does a story exist if it was unpublished? How does anyone know it was ever written...? Amisom (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Presumably the person who translated into Italian had access to manuscripts or typescripts... AnonMoos (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Most writers don't live in a secretive bubble of isolation (though some may), so there are many ways in which the existence of an unpublished story can become known.

Some writers mention, discuss or show their ongoing or unpublished work to family, friends and fellow writers, either as casual conversation or to obtain useful critical input (and sometimes even offers of collaboration). Pre-submission readers/critics are sometimes referred to as 'Beta readers'.

Most writers (if they have any business organisation at all) routinely keep records of their written-but-not-yet-published stories, if only to keep track of where they've been submitted (and rejected). Isaac Asimov, for example, famously kept a very detailed card index which amongst other things recorded the exact date of every work's completion (see his 'Opus . . ." series of books which give many insights into his working methods).

After a writer dies, their unpublished works become part of their estate, and their surviving spouse, children or other heir(s) may continue to seek publication of them.

Most writers for the magazine market of which Sheckley was a contributor had literary agents who attempted to market their work for them (while they got on with producing more of it) – the agents obviously kept records. Frequently such records are, or become after a writer's death, available for academic study by others – many successful writers late in life or in their will donate their papers to university archives. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Why did people make single-sex schools?

1) All-boys school. All-girls school. Men's college. Women's college.

2) Co-ed school. A co-ed student is a female student at a co-ed school instead of any student at a co-ed school.

3) Men's sports teams. Women's sports teams. In a co-ed school, the sports teams may not be co-ed at all! Instead, there is a men's team, and there is a women's team. There is no mixed-gender team.

4) Where do non-gender-binary students go - men's school or women's school?

5) What about non-gender-binary singers? If a non-gender-binary person sings like a soprano, then is he/she/it/they/whatever-you-call-it/ze a soprano? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to separate and number your Q's. StuRat (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1) The thought was that each would do better if they could concentrate on their studies, rather than on the opposite sex. This is less important for younger kids, so mixed-sex schools are more common there. Also, in some societies, mixing boys and girls is condemned because it is feared this will lead to premarital sex, teen pregnancy, and the cycle of poverty.

2) Yes, the term "coed" referring to the female students only at a coed school is strange. Blame it on the fact that the female students were the unusual ones there, at the time the term was adopted.

3) For younger kids, mixed-gender teams are quite common, but for older kids, the boys can often outperform the girls, so that the girls would not be able to compete, if on the same team. There are some ways to fix this, though, like requiring a certain proportion of girls and boys, as in mixed doubles tennis, or the same way in figure skating.

4) How about going to a coed school ? StuRat (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

How about entering your question into Google? Then you'd find for instance Wikipedia has an article on Single-sex education. Try reading it. As to the question about sopranos. I entered it too and Wikipedia yet again came up with Sopranist. Dmcq (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

In the history of English-speaking cultures, young boys and girls might learn the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic together, but after that, "serious" schools teaching Greek and Latin were for boys only, since the learning of Greek and Latin was considered highly unsuitable for women. Upper-class girls tended to be taught modern languages (French, sometimes Italian), music, embroidery, deportment and etiquette etc. For the most part, it wasn't until the 20th century that coeducational secondary education started to be the default. Nowadays some people advocate single-gender education for the purpose of removing distractions (as has been said), building girls' confidence, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I remember reading a Wikipedia article that talks about written Chinese in Japan. Japanese women were forbidden to learn classical Chinese. Keeping a group of people illiterate/ignorant of Chinese or Latin or Greek may be a way to control that group of people. Books were written in Latin, so women, who didn't learn Latin, probably didn't read those books of specialized expertise. Well, there was always apprenticeship and joining the clergy -- oh, wait. Women couldn't become clerics in some churches. Monastery then. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

In some periods of medieval Japan, women tended to write in the hiragana syllabary, while men wrote with a heavy infusion of Chinese characters. We have something about this at Hiragana#History. It doesn't seem to have kept women from writing some diaries and works of fiction which are still quite famous, while the legal/historical/religious works and esoteric poetry written by the men of the time tend to be of lesser interest to most people nowadays.

In Britain, after the adoption of printing and the rise of Protestantism, most books tended to be in English, except for those on certain specialized subjects and/or intended for Europe-wide audiences... AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• In England, at least, before about 1850 the government did not provide children's education. Poor folks did not go to school. The gentry educated their children at home up to age 10 or so and then sent their boys (but not girls) to a boarding school. Girls' schools were a later innovation, and co-ed schools are much more recent than single-sex schools. -Arch dude (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a little oversimplified -- you left out Dame schools and "grammar schools" in the original sense (i.e. schools for teaching Latin grammar, often charitably endowed and overseen by local civic or church officials, but not really "state run" in the modern sense). AnonMoos (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Misogyny.--Jayron32 05:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

For (5), there are two schools of thought. One is that the vocal range that results matters more than the way you are producing the sound, so then "soprano" just means a vocal range and you can perfectly well have a male soprano just as you can have a female soprano. The other school of thought is that the mechanism matters more, so that there cannot be true male sopranos in the absence of hormonal anomalies (most sopranists use falsetto for the high soprano range). For male altos the distinction doesn't matter quite as much as it is possible for hormonally normal male individuals to sing up to around F5 in modal voice, if rather uncommon. Double sharp (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

April 23

Radios/televisions in waiting rooms

In the US it's fairly common for waiting rooms (at doctors' offices, car repair places, etc) to have a TV on the wall, usually tuned to a court show or Ellen DeGeneres. My question is, how long has this been going on? Back in the 1930's, would you go into a waiting room and find a radio playing? LANTZY^TALK 01:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting question. The practice is somewhat informal, and in many jurisdictions today may be illicit or illegal unless the business in question has paid for an appropriate licence (see also Performing rights organization), but I'd guess that this is a much more recent development than the '30s. I cannot offhand recall any mention of such a practice in period-set literature, including work written contemporaneously, but my fallible memory is weak as evidence. I look forward to answers from others. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• I was in the hospital waiting room with a broken toe the night John Lennon was murdered, and heard the breaking news on TV. I believe it was a paid cable subscription. "Commercial" cable subscriptions are available for just that purpose. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. I myself never saw a TV in a waiting room before the early 2000's, so I figured that it was a recent trend having something to do with the falling cost and weight of TV sets. By the same token, most school classrooms (at least in my area) now have TV sets, but this wasn't the case until about ten years ago. LANTZY^TALK 03:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I also saw the Rodney King beating while waiting for the dentist, which made me ill. That was 1992, right? μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The beating occurred in 1991, and the riot following acquittal of the cops came in 1992. We're right around the 25th anniversary of the riot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It was at the time of the riots, so it must have been 1992. I remember getting off the train on the day of the acquittal, and being warned by the locals, as a white person, that I might face some violence. Only the police harassed me for being white in a colored neighbourhood. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've never seen a TV in a medical or dental waiting room and seeing one would annoy the heck out of me there. There are usually only magazines in those places. I do see TV sets in car repair places sometimes. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Ideologies

How do the tendencies to subscribe to various moral ideologies vary based on race, geography, and socioeconomic status? Benjamin (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Benjaminikuta—that is a topic for discussion. I don't think it is a question. Open-ended discussions are not what the Reference desks should be about. I feel the area of inquiry you've outlined is ill-defined. Bus stop (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Help me reword it? Benjamin (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

What are you trying to ask? This is different from what would you like to discuss. Questions should be defined, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, so, I don't want to discuss it here of course, but I would rather like to ask for sources that do discuss it. Benjamin (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you give me some examples of moral ideologies? I think I know the meaning of "race, geography, and socioeconomic status", but I'm wondering about "moral ideologies". Bus stop (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hedonism, Virtue ethics, Ethical intuitionism, etc. Benjamin (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically what I'm looking for is something like this, but for the general population. Presumably with more basic questions. Analyzed in relation to the variables I mentioned. Benjamin (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Evolution of morality. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)