Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 15

Trying to recall short story

I think the name was something like Shall These Bones Live?, but that gets too many irrelevant hits.

Goes something like this: A woman wakes up in the wilderness, and can find no other humans around. She tries to figure out why, and the answer comes to her in a dream: Humanity is extinct, but she has been resurrected from her remains by a species that does that sort of thing. Just her, no one else. But they can resurrect the whole human race if they want to. She communicates with them by asking questions in her head before going to sleep, and the answer comes in a dream.

Ring any bells? --Trovatore (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Did Philip José Farmer ever write a short story (featuring Alice Liddell maybe?) as an early version of the Riverworld story? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a short story, but the basic plot reminds me of Octavia Butler's Lilith's Brood series.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Trovatore, I believe you're thinking of Ted Reynolds's Hugo-nominated story "Can These Bones Live?" (1979). If you can see this Google Books search result, click on the "Page 344" link for a brief description. Deor (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Deor: has it! Thanks very much to all. --Trovatore (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Admin roles

Do people who work in admin roles get stuck in admin roles? do they ever become a manager? 90.192.122.101 (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(a) Yes, often. (b) Yes, often. Do you really want references for this?-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

They can often end up as managers of the other people in those admin roles. Dismas|^(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

My wife worked in admin for a year, and then was made a manager, so with a sample size of 1, there's a data point for you. --Jayron32 11:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Can the same be said for customer service jobs? 46.233.116.68 (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I had one of those. Now I don't. So there's one point for "not stuck", and one for "will never become a manager". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, July 16, 2015 (UTC)

"Admin roles" can mean different things to different people. But even so, I'm pretty sure Jack's answers are spot-on. --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

What about an admin role in an operational environment such as retail or transport hubs? 90.192.122.101 (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You are really going to have to refine your question. The answer "Does X ever happen", without further information, is almost always "Yes". For that to be true, you only have to find 1 example in the history of the world, and that's not such a hard challenge. But I suspect that's not what you really want to know. Can you help us out here a little? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I can give a totally non-transferable anecdatum. In the last corporate job I held, "admins" were junior-level human resources managers. They almost always began as sales and service reps, and some of them were promoted to higher positions such as general manager, which meant the manager of the managers of 50-200 sales and service reps. (There were other paths to general manager, such as via sales manager.) This was one of the most highly capitalized corporations in the US. But the terms and practices simply do not carry from company to company, so the question as posed is, as has been noted, not really answerable. The best thing to do is to consult with one's direct manager and ask about higher track positions. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Deicide-by-human in non-Christian religions

Our article on Deicide only includes one actual supposed example of a belief of humans committing this act - the death of Jesus. Most of the rest of the article is filled with references to fictional works.

There's mention of Ragnarök, but reading that article boggles my brain. It appears that the foretold deaths of the various gods will not occur by human hands.

My question is this: Are there any religions (even "niche" ones) besides Christianity, which profess the belief that it is possible (even theoretically) for A God to experience death at the hands of A Human or Humans?

(I'm specifically excluding beliefs of Gods killing each other, which, I believe, do exist). 121.219.62.223 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Jesus was human. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a slippery slope question. Many would say that the "death of jesus" is not based on fact. Many denominations of Christianity have different interpretations.

Christianity is very ambiguous (like many religions) here Void burn (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Forgetting the debate about whether Jesus actually existed, the conventional Christian belief is that Jesus was a physically mortal being. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I am skeptical of Mr. Bug's claim of "conventional belief". There are denominations of Christianity that believe jesus is god. Void burn (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a contradiction, or at least traditional Christian belief claims it's not a contradiction, that Jesus was "fully God and fully man". See hypostatic union (didn't know that was what it was called till just now). I'm less clear on whether he's still considered to be "fully man", but I suppose so, given that he was supposed to be resurrected in the flesh and then bodily transported into Heaven.

What I'm not sure is what Bugs' point was, if he was taking the "fully God and fully man" point of view, as that would still mean that humans killed "fully God". --Trovatore (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

God incarnate, but killing Jesus didn't literally kill God. The soul is immortal and likewise God is immortal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity of Christianity Void burn (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Of the historical Christian sects that lasted beyond the fall of Rome (and for more than a generation or two) but are older than the Louisiana Purchase, Jesus was held to be 100% God and 100% human, only debating which should be listed first and which was in charge. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm boggled to see Wikipedia treats Ragnarok as a future event, outside the "theories" section. No wonder it's confusing people. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, July 16, 2015 (UTC)

Has it happened yet? --Jayron32 22:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Constantly. Just, like my link above says at the bottom, it's hard to understand if you look at at it like a physical event (particularly a series of events) in a linear timeframe. Mythology doesn't have to play by those rules, but most often do, for simple folk's sake (that's not an insult). It's nothing like Armageddon, and the dead gods are concurrently alive, so not quite deicide, either, if death is seen as the end. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

Consider also (of you'd like) the essence of The Neverending Story, the melody of "Follow Me" and the myth of "historical Jesus". It's pretty clear, but not straightforward. Sort of like water flowing. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

Back on topic, Attis/Adonis was killed by a stray boar in some myths, so he probably could have been killed by a human. However, he could have also been deified after death. I can't remember the title, but the cycle that Cath Maige Tuired is a part of is followed by the human ancestors of the Irish waltzing into Ireland and kicking their gods' asses. Couldn't tell you if they were worshiping the survivors (which would fit your question), or if the gods (though defeated) were still immortal, or if this was later Christian interpolation (like the Irish being descended from a granddaughter of Noah who built her own boat). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Krishna died after being mortally wounded in a hunting accident. 184.147.127.87 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Some leads at Dying-and-rising_god as well as Resurrection, if you don't mind the god coming back after death. More broadly, this question reminded me of Princess Mononoke, which draws heavily from Japanese_folklore and Shinto and contains the great line: "Now watch closely, everyone. I'm going to show you how to kill a god. A god of life and death. The trick is not to fear him." I suspect if you go looking into the Kami you'll find a few that have been killed by humans. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Then there is God is dead ... although Nietzsche's post mortem implies that God died of natural causes.

Alfonso of Aragon

Where is Alfonso of Aragon, Duke of Bisceglie buried? Santa Maria della Febbre was demolished, right?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Right. Also had many graves robbed, over the years, including royal ones. Alfonso's bones may or may not remain, but it seems a fair guess that his stuff doesn't. They were mainly after gold, but a Duke's skull may have been too good for a worker to pass up. Archaeology didn't really have much in the way of rules till the late 19th century.

Even if graverobbers didn't move the bones, they may have gone to an ossuary, just as standard procedure. Only guesses, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, July 16, 2015 (UTC)

Generally, I imagine that most medieval Christian burials (post-Roman) would have little to no burial goods except the clothes on their back or just a burial shroud covering the bones. The only descretation usually comes from revolutions, vandals or demolishing of churches.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That's how I see it, too. Nothing fit for an Empress, but perhaps some jewelry. Some clothes have gold and silver buttons, clasps and whatnot. Every little bit helps the melting pot.

I'm still trying (sort of) to figure out where in the compound he went, and which areas may have gone undefiled. There were apparently two chapels at the time of his death, and one was torn down in the 16th century, sometime. Then there are always various crypt-like places, in various stages of "on top of each other". Bit of a puzzler without a diagram, and I've only just heard of the guy or the place.

Someone smarter to the whole thing might be along shortly with a real answer. I'm curious, too, now. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, July 16, 2015 (UTC)

Did ports of entry have tons of dictionaries before electronic translators existed?

If they don't then a Hungarian or Nepalese or Ethiopian or Laos traveler is going to have much delay on a world tour.. Or maybe they had a translation service like the United Nations? But that would only work when long distance calls existed and would not be foolproof unless even the tiniest countries had one or could outsource translation to a transnation hotline they trust. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

What time period are you curious about? There's a lot of human history between the neolithic era and the advent of machine translation (roughly 12k years...). Also not many people got to travel the world for pleasure until very recently. Those who did tended to be rather wealthy or educated - a translator interpreter could be hired or a lingua franca could be used. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess 1870 onwards. (Around the World in Eighty Days says "three technological breakthroughs occurred in 1869-70 that made a tourist-like around-the-world journey possible for the first time: the completion of the First Transcontinental Railroad in America (1869), the linking of the Indian railways across the sub-continent (1870), and the opening of the Suez Canal (1869).[3] It was another notable mark in the end of an age of exploration and the start of an age of fully global tourism that could be enjoyed in relative comfort and safety. It sparked the imagination that anyone could sit down, draw up a schedule, buy tickets and travel around the world, a feat previously reserved for only the most heroic and hardy of adventurers.") Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, there has always been the "assume the locals will understand your language if you just say it LOUDER and SLOW-ER" method of communication (stereotypically favored by British and American Tourists). ;) Blueboar (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the Chinese stereotype where they don't even bother trying to speak English. They will jus speak Mandarin or Chinese and go on expecting you to find a way to understand. ;) Void burn (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You may be interested in this article on Ellis Island [1]. It suggests that they had a large staff of translators for various languages. For most ports in most countries until at least World War I, you could simply get on and off a ship wherever you liked, as long as you could pay the fare. In more recent history, people who don't speak a recognizable language sometimes get set aside indefinitely. --Amble (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Or killed. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please don't be inflammatory. Nobody intended to kill the poor fellow in that case. --174.88.133.35 (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

But they did. And my point is that had he been able to communiate in English, he probably would have lived. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

July 16

Is Greece technically able to print Euros on its own?

Could Greece just print Euros if it went really mad?--Yppieyei (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That question was answered to the satisfaction it seems, of most, on the 7 July 2015 (UTC) (Sub-question by Medeis). --Askedonty (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Highways England Traffic Officer Service article

Is there a more general article which covers all such traffic officer services worldwide? 90.198.254.42 (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Highway patrol, perhaps? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

... although note that Highways Agency Traffic Officers are not police officers, but are employed by Highways England, the government agency that manages motorways and major A-roads in England. There may not be a direct equivalent in other countries. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There is in Japan. See http://www.e-nexco.co.jp/english/business_activities/expressway_management/traffic_control_center.html. Traffic management patrols in Japan are employed by NEXCO which is the equivalent of Highways England and they're separate from police highway patrols. They deal with safety, minor incidents, traffic direction support in major incidents etc. 90.198.254.42 (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Search for a particular Canadian postage stamp image

I want to find an image of a particular Canadian postage stamp that I know used a landscape photo by one Harry Turner. I am pretty sure it was issued in the 2000's. I have tried Google searches and a Canadian postage stamp database. Can anybody think of another way of finding it?99.224.93.200 (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've looked around various databases and can't find it either. The only possibility is the 2009 International Year of Astronomy two-stamp set, which uses highly retouched photographs of a couple of observatories; only the designer is credited, but it's possible he worked from a photograph by Turner, since it seems to be his area of specialty. --Xuxl (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried writing to Canada Post? --174.88.133.35 (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I haven't written to them (I'll have to buy a stamp), but I think I might have to.99.224.93.200 (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The Picture of Dorian Gray and aestheticism

I know one major theme of the novel is aestheticism. But I am not entirely sure if the whole point of the novel is to critique the aesthetic movement or to tell a morality tale about what happens when you only pursue beautiful things at the cost of everything else. Is the author trying to say that aestheticism is somehow bad? Why didn't Dorian Gray think about moderation? Finding beauty in a theatre does not sound very bad, but I think he overdoes it by only thinking about beauty. If Dorian Gray (probably Anglican) converts to Roman Catholicism but his interest is merely superficial (i.e. reciting the rosary, attending the Mass, observing the lives of the saints), then would he have suffered the same fate? How was Roman Catholicism perceived by Anglicans in the Church of England during the 19th century? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This article, which was the first link in this google search may help you. --Jayron32 22:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've always thought that it should be The Portrait of Dorian Gray, since "portrait" works better for the double meaning of "painting" and "biography". Now, had the painting kept him healthy while sickness was shown in the painting, then The Perfect Picture of Health might have worked well as a title. StuRat (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

When asked to make some minor change to The Importance of Being Earnest, Oscar Wilde himself retorted "Who am I to tamper with a masterpiece?". I figure that what's good enough for the gander is more than good enough for the goose.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hilter and Wilhelm II

Could Hitler and Nazi leaders have sought asylum in a neutral nation after the end of the war much like Wilhelm II in the Netherlands or was the move to try them as war criminals much stronger in WWII?--2602:30A:C0A8:AC10:289F:BEBC:6382:F3C7 (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere in South America could have worked, as it did for some other Nazis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The Nakam worked very hard to make sure it didn't work. Of course, we don't speculate here, but Wilhelm II not having a genocide resting on his head makes it a bit of an apples and oranges situation anyways. --Jayron32 00:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure about the genocide thing? Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 00:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

To be entirely fair, 100,000 is a lot less than 6,000,000. See also whataboutism for why comparing the wrongdoings of one group does not diminish that of another. --Jayron32 01:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record: 6 millions that's just the Jews. Add to that about 11 million non-Jews Contact Basemetal here 01:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's whataboutery. Whataboutery would be "It's not fair to criticise Wilhelm - Hitler did it too!" (or vice versa). This was about the claim that genocide was the reason Hitler couldn't seek asylum while Wilhelm could. The fact that a genocide also occured under Wilhelm undermines that argument. (Speculation: the real difference is that Herero and Nama Genocide happend far away, to people "not like us" (and more specifically, not to the WWI victors), and so could be more easily ignored, while the Holocaust was not only larger, but directly affected the victors of WWII). 62.172.108.24 (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It did not. What affected them was that their press correspondents, commissars or chaplains, simple troopers where obliged to deal with the piles of toys, the piles of bones, the barbed wires, the stench etc., and that each of them and the future administrators of the occupied territories as well had to make with knowing that a number of the people all around the civilian population were accomplices of the crime, while a huge number of others were not knowingly involved at all. In fact, my opinion is that Wilhelm II just forgot to write Mein Kampf himself. --Askedonty (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The attempted annihilation of the Herero and Nama people did not take place in WWI so it seems to have absolutely nothing to do in this discussion. The whole world had continued to deal with Germany as if nothing had happened. You couldn't very well then turn around in 1918 and go "hey, look what I found under the carpet". Well, you could, but it would have sounded silly even to those who absolutely hated the Kaiser. Besides the attitude after WWI was just very different. No one attempted to bring to book those responsible for the various genocides perpetrated by the Turks (Armenian, Greek, Assyrian) either, for all that the victims were "people like us". (And those genocides did happen during WWI and were committed by the Turks, a German ally). Contact Basemetal here 17:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I've read the US embassador account, full of distributing sweets to the children and gross war-time anti-German caricatures and readjusted sloppy clichés for describing the Turks. The fact that the Turks were allies with the Germans has nothing to do with it, the fact that the Armenians were favorable to the Czar and that they subscribed en-masse life insurances through family connections in the US does. --Askedonty (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) In any event there was a trial related to the Turkish war crimes in 1919, during the Occupation of Constantinople. --Askedonty (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The WP article states the only trials were trials by Turkish courts (court-martials). There was no international or Allied trial. Only a failed attempt in Malta. Contact Basemetal here 20:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

They did not have legal background for it, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide dates from 1948, and some international arrangements require the existence of the UN. Note the use of the term "crime". The US in their communications with the Ottoman Empire in 1915-17 could only complain about "massacres", threatening retaliation and this, being later the word of the Allies the court-martial for the case was one of the conditions imposed upon Turkey, under the auspices of the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. --Askedonty (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you're saying that no one attempted to bring to book those responsible for the various genocides perpetrated by the Turks during WWI (Armenian, Greek, Assyrian) because "the Armenians were favorable to the Czar and they subscribed en-masse life insurances through family connections in the US". Correct? Contact Basemetal here 19:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I intended about the Ambassador's analysis regarding the detail of the relationships between the Germans and the Turks. Here about his negotiations with German Ambassador Wangenheim. --Askedonty (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It's clear not everyone got what I was driving at (at least judging from the previous comment) which is: If we're only interested in answering the OP's question then Jayron was perfectly correct in stating that "Wilhelm II not having a genocide resting on his head makes it a bit of an apples and oranges situation". The anonymous user who brought up the German genocide of 1905 in South West Africa doesn't seem to understand the subtle difference between "has committed genocide" and "has a genocide resting on his head". The 1905 genocide is not one of the things Wilhelm II may have been called to answer for in 1918 and which most probably would only have had to do with events that had occurred in the context of WWI (though I'll wait for a definite answer from Alan to be absolutely positive on that point) and which, though they may have included "war crimes", did not include "genocide" as far as I am aware. Contact Basemetal here 19:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

In 1918, the Dutch offered asylum to the Kaiser, because they thought (correctly) that having him out of the way would hasten a negotiated settlement and put an end to the slaughter. In WWII, the Allies were keen to avoid going down the same path of "we weren't defeated on the battlefield, we were stabbed in the back by Jews and socialists" excuse and were determined to fight the Germans to total military collapse, so Hitler fleeing the scene wouldn't have stopped the war. Alansplodge (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Warning - looking for a reference to support my assertion above, I have been unable to find anything. It seems that the decision was taken by Queen Wilhelmina on the phone. [2] There was a crisis in Anglo-Dutch relations when the Netherlands refused to extradite the Wilhelm for war crimes, much to the annoyance of David Lloyd-George whose election slogan in December 1918 was "Hang the Kaiser!". [3] Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Alansplodge (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And did those "war crimes" include the events of 1905 in South-West Africa? Contact Basemetal here 17:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Lloyd-George believed that Wilhelm had been personally responsible for starting the whole war which was "a crime against humanity". (Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals by Gary Jonathan Bass (p. 369)). Alansplodge (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the WP article on the Leipzig_War_Crimes_Trials which took place after WWI, only twelve people were tried for war crimes in those trials. So it would seem that there was a greater push to bring people to trial after WWII. Herbivore (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Might it not be relevant that Hitler's plan from the beginning was genocide? See Hilter's bio, Ich Krümme. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

July 17

In-store USPS

Throughout US history, lots of post offices have been operated in people's stores or houses; they just ran the post office as an adjunct to what they were already doing. Some of these still exist, e.g. the postal counter in the store shown at File:I.O.O.F. Building in Stinesville.jpg. Nowadays, they're calling these "village post offices", but apparently they started doing them in 2011. Is there a specific term for pre-2011 in-store or in-house post offices, and do we have an article on it? Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

In Britain, at least, if run under a contract, and not by employees of the Post Office, they were (and are) called "sub-post offices". Rojomoke (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

In the US there are many stores that offer some postal services, like selling stamps and collecting mail, which they then drop off at a mail box or post office, but do nothing else. I'm not sure how they fit in. StuRat (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Caveat emptor, a lot of local private stores that sell USPS postage do so at outrageously marked-up rates, which they do not necessarily make clear to the customer. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• No, this is a different situation: I'm meaning official post offices (PO boxes, an official postmaster, etc.) located inside businesses, in particular before 2011. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

As Nyttend says, this was an extremely common arrangement in the 19th and early 20th centuries, being essentially the standard setup in small towns. If you Google "post office and general store," you will see a number of examples. I do not know of any special term for it though. John M Baker (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried asking the USPS, or alternatively, the National Postal Museum? --174.88.133.35 (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

In Green Acres/Petticoat Junction, Sam Drucker owned the general store and was also the postmaster (along with many other positions). I don't know if that situation really existed or is purely fictional. StuRat (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend:, the historic term is "contract station" or "rural station"; generically, "Community Post Office." Also, "substation" (1895 to 1902) (The contemporary term is contract postal unit (CPU)).

I hope you'll add this to the USPS article and, if making new article, I would suggest Community Post Office, with redirects for the terms above. See Glossary, p. 6.

• Historian, United States Postal Service (January 2006). "Stations and Branches" (PDF). USPS.com. Retrieved 18 July 2015. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= is malformed: flag (help) -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the post office in Ripton, Vermont is still run out of the back of the general store. It's been a number of years since I was actually in the store though, so things may have changed. If you call them, they should be able to tell you what they call themselves. And until about 5 years ago, the post office in Monkton, Vermont was run out of the back of a resident's garage. It has since moved to an office built off the side of the volunteer fire department. That building is on private property owned by a local farmer. So, they might have a name for it similar to that of Ripton. I don't know about Ripton but I do know that the zip code (postal code) for Monkton only extends as far as the walls of the building. There are PO boxes but they don't offer any delivery. That is handled by the surrounding towns that do have delivery. Dismas|^(talk) 17:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There are several contemporary variants, all distinct: CPU, CPO, and VPO. Good background article:

• Hutkins, Steve (January 29, 2012). "Contract post offices, closing faster than they open". Save the Post Office. Archived from the original on December 9, 2014. Retrieved 18 July 2015. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Iran Nuclear Agreement

I am trying to go back to old news reports, but didn't find the answer. Why did the WH pursue a nuclear agreement with Iran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3304:CD0:192A:5075:5624:9159 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The wordy-titled article Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action may help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon

Hi. I'm looking for help in writing Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon‎. I was born many years after the event, but from what i can gather, the Ratcliffe-Gordon disappearance is second only to the Beaumont children disappearance for South Australians and ranks alongside the Beaumonts and the Disappearance of Eloise Worledge for Australian child crime history.

I'm having trouble finding sources. Of course, most online newspaper archives only go back to the 1990s or late 1980s and even then there are gaps. God only knows who currently holds the copyright for The News (Adelaide), Adelaide's old afternoon newspaper.

Can anyone here help me? Paul Austin (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a start, type this into google: kirste gordon site:news.google.com/newspapers All the first page of results look contemporary, though I don't know if the newspapers found are Australian. 184.147.131.217 (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The National Library of Australia's "Trove" website may also be useful for past Australian newspapers.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

July 18

Oceanian turbans

The image is a portrait of Fijian chief Seru Epenisa Cakobau with a turban

How common was wearing turbans in the islands of the Pacific in Oceania? I am wondering if the turban worn by Seru Epenisa Cakobau in this portrait was a native or an introduced/European influenced type of fashion. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Brief mention here of "a turban-like headdress made of masi which was a prerogative of chiefs". Searching for masi and turban brings up a couple more references,[4] [5] it seems very likely an indigenous Fijian garment. 184.147.131.217 (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

If they were influenced by anyone, I'd think it would be Sihks or some Muslims, who also wear turbans. Muslim influence did spread fairly near Fiji, to Indonesia, for example (much closer than Europe, in any case). StuRat (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Turbans have existed thousands of years in the Middle East and other part of the world even in Renaissance Europe before the Muslims or Sikhs came along. --2602:30A:C0A8:AC10:289F:BEBC:6382:F3C7 (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but they were less common in pre-Muslim Europe, and much farther away from the Fiji chief in both space and time, making any influence from there less likely. StuRat (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

According to this, the Muslims copied the turban from the Byzantine Empire (and Constantinople is in Europe). Alansplodge (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the Byzantine Empire fell in 1453, and the Fiji chief in question was born in 1815, making any direct influence from the Byzantines unlikely. StuRat (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed: maybe indirectly though. Alansplodge (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

If turbans weren't a native innovation, it is most likely a fashion adopted from South Asian maritime trading contacts or, a little later on, from Lascars who deserted European vessels. The sandalwood trade was just one enterprise that historically brought many ships from India to the area.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 03:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the leads. I think from the things I was able to find online that, which I used to create I-sala, it was most likely a native custom that merely resembles the turbans of Asia. It turns out that it was more of a hairscarf and the turban shape is from the hair of the wearer and not from wrapping in the shape of a normal turban. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Was there a US senator who represent two countries?

Not at the same time, of course. 149.78.124.20 (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

By "countries" I assume you mean states? See Category:Members of Congress who served in multiple states for the full list of Senators and Representatives - note that some people on the list have served as Representative for one state and Senator for another. James Shields is the only senator to have represented three states (Illinois, Missouri and Minnesota). Tevildo (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The only other person to have represented two states as Senator (rather than Senator and Representative) is Waitman T. Willey (Virginia and West Virginia). Tevildo (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I would not assume that. "States" can mean either, but "countries" only means nations. StuRat (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that the language in the Title of Nobility Clause would prevent a US Senator from holding an office in a foreign country. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it does. The President must be a "natural born" citizen, but not Senators, AFAIK. Thus, somebody with dual citizenship could possible serve in both nations at the same time. There are restrictions on Senators accepting cash from foreigners, though, so financing a campaign abroad could be tricky. If they were rich and could self-finance, that issue would be eliminated. Then there would be charges of "dual loyalties" made by their opponents in each nation, but those would be less of an issue if the two nations were close allies. Of course, no restrictions in place in the US would keep an ex-Senator from moving to another country and then seeking office there. StuRat (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"...no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I see several ways around that:

1) It doesn't apply to an ex-Senator.

2) It doesn't apply to somebody running for Senate who formerly held a foreign office.

3) It's unclear whether it applies to somebody currently holding a foreign office who then runs for US Senator. It could be interpreted to not allow them to accept the offer while they are a US Senator. (If the concern was that the offer of a foreign office could be used to reward a US Senator for a given vote, that wouldn't work if they already had it when elected in the US. Case 1 would still be a concern, but then US Senators voting in favor of some bill and then getting rewarded with a lucrative job at the company that benefited from that vote, as soon as they leave office, is a far more severe problem.)

4) Congress can give their consent, in any case. As I already mentioned, for purely political reasons the two nations would need to be close allies anyway, so consent from Congress might not be that difficult to get (although partisan politics might get in the way). StuRat (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

We may mention in passing Oliver Wallop, 8th Earl of Portsmouth, who had been a legislator in Wyoming before he succeeded to the peerage; and John W. Geary, who was San Francisco's last alcalde and first mayor, governor of Kansas Territory, and governor of Pennsylvania. —Tamfang (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's not forget the Republic of Texas... there were several early US Senators from Texas who had served in various posts in the Texas government prior to Texas becoming a State. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

When the Confederate States of America formed its provisional congress at the outset of the Civil War, one of its members was John Hemphill, who had been a U.S. senator. I don't know if he was the only one (I only noticed him by seeing the disambiguator "(senator)" on this page), and I don't know if any former US senators were members of the CSA's later, elected congresses. Of course, since the US won the war, the de jure status of the CSA is that it was never a real country and doesn't count anyway. --174.88.133.35 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis, before becoming President of the CSA, was a senator from Mississippi (and also a House representative from Mississippi and Pierce's Secretary of War).--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 03:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The CSA was not an actual nation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There's arguments to be made in both directions on that. Let's just say it's not clearly one side or the other. --Jayron32 04:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No nation considered the CSA to be a separate country. They had no more legitimacy as a nation than did Sealand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the CSA did have informal relationships with France and Britain. Napoleon III was sympathetic to their cause, but pragmatically avoided formal recognition because they were never really viable. There's some speculation that Trent Affair could have caused Britain to formally support the Confederacy as well. --Jayron32 06:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This really isn't the place to argue this, but, in brief, whether any other country considered the CSA to be a separate country is irrelevant in determining its status as a nation per se. Take a Poli Sci 101 class and it will be clear that all of Bugs' arguments are against its legitimacy (i.e. its relationship to other nations), not its status as a nation. All that's required for a nation state is that there be an "identification of a people with a polity" -- in this case a polity that happened to have its own constitutional framework, an elected government, well-defined borders, armed forces to protect said borders, printed and used its own currency, etc. You can argue against its de jure legitimacy, but not its de facto status and operation as a sovereign nation (however short-lived) during the war.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 07:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The CSA pretended to be a nation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

As sovereign states customarily do. —Tamfang (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Matthias Ward served in the Texas House of Representatives (when it was an independent country) and later as a U.S. Senator, so that's close. --Jayron32 03:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Clement Claiborne Clay served in the Senates of both the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. There may be more, a good place to research this would be at List of members of the Confederate Senate. --Jayron32 03:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Which side is whose?

In the Middle East the old bipolar alliances are clearly dead. Old enemies the US," Iran, and Syria each oppose ISIS. Sunnis and Shias are generally at each other's throats. President Obame has declared "daylight" between the US and Israel, after decades of very close cooperation.

Can anybody make sense of the current lineups? How many conflicts are there, and which countries are on each side? --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Complex task, but let's take a shot at it:

Palestinian conflict: Israel on one side, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Iran, Syria (the remaining area controlled by Bashar al-Assad) on the other. The US supports Israel politically and financially, but not with direct military intervention. Egypt is an interesting case, where the military government now in control (and formerly in control before the Arab Spring) opposes the Palestinian militants, while the recent Muslim Brotherhood government supported them. Most other Middle Eastern and EU nations stay somewhat neutral.

Syrian Civil War: a 3-way conflict here, with Assad and his supporters (including Iran) on one side, the US, Kurds, and some small remaining rebel groups on another, and ISIL on the other. Turkey is trying to remain neutral.

Iraqi insurgency: Similar to the Syrian Civil War, except Assad isn't involved and the Iraqi military is, allied with the US, although some Iraqi militias are under Iranian control.

Yemeni Civil War: Saudi Arabia is on the side of the old Yemeni government (what little is left of it), while Iran is supporting the rebels. The US has so far avoided this one. ISIL/ISIS has even fought against Al-Qaeda in Yemen. So, this is like a 4-way civil war.

There are also conflicts in Afghanistan, North Africa, etc., but I tried to narrowly define "Middle East" to avoid talking about those. One key to understanding the current situation is that the secular vs. fundamentalist division has now become as important as which sect/religion people are in. So, just being in the same sect and religion no longer guarantees that two groups will be allies, as was the case with recent fighting between Hamas and the Fatah, while secular people can cooperate even if they are of different religions, like the Israeli government and current Egyptian government. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that it is more complex, and I think StuRat's description doesn't capture very well how Palestine issue and the Israeli role links to the regional confrontations.

There are several layers of conflict, that correlate with each other. What needs to be stated is that different actors have primary and secondary antagonists. Iran and Saudi are competing for regional influence across the region, a mini Cold War of sorts. This confrontation is largely fought along Sunni-Shia lines, but it would be wrong to say that the confrontation in based upon sectarian contradictions. Rather Sunni-Shia sectarianism is an instrumentalization of a regional power game. Notably for Iran the sectarianization of regional power struggle has meant that it has had to retreat from its past ambitions to become a leading pan-Islamic force (an ambition that peaked with the 2006 Lebanon War).

Israel pitches Iran to be its primary opponent, but doesn't mean that Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies per se. Pitching itself against Iran is important for Israeli leaders in order to plead for US politicians to fund their military, it is a semantic game to portray one-self as the underdog.

In regards to Syria, Israel has exclusively hit Hezbollah/regime targets, even at times that Hezbollah battles with al-Qaeda affiliate Nusra Front. Stating that Israel and Nusra are allies would be a stretch, but evidently Israel prefers having Nusra on the Golan than Hezbollah.

All Palestinians inside Palestine are united against the Israeli occupation, there isn't any political space for collaborationist projects. Contradictions between Palestinian parties is a secondary contradiction. The Palestinians have tried to stay out of regional conflicts, but economic dependency on either Gulf states, Western states or Iran complicates that. --Soman (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: "All Palestinians inside Palestine are united against the Israeli occupation", that wouldn't seem to apply to Arabs with Israeli citizenship. (I am defining "Palestine" to include Israel, as most Palestinians do.) StuRat (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

If that quote were literally true, it would indicate that peace-loving Palestinians are afraid to speak up, for fear of being killed by their beneficent leaders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

One can be peacefully against an occupation. Typically not very effective, but popular for everyone's natural instinct against being killed by anyone. Si vis pacem, para bellum isn't as catchy as kumbaya. Despite the picture in American news, the majority of the opposition goes forward by not fighting fire with fire. Doing so is virtually a sure loss, and the violence is the thing they oppose, not the occupation, per se. Good intentions, which still pave the road to hell. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, July 19, 2015 (UTC)

"For those who have never lived in a system of violence like the Israeli occupation, it is hard to understand how simply not going anywhere constitutes resistance, but when the objective of your oppressor is to get you to leave your land, staying put is part of the daily struggle. In this sense, every Palestinian living under the Israeli occupation is a nonviolent resister." InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, July 19, 2015 (UTC)

I dispute that "all Palestinians inside Palestine are united against the Israeli occupation, there isn't any political space for collaborationist projects". Plenty of Palestinians would be happy to move to Israel if they had the chance. Or for Israel and the West Bank to unite into a "bi-national" state. Abu Mazen runs on a relatively moderate (or at least pragmatic) platform, and he's mainstream. And when it comes to non-political practical collaboration with Israel, be it civil administration, military, or commercial, believe me, thousands of Palestinians are involved in such activities. They don't usually feel safe boasting about it, though. Nuance and moderation are not unheard of in the West Bank. The compactness of the Gaza Strip on the other hand, pretty much forces everyone into the same cauldron, ergo a lot less nuance. 110.149.165.69 (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, I think someone should refer the OP the the USA's long-term strategy: Balance of power (international relations). The US remains the biggest guy in the room by ensuring that everybody else is worrying about each other, and cancelling each other out, so no regional hegemon arises. Ergo, The US can and does shift alliances to help maintain this supposed "balance". That's the theory, at least. 110.149.165.69 (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

On a personal level many Palestinians are coerced into collaboration. Sometimes for money, sometimes to secure medical treatment for a family member. This reality is very much part of the Palestinian collective tragedy. But as a political project, collaborationism would be a dead-end. Fatah, albeit heavily entrenched in coordinations with Israeli authorities, maintains a nationalist posture. --Soman (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The Syrian Conflict is far more complex as our article describes. You left out Hezbollah, the Khurds, Iran, etc. and al Qaeda versus ISIL among other belligerents. Rmhermen (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Good afternoon!

On the Wikipedia page for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (top, right hand side) it has his birth name as:

Born	Michael King, Jr.

January 15, 1929 Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.

Is this correct?

Thank You,

boyd schenck2601:242:8201:16F0:CD78:FE57:BC1B:4B67 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. In the "early life and education" section the birth name is mentioned with a link to this website as a reference so the line in the infobox is correct. MarnetteD|Talk 19:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Even though King's father said Martin was never supposed to be named Michael, but the doctor made an incorrect assumption and "Michael" ended up on the birth certificate. But yeah, the definition of "birth name" seems to be "whatever the doctor wrote on the paper", rather than "what the family intended and actually used". He was apparently never called "Michael". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:242:8201:16F0:CD78:FE57:BC1B:4B67 (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Myth that Banks create money out of nothing

not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a myth that banks create money out of nothing when they give/approve a loan to a borrower. This is not true. Banks do not create money out of nothing. Banks create loans out of nothing. When the loan goes bad, it becomes bad debt and it is cancelled by removing it from the ledger and REDUCING the bank's shareholder equity. In other words, the amount of VALUE the bank's shareholder has, has been REDUCED by the amount of bad debt. In other words, the bank took the VALUE from it's shareholder and gave it to the borrower. This is not creating money out of nothing, it is transferring money belonging to the bank's shareholder and giving it to the borrower. 220.239.43.253 (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Please read the guidelines at the top of the page. This desk if for requesting links to relevant articles or references and related subjects. It is not a place to make or engage in arguments. μηδείς (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

July 19

Why are bad things considered "good" by those that oppose them?

Can someone tell me why things that are traditionally considered bad (racism, fascism, rape, supplanting native populations, mass murder, etc) are considered good when flipped/reversed (affirmative action, Islam, male prison rape, multiculturalism, feminist advocated male genocide)? It seems that those on the "hard left" of the political spectrum take all the things they claim to hate and then advocate those things to be applied against their ideological enemies. Have I misunderstood something? Schlicks2animegrills (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Missing from your question are specific examples. Can you flesh out even one case in which one extreme corresponds to another extreme? I think these would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. You might as well start with one case. In my opinion any generalized response to your inquiry would be almost nonproductive. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The one case that rings true is racism versus Affirmative Action. That's just counter-discrimination. One advocate claimed it's OK because it discriminates "for" someone, as opposed to "against" them. However, when you discriminate for anyone, you automatically discriminate against everyone else. Better to just enforce anti-discrimination laws, IMHO. StuRat (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The theory behind affirmative action is that there are more candidates than there are positions. Without affirmative action, an organization would be free to select by race, thus leaving out equally qualified candidates of another race. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be racial discrimination, which is illegal. Selecting candidates based on stats alone, with no pictures, names (like Lakeshia Jackson), or interviews, would be one way to eliminate racial bias in hiring. I also reject the idea that there are equally qualified candidates. Whatever you are ranking people on, you can always add more precision, to enable you to distinguish between candidates. For example, SAT scores range from 600 to 2400, so you aren't likely to get many candidates with exactly the same score. StuRat (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it now usual to conflate "affirmative action" with non-discrimination? As I understand the term, AA means going beyond passive non-discrimination to, for example, advertising aimed at the disadvantaged. —Tamfang (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The old way was "take care of the white guys first and see if anything's left over." Under affirmative action, it's fairer overall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The OP's core premise is highly flawed. Every one of the so-called "opposites" are not opposites, and the notion that left embraces the second list is baloney. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

At least for the case of "affirmative action" (or "positive discrimination" outside the US), the article privilege (social inequality), and other articles linked from there, should give some of the answers. For advocates of the approach, its undesirable attributes are outweighed by larger considerations. The OP's dichotomy of "good"and "bad" is too simple to be of any value in the discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a look at the "War of Words" (I prefer "Dictionary Dance-off") between Republicans and Democrats. Did you know the opposite of life is choice? Me neither.

Even generally, you never want your opponent to sound good, when you and your opponent's power depends on who likes who. If it's one-on-one, best to go with accentuating his/her positives. That way, if you win, you beat someone formidable, and if you lose, you didn't get beat by a schmuck. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

Considering the username and that this is their first edit, congrats folks, you got trolled. --Golbez (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

What is implied by the username? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"schlick" is the female equivalent to the male "fap". --Golbez (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Or the opposite. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what "fap" means either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Really? (Is it younger generations slang?) It means to wank. Like how the British are often calling each other wankers. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

How do American atheists hold funerals?

I am just wondering, because I've read obituaries and watched movies and noticed that dead people have a funeral service in a church. It makes me wonder whether American atheists have a funeral at all. Although Christian-raised atheists may have Christian families who may bury them or cremate them, what about people whose families have never been Christian? I have heard that most cemeteries are owned by churches, so does that mean non-Christians have to be buried in their own backyard or cremated? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of cemeteries have "non-denominational" areas, for those who choose burial. Many cemeteries are owned by trusts, and divvied up into sections for each denomination. But as to the general question, I suspect most atheists would choose to donate their body to science (i.e. to be used for research). Do we have an article on this phenomenon? It still leaves the question of what to do with the person's remains after the researchers are finished with them, though. You've still got the same options as everyone else: burial, or cremation. If I was an atheist (which I am NOT), I would want to donate my organs and tissues to living recipients if possible, the rest of my body to science, and after the scientists were done, Natural burial. 110.149.165.69 (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The article on the "phenomenon" as you call it is body donation. Dismas|^(talk) 15:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Tons of US communities have public cemeteries; anyone may buy any lot that's not already purchased by someone else. But what about the funeral itself? I don't know; hopefully someone else will know better than I do. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There are likely as many answers to what atheists do as to what theists do. While not a religious occasion, the life is often still celebrated with friends and family. There may be a viewing of the body at a funeral home and then off to the cemetery like many theists. There may be no body (possibly due to donation to science, cremation, etc) and just photos of the deceased while people sit around a pub or a family member's home and again, celebrate the life. Dismas|^(talk) 15:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a list of links to secular ceremony officiants, in the US and elsewhere, here. In the UK, where most people are cremated, secular and humanist funerals like these are widely practiced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

When I said "atheist", I did not really mean secular. Sometimes, atheists will follow traditional cultural practices, but I don't think that idea is feasible if the atheist is removed geographically from the rest of the family. It may be very difficult to keep traditions in the family that way. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

We're pretty much all non-believers in my family, but the ceremonies are still followed. Most Catholic priests won't ask too many questions about a funeral as long as you make a donation (about $1,000 for my sister's funeral). I did the readings in the funeral mass, although everyone knows I am an atheist. I just don't go to communion. You might also want to watch Six Feet Under to see various options for funerals. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Funeral homes often offer free coffee (or even little sandwiches). That's not the main reason people show up, but it's better than paying for it. Some places let you pay for it. Something for everyone, no need for faith. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, July 19, 2015 (UTC)

I just realized you asked "how" and not "why". My bad. For one less-than-sacred farewell to an ungodly mess, see G.G. Allin's funeral. Or don't. Viewer discretion is advised and, of course, that's not typical for or indicative of atheists. Just an (allegedly bad) example. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

Hi 71.79.234.132—you say "I have heard that most cemeteries are owned by churches". Where have you heard that? Do you have a source for that? Bus stop (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

July 20

Why did Bush and Obama let North Korea get nuclear bombs but not Iran?

Did they have intelligence that the craziness is all bullshit and the Iranians' craziness is real? Did North Korea make too many dumb empty threats? I guess in their favor the Koreans just want to have something intact enough to invade and the Iranians want to commit genocide and country destruction. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Iran is closer to places that have lots of oil. ;) --Jeffro77 (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Tthe U.S. is clearly in less of a position to influence what goes on in North Korea. The Chinese government considers it very much within their sphere of influence, and while they may not like the idea of North Korea having nuclear weapons, they probably like the idea of the U.S. deciding the issue even less. As for the suggestion that Iran wants to engage in 'genocide and country destruction', I very much doubt it - their regional ambitions have much more to do with their rivalry with Saudi Arabia as the local head honcho, and they know full well that any use of nuclear weapons would be suicidal. Don't mistake bellicose rhetoric for military ambition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hitler and Japan should've known that starting WWII that early was suicidal. But no need to copy, if Iran's leaders are rational then they are what they are. They must fantasize though, right? If they had advanced nuclear tech and the rest of the world had none?.. Maybe they'd bomb Saudi Arabia, too? Or maybe the people at the top don't actually believe Allah and just want power? So Israel's not that important then. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it has much to do with let. Iran depends on foreign trade much more than North Korea, thus the regime of Sanctions against Iran are a reasonable tool to use to put pressure on Iran to curtail their nuclear weapons program. North Korea is quite isolationist, and has little in the way of raw materials or finished goods it trades with the outside world anyways, it's hard to hold the sanction of "we'll cut off trade with you" with a country that doesn't trade much with the outside world anyways. --Jayron32 04:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Country With The Highest Life Expectancy In 1950

What was the country with the highest life expectancy in 1950? What was its life expectancy?

125.255.167.126 (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

According to http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/datamaps/LifeExpectancyWorldMaps/Life_Expectancy_WorldMap_1950.html it seems Norway topped the list with a life expectancy (at birth) of 71.6 years. Gabbe (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

World Infant Mortality Rate

What was the infant mortality rate of the world in 1850, 1900, 1950 and 2000?

Nineguy (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

You want the average infant mortality rate for the whole world or the median with upper end and lower end? The answer rests on that knowledge, because there is a disparity in infant mortality rate between wealthier, developed nations and impoverished, undeveloped nations. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Why did the UK lose economic ground to France, Germany and Italy?

As I understand it, in about 1960, the UK was richer than the other three countries, as measured by GDP per capita. But, over time, these countries overtook the UK. Why did this happen?--Leon (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

See Economic history of the United Kingdom. In two words - Harold Wilson. In a few more words - NEDC, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Technology, decimalization, British Leyland... Tevildo (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The basic reason is a case of the common but absurd obsession with foreign currency exchange rates, leading to excessive high interest rates to "protect" an exchange rate and the highly destructive consequences of high interest. The greatest damage was probably under Thatcher. Trying to remember a good paper on this. When George Soros broke the pound later, he made himself a fortune but helped the UK far more by helping it change from a destructively following this traditional obsession. Of course, the UK was helped more recently keeping the pound, not going into the Euro death trap, like those other 3.John Z (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

20s vs 40s

I;m a 27 year old guy but am pondering whether to propose to a 40 year old. I suspect she will accept but our families probably not, seeing our age difference as weird. I was wondering how uncommon it is for a man to marry a 40 year old woman. Any stats? 78.144.241.217 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

See Age disparity#Statistics. -- ToE 21:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

See also Age disparity in sexual relationships. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Aha, same article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This [6] article from the Chicago Tribune gives some statistics and links to further studies. Relevant to your case - "A 2003 AARP study found 34 percent of women older than 40 were dating younger men, with 8 percent seeing men 10 or more years younger." So your situation is not the most common, but it's not that rare either. (Bad Religion, Lady Gaga and OK Go all agree on the matter - "Do What You Want" [7] [8] [9] :) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Rita Rudner is about 4 years older than her husband. She said, "The old theory was, marry an older man, they're more mature. The new theory is, men don't mature, so marry a younger one." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Conditions in Cuba

Is Cuba a poor country? If so, then why does it have a high life expectancy and a high literacy rate?

Nineguy (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)