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 1

Army and Navy Rank Insignia

At some point in the last few years the British Army has taken to displaying rank insignia on the chest instead of on the arms or shoulders. The new uniform recently announced for the RN follows this pattern. What is the reason for this change? DuncanHill (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Here it says it's "to ensure an individual is instantly identifiable" - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it Academically Acceptable to Make Your Own Qualitative Research Method Based on Existing Ones?

Please consider the following scenario:

Suppose that researcher X is a qualitative purist who thinks that contemporary qualitative research has a tendency to lean towards quantitative methods. Suppose, too, that he decides to use observational methods and discourse analysis to study a certain political phenomena. However, since these two methods are increasingly becoming dependent on mathematics, he decides to create a new method based on existing ones to fit his purist research orientation. Is it academically acceptable for him to do so? Do you know of any published articles or books that thoroughly discuss this issue?Rja2015 (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The only way to know for sure is to try it, and get the work published. If you succeed, then you know it's possible. If you fail, then you might want to stick with something a bit more well-known and reliable until you have more experience and perhaps a bit of a name in your field. I don't mean to sound insincere, I'm totally serious - there may be articles about the success if introducing new methods in qualitative research, but mostly people will just try to publish the actual research. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Bicorne de l'Académie française

Académie française#Uniform says "[t]he official uniform of a member is known as l'habit vert, or the green habit.... It consists of a long black coat and black-feathered cocked hat (officially called a bicorne)..."

I was able to find some old pictures of the bicorne with an image search, but no comtemporary ones, and the Académie page about the habit vert[1] doesn't mention it or have pictures. It does have pictures of the tunic and ceremonial sword. The page about installing new members[2] mentions the bicorne as do a few other pages. Anyone know the status of the bicorne? Is it used only at initiation ceremonies? Abolished altogether? I found a page (from the UK I guess) stating "[t]heir uniform of a green velvet tailcoat, sword, brogues and bicorn hat looks ridiculous even to someone from a country that still has beefeaters"[3] so I can understand if they decided to phase out the bicorne, but it's hard to find info, at least without reading French. If a usable picture can be found, the wiki article surely needs it. Thanks.50.0.205.75 (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've done some image searches, here is perhaps some of the best results I've found. Empirically, it doesn't look like the bicorne hat is worn anymore. There's lots of pictures of Academie members in their famous habit vert, but non with headgear of any kind. I can find other French institutions which still use the Bicorne as a part of official dress, for example the École Polytechnique has such a uniform, see here. But the Académie does not seem to wear them anymore. I did find some manequins with them on display, for example here and here. But none of actual modern Académie members wearing them anymore. I have no idea what the copyright status of those manequin pictures are, but they look to be on public display somewhere, so perhaps a French Wikipedian could snap and upload a pic of them. --Jayron32 01:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There are (copyrighted) pictures dating from 2009 of Mozah bint Nasser Al Missned wearing the Academie francaiseAcadémie des beaux-arts uniform including the hat. Not usable on wikipedia, but indicates that the hat has not been completely discarded. Abecedare (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: corrected Académie française->Académie des beaux-arts in my previous post. The uniforms look similar, but there might be some specific difference identifying the exact academy. Abecedare (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As can be inferred from the following, they are the same. "The Academicians wear the dark blue woolen suit embroided with those yellow and green olive tree branches which are earning it its name of "l'habit vert" ". Hats are not mentionned. --Askedonty (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Both Academies are part of the Insitut de France (French language article). The Habit vert (again, French article) is the uniform of the whole institute, not just the Academie Francaise. --Jayron32 12:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I feared that there might be a small distinguishing detail in the uniform identifying each academy (as in color and tassel position of graduation caps in some places). But the Academy site says, "Le costume, comme l’épée, est commun à tous les membres de l’Institut de France", so that should settle it. Btw, it too does not mention anything about the bicornes. Abecedare (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, the PICTURE shows a bicorne hat tucked under the arm of the mannequin. So, even though it isn't explicitly mentioned, it is shown in the picture. --Jayron32 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I just thought of looking at the fr.wiki article[4] and it adds a little more info about the uniform--(it was purportedly invented by Napoleon and historically used culottes instead of the modern trousers it uses today, and that it's very expensive, taking 6 months to make. But doesn't say anything about the hat. Will see if any other replies arrive and maybe check Wayback Machine for old versions of the Académie's own pages, but am tired now, so not tonight. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think breeches would be a less ambiguous translation than culottes. Alansplodge (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

How do I solve this problem on fair pricing of shares?

How do I solve this problem? Please help/advise. Thank you!

You are a mutual fund manager. You are interested in company FAB. Company FAB is an all equity company with 1M shares outstanding. Your research indicates that FAB has a CAPM asset beta of 2. You think that the expected free cash flow of FAB will be $10M in year 1 and will grow at 5% thereafter. FAB stocks are currently trading at $73 per share. FAB pays out all its FCF as dividends. FAB does not have any cash. The risk free rate is 4% and the market risk premium is 7%. Ignore taxes or transaction costs. a) What is the fair price of FAB shares in year 0? b) What will be the fair price of FAB shares in year 1? You expect that FAB shares will be trading at the fair price in year 1. You purchase 10,000 shares of FAB today and hold it for a year. c) What is your expected return from year 0 to year 1? d) What is the cost of capital of your portfolio? What is the CAPM alpha of your portfolio? e) What is the NPV of your portfolio in year 0? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.135.176.108 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You might ask at the math desk, but say what you've tried so far. This sounds like a homework problem and they will likely be willing to help you through it, but not straight-out answer it for you. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently this "Jenny N.E. Dotz" was a prominent acting figure of some sort, but why do we not have her?

Either spelled Jenny N.E. Dotz or Jenny N.E. Dahtz, she's a prominent person in the acting arena somehow. But would someone please explain why we don't have an article on her? Would we please create said article? Thanks. --2602:306:B8A5:26B0:3D87:9AB2:40B5:53D6 (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. It's possible someone might search for it, but I'll G7 it if necessary. Tevildo (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are there still OLD people in OLD pictures?

I THOUGHT EVERYONE WAS YOUNGER IN THOSE DAYS!

I look at pictures made MANY DECADES AGO, and there are STILL, OLD PEOPLE IN THEM?

Whatever happened to EVERYONE BEING YOUNGER decades ago? Why were some people STILL OLD in, say, a picture made in 1990, if everybody was supposably 25 years younger then?

This is a photo of two old people... IN 1990! <-- See that? Why don't they look younger if everyone was 25 years younger that year??? Something is obviously wrong here. *shakes head*

Oh, BTW, here's where it's even worse somehow! Even 100 years ago, there were OLD-looking people in 1915, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE supposably 100 YEARS YOUNGER! This is RATHER confounding, don't you think??? --107.138.82.107 (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry we cannot help with such confounding queries here, even on April 1st. Please ask Calvin's dad instead. Abecedare (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8A5:26B0:88C:7C1E:ACD2:A635 (talk)

Had they lived, they would now look 100 years older than they did in 1915. So, by comparison, the way they looked in 1915 would be young. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Bingo. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:11, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

April 2

Far-right

Opinion polls for political elections in Europe, and sudden appearances of street demonstration movements show that the appeal of the far-right has increased in Europe. What is the reason behind this? Pulled u policc (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean "reasoning" (logic by which this conclusion was reached) or "reason" (explanation for why this change has occurred).

As for a reason, recent acts of terrorism, associated with immigration, could certainly turn people off on immigration, and opposition to immigration is one aspect of right-wing groups. Economic problems also make the EU look like a bad choice for some nations (although personally I think it's their unwillingness to live within their means and attempt to get others to pay their debts that caused the problems). Withdrawing from the EU is also a right-wing position. StuRat (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed to "reason". Pulled u policc (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I would read the article and section at Far-right_politics#Nature_of_support. The author Jens Rydgren is cited there; he seems to be one of the foremost scholars on the subject, perhaps reading his works may lead you to find the answers you seek. --Jayron32 11:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

At least some of the recent success of the right in Europe is that those parties are willing to challenge the pro-European Union consensus. For anybody opposed to European integration and steps towards a Federal Europe with the resulting loss of national sovereignty, the far right parties are often their only voice. EU policy is closely connected with the immigration issue highlighted by StuRat above. In the UK, the centre-right Conservative Party has promised a referendum on continued membership of the EU in an effort to undermine growing support for the more extreme UK Independence Party, for whom leaving the EU and restricting immigration are the main planks of their policies. Alansplodge (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Lusitania

Who was (I'm saying was here since i'm pretty sure there are none still alive) the last living of the Lusitania disaster? Saturn star (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Audrey Lawson-Johnston. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Where will I find a safe haven from the coming economic collapse?

This shows there'll be a massive economic collapse more severe than the one in 2008, and possibly even 1929. Would I be wise to take German classes in order to flee to Germany before I get caught up in the collapse? What countries besides America will get caught in the massive economic upheaval?

OTOH, what countries will be safe from this type of collapse? I need to find a suitable venue to escape to before these massive troubles arrive to consume me alive. Thanks. --2602:306:B8A5:26B0:65E3:5559:F658:216A (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

A recession on the scale your talking about would be global. You could look for someplace where you could live off the land and not worry about the rise and fall of the economy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I assume your post is intended to be humorous hyperbole. In case it is not, and you are not familiar with Porter Stansberry's background see this compilation of articles by Brian Deer, and US News' Financial Publisher Who Defrauded Public Investors Is Back With Another Ominous Video. Abecedare (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The author is an obvious crank. There's no particular reason to believe his forecasts over those of any other people; indeed, given that he's trying to sell something, and thus has a personal interest in being as sensationalist as possible, there's probably less reason to believe his forecasts. There have been these kinds of forecasts of economic doom for centuries, but almost all of them have turned out to be wrong (sometimes they've been right, but just by chance). The mark of a good forecaster is that he is tentative in his predictions, and provides reasoned arguments in support of his conclusions. Inspection of the website you linked to shows that the first of these criteria is clearly not met, and, although I haven't read his "free" book (presumably he makes his money by overcharging on the postage and packing), the website doesn't suggest that there is any sound economic reasoning provided. I'd advise you to relax and ignore this person.

If you want to learn a language anyway, just for pleasure, I'd recommend French, so you can read Balzac's Comédie humaine, some of whose characters are motivated by a fear of poverty, and whose actions may illuminate your own reaction to the website you've mentioned. RomanSpa (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The fate of the German economy is bound up with that of the Eurozone, so maybe not as bombproof as you imagine. Alansplodge (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• In simplest terms "not with the guy who made that video". If impending economic collapse is coming, it would be caused by charlatans like the person who made that video tricking good people out of their money and making himself rich in the process. Work hard, save your cash in safe places, don't live beyond your means. That seems to work well for the rest of us. Buying what this guy is selling is a fast track to personal economic collapse. --Jayron32 12:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If the European economy shrinks/collapses, then the number of work permits for migrants will be cut. If this happens, you won't be allowed to work in Germany, unless you have (or can apply for) citizenship of an EU or at least an EEA country. LongHairedFop (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Both Cuba, not very far away, free healthcare and university, nice weather and their economy showed resilience through the last global recession. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That may soon change, though. The hostility between the US and Cuba is ending, and that may lead to extensive US investment which will tie Cuba to the US economy. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a third way of measuring and reward the value of work?

Besides market price, and governmental set prices (maybe calculating the total time invested in a product), how can we value work? What has be claimed as fair independent of these two approaches (basically the capitalist and communist)? Noopolo (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the market price of an item is supposedly set somewhere between the cost to produce it and the value it can be sold for. In the case of labor, you listed the total time put in, which would go to the cost side (although I'd also include other costs like the level of education required, the danger involved, etc.). As far as the value, you could look at what money is produced by a fixed amount of labor and then set the pay based on that. For example, if you decide 50% of the profits should go to the workers, then if each shirt produced by a sweat-shop worker generates $10 profit, then that worker would get $5 per shirt, reducing the owner's profit from $10 to $5.

Note that this approach does mean that workers would automatically be paid more when profits are higher and less (or even nothing) when profits are low or nonexistent. Some type of insurance may be needed to cover them during bad times (assuming they aren't able to save up for bad times during good times). On the plus side, there would be no need to ask or strike for raises, as they would come automatically with increased productivity as the employee gets better at their job or the company becomes more profitable.

On the downside, figuring out how certain employees contribute to the overall profits of the company could be problematic. How much does the janitor who empties the trash, contribute, for example ?

For another alternative, perhaps you could set a ratio of CEO compensation to employee total compensation. For example, if you decided that the CEO should never receive more than 1000 times the pay of any employee, and his total compensation worked out the 10 million per year, then no full-time employee should make less then 10 thousand per year. Here you'd have to figure out what to do about part time workers (prorate the minimum based on hours worked per week divided by 40 ?), and very carefully define "total compensation" to avoid CEOs being given the use of mansions, private jets, etc., "off the books".

You could also break this down further and say unskilled workers get a minimum of 1/1000th, semi-skilled get 1/800th, and skilled worker 1/500th, for example. (Here you'd need to carefully define each category.) Again a big advantage is no need to ask for or strike for higher wages, as the CEO would be forced to give them, if he expects a raise himself. You'd also have to be careful the define "CEO" as the person who receives the top compensation, or you would get a CEO in title only with low pay and a President (who actually functions as a CEO) with the top salary. StuRat (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Claims in "18 Signs of High Emotional Intelligence"

Re http://themindunleashed.org/2015/03/18-signs-of-high-emotional-intelligence.html is there any support for the claim that, "Decades of research now point to emotional intelligence as being the critical factor that sets star performers apart from the rest of the pack. The connection is so strong that 90 per cent of top performers have high emotional intelligence."? Are the 18 signs listed based on reliable research? Basically, is this information reliable (without regard to the source reliability because I know it looks like a blog.) 50.243.144.137 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article titled Emotional intelligence, and one does find the concept well published in reliable sources. It's not a universally accepted concept, but does have some acceptance in scholarly circles. That being said, I have no idea if the specific statement "90 per cent of top performers have high emotional intelligence" is reliable, nor what these supposed "18 signs" are, as the Wikipedia article makes no mention of them. Still, the Wikipedia article could lead you some interesting places, as there are plenty of links to reliable resources, including peer-reviewed journals and the like. --Jayron32 19:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Is "talent" anywhere on the list? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sports which women excel over men

Now this could be a spiky one, and it may have been discussed before, but a curious discussion at work led me to ask this: are there any competitive sports where women quantitatively out-perform men? Most competitive sports are divided into men's and women's contests to avoid the contest (including snooker, darts, curling, shooting etc), and obviously, comparisons like the 100m sprint or tennis finals clearly demonstrate a gulf in athletic ability (and reasonably so). The only sports we could come up where men and women currently compete against one another on a level playing field were dressage (dominated right now by Charlotte Dujardin) and ........ not much else. Ultimately I concluded that within objective scoring terms (e.g. time to run 100m, most points scored with 100 shots, highest pole vault etc) there is no sport that women excel over men. Can anyone refute that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Men are gradually being admitted to Synchronized swimming, but it started out as a women-only event. It may be worth checking out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I had considered that, but it's a sport in which the result is governed by judges, making subjective (albeit theoretically in compliance with some kind of guidance) judgements, much like dressage. It's not like saying Man A ran the 100m in 10s, Woman B can only do it in 11s. Are there any sports whose results are objective in which women excel over men? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought I read somewhere that women were at least competitive with men in the longest ultramarathon distances, but I can't find any evidence of it in our article. --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Women not only compete in dressage, but also in show jumping, which, despite the name, uses objective scoring. Just clearing all obstacles according to the rules within the given time gives a rider a perfect score. In the team jumping event at the 2008 olympics, the top 5 teams all had at least one woman, and the winner had two. The only rider with a perfects score in the first two rounds in that competition was Edwina Alexander. - Lindert (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There are very few women jockeys in thoroughbred racing, but Julie Krone won the Belmont in the 1990s, which means women can compete in that sport. Danica Patrick competes in auto racing, though with no major wins to her credit. The pattern here is that in sports that are not all about brute strength, women have a fair shot. It's also worth pointing out that men tend to not do well in some events where women excel. The uneven parallel bars, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Crediting the woman when the horse/car does all the work seems rather unfair to the horse/car. --2001:4898:80E0:EE43:0:0:0:3 (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Saying that the horse/car "does all the work" is a late April Fool's joke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you can't dispute that the horse/car does do almost all the work. There's a big difference between horse riding and, say, ultra-distance swimming (mentioned below). --Bowlhover (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Saying in dressage or in cross-country horse-riding, that the horse does almost all the work, saying in rally-driving that the car does almost all the work, is like saying in competition parachuting, that gravity does almost all the work, or like saying in shooting sport, that the gunpowder in the cartridge does almost all the work... Akseli9 (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ultra-distance swimming. Also competitive in shooting, Archery, and equestrian events (as already mentioned). Abecedare (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Giving birth. Still undefeated, in all of history. --Jayron32 00:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait till I tell your wife that you think childbirth is a "competitive sport". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If we're comparing men to women, we lose every time on that one. And my wife is FAR better at it than I would ever be. Trust me. Two time champion. I conceded every time. --Jayron32 05:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Susan Butcher was a major competitor in the Iditarod. We should also say a bit about why women do better in some sports than others. Women tend to have higher body fat and less muscle. While muscle is important in most sports, fat can also be important, in providing long term energy for endurance sports, thermal insulation, and bouyancy, in the case of water sports (or potentially falling through the ice while mushing dogs). StuRat (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget that there are competitive Mixed doubles (tennis), Badminton#Mixed doubles and Mixed curling. The first and last have major competitions. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ronda Rousey is arguably the most dominant UFC champion, as far as the gap between a division's champ and top contenders. She barely breaks a sweat. Five men ahead of her on the pound-for-pound rankings, but that's because their opponents are tougher (and a little because of sexism).

But as far as starpower goes, Dana White (among more objective others) has called her the biggest in UFC history. So she excels at getting paid for her sport. Bonus perks aside, she made $12,857 per second in pure purse last time out (also the fastest title fight ever). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:09, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

Does she fight men? I don't see any indication of it in her article. If she doesn't fight men, then I don't think she's really relevant to the question being asked. --Trovatore (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No, not yet. Though it's the logical next step, and the idea gets tossed around a lot. Joe Rogan is cool with it.

But excelling at sports isn't purely about athletics. Mainstream fame and glory has always counted for something, and men compete with women on that field. She's probably also the only judoka most North Americans can name. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:36, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

Well, but this is routine. There have been lots of times that there's more excitement about the top woman tennis player than the top man. The question seems to be about the case where a top female tennis player could actually beat a top male one (not a Bobby Riggs). --Trovatore (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

She beats the men, indirectly, in fastest average fight time and just barely second in submission attempts. Aside from fellow cash cow Conor McGregor, she's the only one on that fast list that didn't get there by losing fast.

But yeah, she's an exception to the rule. MMA's still a man's game, overall, and Rousey herself recently crapped on the mixed match idea, for the punching. Plenty of videos of her grapple sparring with top guys, though. She usually holds her own. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:26, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, that doesn't count. If she's fighting women, then the fact that she wins her fights faster than the men is not an equal comparison (unless of course the men are fighting women too, which I don't think they are). --Trovatore (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In theory, at least, two top-level male bantamweights are as evenly matched as two female bantamweights. That the woman wins so much more cleanly over her equal than the man does gets makes her proportionately better. In theory.

Depending on your viewpoint, Fallon Fox might be a man who fights women. Not a great record. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

But the question is clearly not about "proportionately better", but about absolutely better. --Trovatore (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The answer's no, then. Every purely athletic direct competition will generally favour men. Black men. But a white woman can excel in certain sports, considering the whole picture. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

I recall Serena Williams playing (training with?) a male player who was ranked around 100th. He had to take it easy on her. Williams herself admits she would stand no chance against a top player like Andy Murray.[5] Clarityfiend (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Here we go. Both Williams sisters played Karsten Braasch, the 203rd best male player in 1998. He beat Serena 6-1 and Venus 6-2.[6] Clarityfiend (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've just checked out the claims in this thread and the only one I can see is long-distance swimming. You've probably heard of Diana Nyad, but Lynne Cox swims for hours among the iceburgs, something I can't imagine even doing for a second without dying.

My theory is that any man who is in good enough shape to swim that far won't be able to hold so much fat on his body. Lynne Cox has a lot of subcutaneous fat despite her marathoner stamina. She floats where a man in such great condition would sink. Her fat keeps her internal organs warm enough to not die, just like that of a seal or something, where a man would suffer hypothermia. There is no reason to think that a man will ever beat a woman at long-distance, ultra-cold water swimming, it's just physics. A man who could beat Lynne Cox would be a freak of nature. Chrisrus (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That's what people said about women in sports like the 100 m run. But the records for men and women have improved so much that the best woman today in the 100 m run can beat the best man 100 years ago. This is even more true of some other sports, like marathon running, where the current women's world record of 2:15:25 was only surpassed by a man in 1958. There is no reason to think other men--and other women--won't eventually beat Lynne Cox. --Bowlhover (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In the early years, Finnish female competitors in parachuting were not numerous enough, so they were competing together in the same categories with men, jumping together with men from the same plane, etc. These women were as good as men, reaching the top-ten etc, and it's a woman, Raija Syyrakki, who was Champion of Finland in 1993, and the only other woman who participated that year, placed 7th. Parachuting championship competitions consisted of two main disciplines called "style and precision" and it's the overall results addition that was taken into account. Akseli9 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Bowlhover, sorry but you're logic is faulty. The records for all top men at the 100m have always been far ahead of the men, and just because women's have improved enough to best very old male records doesn't imply that they will one day surpass them. In contrast, all the records for long-distance outdoor swimming belong to women, and have for a very long time. Women dominate at swimming the English Channel and all other such feats and there is no logical reason to think that men will ever beat them because they are things about the female body that makes it best at swimming long distances outdoors in cold water. The 100m run is nothing like that at all. Chrisrus (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any source for these assertions? Looking at List of successful English Channel swimmers, it appears that all time records related to swimming the English channel belong to men, not women. - Lindert (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all, in particular User:Clarityfiend who has reminded me that women tennis players getting their equal pay packet do so with consummate ease (and much less competitive effort) compared to the men. The ultimate conclusion here is that there is not a competitively and objectively measured sport in which women can beat men. Thanks for all the discussion! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with what you say about "the ultimate conclusion here". Did you miss the parts about ultra-distance swimming? --Trovatore (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, could you show me the records where women beat men in a head-to-head contest in that event please? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not know of any such. However, references were given showing that it is at least reasonable to believe that women might emerge victorious, were one held. Therefore, your sentence that starts "[t]he ultimate conclusion here" appears at the very least to be too strongly stated. --Trovatore (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so without any evidence to the contrary, and if it makes you feel better, replace "The ultimate" with "My ultimate". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You also forgot the competitive parachuting example, in which "style and precision" is what counts to win. Obviously when it comes to strength only, men will beat women, however, when it's all about style, precision, focus, self-control, self-confidence, and more about mastering some technical and mechanical aspects, I don't see why women would not be equal to men. Other examples that come to mind: Rally driver Michele Mouton, factory driver of the Audi Quattro, she has won rallies and she (along with her teammates) accomplished her mission which was to make Audi the Manufacturers World Champion. Another obvious example comes to mind: Free solo rock climber, alpinist and mountaineer Catherine Destivelle, who is the only one who can compare in the (boldest and fearlessmost) style in which she climbs, with the recent free solo climbing genius Alex Honnold. One could mention also Tanya Streeter, who used to hold the overall record of the deepest human being in the sport of No Limits Free Diving. Akseli9 (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget about fluke wins. Given enough tries, the less athletic person can beat the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

"Recent history also suggests that woman can perform alongside men in shooting competitions. At the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona, female competitor Shan Zhang of China became the Olympic gold medalist that year in mixed-event skeet competition. Over two days of competition she produced a score of 373 out of 375, a new Olympic and world record. She also became the first woman to topple the men in the history of the Olympic Games' shooting competition. Since that time, no mixed events have been held in an Olympic shooting competition." USA Shooting

While it's not quantitatively, women are always better, like men would be in a push-up competition, that's because it's the nature of professional sports. Professionals are always pushing the envelope. Also don't mistake this for a logical fallacy that men are always stronger. Men have more potential for strength, that doesn't logically follow to all men are stronger than all women.Outcast95 (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

In shooting, don't forget Annie Oakley. StuRat (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Or her 50 lady sharpshooters, whatever their names were. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

Do humans have a "natural habitat"?

Humans build their own houses and can adapt to whatever terrain is available. Does that mean that humans' natural habitat is the whole Earth, minus the oceans and Antarctica? 140.254.136.174 (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Why exclude those two entities? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Why exlude those two entities? Are you kidding? 130.195.253.36 (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, Antarctica's freezing temperature and the ocean floor's immense pressure would not make human life inhabitable. Also, humans need to breathe air, not water. Ocean water is too salty, so there must be a way to purify the water, like distillation or osmosis. 140.254.136.174 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

While any given individual may not spend decades of their life in Antarctica, there has long been a (small) permanent human population there. Babies have been born there. It's clearly very habitable. It's cold, sure, but heating is no more necessary there than it is in Toronto, for example. I guess you're excluding it because most food and other supplies need to be brought in from elsewhere. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The original natural habitat of Homo sapiens is the savannas of eastern and southern Africa, that is the environment where the species evolved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

To me a "natural habitat" would be a place where we can survive without any technology. That is, no clothes, no houses, etc. That pretty much eliminates most of the Earth. While we evolved in Africa, I actually think small tropical islands are better suited to modern humans, as the temperature ranges are less extreme. StuRat (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Spears and arrows are technology. With no technology at all humans could have eaten only whatever foods naturally grew wherever they might be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It's possible to catch some fish with bare hands. See noodling. Eggs can also be obtained this way (although climbing a tree might be required). StuRat (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In general, yeah, humans are everywhere (once you discount the biggest part of Earth). But an individual human from the tundra will find the desert unnaturally hot, and vice versa. A kid from the "wrong side of the tracks" is more likely to get in trouble on the other, whichever side is which. There are town mice and country mice. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

Yea, but I bet even Eskimos would find a small tropical island acceptable. If they overheat, they could just go for a swim. StuRat (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, and when he wants seal, he can eat a coconut. Same difference. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

He can eat mahi-mahi, or any of the vast variety of tropical fish and mammals. If pigs live on the island, that might be a good choice, too. StuRat (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Just maybe stay away from the little umbrella cocktails. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

With no technology, that should be safe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hadn't realized we were using Stu's premise. Without tech, the Eskimo wouldn't even get to the tropics. Even assuming the bigger carnivores left him be the whole way, that's a hell of a barefoot stroll. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:34, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't looking at people moving to the tropics after having lost the use of all technology, as that wasn't part of the Q. If that was a requirement, then all humans far from tropical areas would simply die, if they weren't allowed to use any technology (some would survive until the winter). I should also note that the entire human population of 7+ billion couldn't all live in tropical areas, without technology, so we would end up with a much smaller sustainable population after a massive die-off, even if they could all manage to get there alive. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

More likely they'd use a family kayak, in the days before modern technology. LongHairedFop (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A kayak is technology. StuRat's premise was no technology, not just no "modern" technology. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Modern humans did not evolve without technology--to live without tools is unnatural for us. It is also unlikely that we ever lived without fire, clothes, or shelter, or jewelry (adornment) (Compare Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Homo erectus used tools and inhabited East Asia. Homo floresiensis crossed Wallace's line. Modern man seems to have originated in East Africa, but that does not make East Africa our 'natural habitat'. Bioloigists use the terms biological range and ecological niche, not 'natural habitat'. That latter term is opposed to 'unnatural habitats', such as zoos. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good answer. Some groups have had rather minimal technology, even to the point of not being able to create fire (though still controlling fire). In most habitats, we'd be hard pressed to get adequate nutrition without fire. Consider that most birds need to build nests to reproduce, but we don't exclude areas where they do as "natural habitats" just because they need technology to survive there. Without language, fire, and at least basic tools, we wouldn't be human. — kwami (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Language itself is a tool. Communication is necessary for any society to survive (and despite what most people think, every social (or even non-social) species has some form of communication). But before answering the question about our 'natural habitat', as intimated above, we would need to define an 'unnatural habitat'. Humans can quite easily adapt to basically anywhere on this planet without tech (except for underwater, and teenagers who can't put their mobile down). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 06:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that concepts are man's greatest tool, and spoken language is modern man's normal means of conceptual communication. There is indication that spoken language may have evolved from sign language, given even 'normal' children master sign language at a pre-vocal age nowadays. μηδείς (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A naked human is no match for freezing weather, but freezing to death often makes them get naked. The tactful human calls this behaviour "paradoxical" rather than "stupid". InedibleHulk (talk) 11:25, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

April 3

Why is there no Ferdinand II of Castile?

My question here has attracted no responses in 18 months. Why is there no Ferdinand II of Castile, when there's a Ferdinand I of Castile and a Ferdinand III of Castile?

Ferdinand II of León did occupy Castile but never became King of Castile. It wasn't till 40 years after his death that his grandson Ferdinand III of Castile united Castile with León. I'm thinking that since there had already been a Ferdinand II of León, it would have been crazy to call a later king of that country "Ferdinand II". But that later king, Ferdinand III, came to the throne of Castile in 1217, thirteen years before its unification with León. So I'm still unclear why he was not named Ferdinand II of Castile at that time.

It's complicated by the fact that Ferdinand I of Castile was actually "Ferdinand I of León and Castile", so there seems to have been a splitting up of that united kingdom before its reunification in 1230, and maybe that played a large part in the regnal numbers of the relevant monarchs around that time. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Ferdinand I gets his regnal number from Leon rather than Castille. Consider List of Castilian counts. There are two Ferdinands on that list, making Ferdinand III of Castile the third person to reign in Castille first under the name Ferdinand. Just speculation. Also is the real situation that sometimes, regnal numbers got screwed up in the past because sometimes people weren't so good at history. Consider the problem of the Charleses of Sweden. Charles VIII of Sweden was the second such named monarch to rule Sweden. There were no Charles II-VII. There was also no Pope John XVI. He was an antipope that later historians mistakenly included in the official lists, by the time it was corrected it was too late and the Popes John are thus misnumbered as well. So, "they just screwed up" is an entirely plausible explanation.--Jayron32 00:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Just so. But I can't be the first person to have ever questioned this discontinuity, and there must be a full explanation of it somewhere. My googling has produced nothing of value. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This site claims Ferdinand II was Ferdinand III (in the sense that the biographical info they give there is for the person who Wikipedia calls Ferdinand III, but they call Ferdinand II). this site does the same. This site calls Ferdinand I as Ferdinand II. None of those is strictly reliable sources, but it shows the problem with researching this stuff. Undoubtedly, there's some historian somewhere who specializes in medieval petty Iberian kingdoms. His books are moldering on a shelf at some university library. --Jayron32 01:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, there are lots, and it's a very vibrant field, for sufficient definitions of "vibrant". That's not my particular area but it seems to me that you've already figured out the answer - Ferdinand III considered his grandfather to be Ferdinand II even if he didn't really rule Castile. Or, maybe some later historian messed it up and the numbering stuck, since medieval monarchs did not always use regnal numbers themselves. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Political situation in the Northern Iberian Peninsula around 1065:

  Garcia II´s domains (Galicia)

  Badajoz, owing tribute to Garcia

  Seville, owing tribute to Garcia

  Alfonso VI's domains (León)

  Toledo, owing tribute to Alfonso

  Sancho II´s domains (Castile)

  Zaragoza, owing tribute to Sancho

• Jayron's suspicion seems likely, since there were Ferdinands I & III of Leon and Castile, but only Ferdinand II of León. We think of Castile as the majority of Spain, but consider the map.

Retention of Flag after Restoration

Why did France retain its tri-colour flag after Napoleon was exiled and the monarchy restored? 130.195.253.36 (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It didn't. See Flag of France. From 1815-1830, France reverted to a form of the Fleur-de-Lys flag with white field. The Tricolore was restored with Louis Philippe, the "Citizen King", who presides over a rather liberal monarchy himself. But during the original Bourbon Restoration, France did not use the Revolutionary Tricolore. --Jayron32 01:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sometime back in the Wikipedia Elder Days, the Ref Desk was set up to help people write new articles.

And sometimes it still helps people to write new articles.

Flag of France -> Napoleon III -> Louis-Charles Boileau

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

, , , The tri-colour flag was introduced during the French Revolution in 1790. Initially, France retained the royal white flag with the gold fleurs-de-lis after Napoleon’s defeat and exile in 1814. The tri-colour flag was banned in 1815, but was eventually restored in 1830 at City Hall in Paris. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philley-skeePhilley-skee (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Jehovah's Witnesses and the cross (or in their case, the stake)

Four years ago, I asked a question on whether or not there are any known modern Christian denominations that believe that Jesus was executed using a stake rather than a cross (long story short: apparently only Jehovah's Witnesses do, at least in modern times; another question I asked the following year, as well as the article Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion, mentioned that some scholars hypothesized that Jesus was executed on a stake rather than on the cross, although it is interesting to note that none of the scholars mentioned in the article are from before the late 19th century). While re-reading the latter article, I wondered: why do the Witnesses continue to believe in the doctrine that Jesus was not crucified, but rather executed on a stake, when the vast majority of early Christian writers (including the earliest ones) wrote that the execution instrument had a crossbeam? In fact, the article states that "Christians of the first centuries are unanimous in describing the particular structure on which Jesus died as having a transom, not as a simple upright." (This statement does not have a citation; however, it is implied by the succeeding paragraphs, all of which have citations. A similar statement in the section Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion#View advanced by Jehovah's Witnesses also has a citation) I'm aware that the reason why the Witnesses hold to their doctrine is because the Greek word used in the Bible, "stauros", does not necessarily mean a cross, but how come they still hold to said doctrine when the vast majority of non-Witnesses scholars and writings have debated the Witnesses' interpretation? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of a real answer from Wavelength (or otherwise), the reason is that this is simply a way to differentiate themselves from other denominations. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, but no one else believes it, so they do. They're trolling us, basically. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure trolling is the appropriate term; social groups, including religious ones, have a need to differentiate themselves. It's been suggested by more educated people than me that keeping kosher is a similar situation. Considering some of the other ways groups have chosen to differentiate themselves throughout history, this one seems pretty innocuous. Matt Deres (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wavelength: Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The JW's, like any number of other groups, tend to follow the tradition of their leaders, until and unless some more recent leader says something different. And you can generally see why. One of the reasons, of course, is if a comparatively newer group says one of the things which they have held for years based on the statements of an early leader is wrong, it raises unfortunate questions about whether anything else that leader or those leaders may have been similarly wrong, and thinking along those lines generally leads to schisms, which most groups try to avoid.

Also, as there exists no real hard evidence to the contrary, it can be argued that all such views are equally unprovable, and there no particularly definite reason to have to change. This is kind of like the reason for the Catholic Church questioning Galileo, where the response of the church wasn't actually "you're wrong, because the Bible says different," although a lot of pop culture portrays it that way, but something more like, "Look, we've believed something different for centuries. You might be right, and we have to say you've got some interesting indicators that you might be right and the historical view wrong, but we're going to need a bit more real evidence that your newish opinion is right and the old historical view wrong." The JW's have held to the stake idea for about a century, and, in the intervening century, we haven't seen any new evidence which really indicates that the original belief is wrong. So, they haven't seen a real strong reason to have to change. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that only a few would find the road to life. (Matthew 7:13, 14) He said that not everyone calling him "Lord" would enter into the Kingdom of the heavens. (Matthew 7:21–23) Jehovah's Witnesses have published the article "Completely Equipped as Teachers of God’s Word" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002125. They have published the article "Cross" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989219. We could also ask why the vast majority of non-Witness scholars and writings on the subject continue to refer to the instrument of Jesus' execution as a cross, even though Jehovah's Witnesses have taught that it was a simple upright stake.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The Jehovah's Witness article is interesting, but they do not address the fact that the Latin crux comes from a root meaning "to turn", that the fifth century Greek [Herodotus]] mentions crucifixion with hands and feet spread, mostly by non-Greeks, and they do not tell us of a first-century Greek word besides stauros which refers exclusively to execution on a cross as opposed to a stake. The JW argument seems motivated by fears of paganism and idolatry more than the implicit notion that the Greeks would have used another term if they meant a steak with a crossbeam. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

General Election - Voting

My constituency is a safe seat with a Labour majority. I will be voting Conservative which therefore is in essence a wasted vote. Would it not be better to have two votes? One for your local MP and one for who runs the country? For example, a nation vote result might come in at 14m Tory votes, 12m Labour votes, 4m Lib Dem votes etc. That way your vote always counts. Of course, a possible problem could be a government elected with more total votes but less seats than another party and therefore less representation and harder to push through legislastion. However, I also think that Labour might offer the local solutions I want but not the national solutions, again meaning two votes could represent my wishes better. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.254.188 (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry: it says at the top, "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.", which your question seems squarely to be. We can point you at the article voting system, but not answer your question. --ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In the UK, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party who won most of the votes, is a MP (previously could be a Lord), and s/he will appoint his/her Cabinet. All members of the Cabinet must be MPs or Lords. In most of Europe a similar system applies, except that the is some PR system to pick the MPs. In the US, the President is elected separately, appoints his own Cabinet, the members need not be Senators nor Representatives. In the US deadlock can (and often does) occur if the the President is from one Party, and the other Party controls both houses. LongHairedFop (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In the UK, there are no written rules over who can be PM. For practical purposes, they would be both an MP and the leader of the majority party in Commons, but there's no rules to say that it must be that person. Additionally, there are no rules over who can serve in the Cabinet. Again, for practical purposes, they would be in Parliament in some way. But there's no rules requiring it. --Jayron32 00:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Small correction: members of the US Cabinet must not (rather than "need not") be legislators: "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office" (Article I section 6). —Tamfang (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

We had an opportunity to make a modest change to the so-called "first past the post" system in 2011, but the proposal was rejected by a substantial majority of those voting. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

---

But the places where clever people live (Oxford, Cambridge, the parts of London with lots of students from the best London universities) all voted to change the system. Once people get better educated they prefer the Alternative Vote system!

Is it really true that the prime minister in the UK is the leader of the party that won "most of the votes"? I thought that the prime minister was normally the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament, though if no party has a majority in Parliament, conceivably the PM could be the leader of a minority party who has managed to cobble together a coalition of smaller parties that does form a majority. Because of the way in which constituencies are formed, I believe it is possible for a party that came in second in total number of votes to win the largest number of seats in Parliament. Since Labour's voters tend to be concentrated in Labour-majority constituencies, and Conservative voters are more likely to be scattered across constituencies where their votes will be "wasted", as the OP says, I believe it is possible that the Conservative Party could get the highest vote total while Labour could win more seats. In that case, there could be a Labour MP even though the Conservatives won more votes. Since I'm not British, I may be incorrect, so please correct me. Marco polo (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your understand is correct. LongHairedFop's claim isn't. In practice, you generally require a fairly high degree of gerry mandering or a fairly unusual situation for the party who got the most votes to not also have the most seats. This happened in the Malaysian general election, 2013 for example but I don't think it's very common in the UK. The effects of a lack of proportionality show up more in other areas. Note also that even in countries like NZ and Germany which use Mixed-member proportional representation so generally have a fairly high proportionality between votes and seats, there's no guarantee the party who got the most votes/seats will have their leader as Prime Minister. A Prime Minister ultimately needs to be able to win confidence and supply votes, so if their party doesn't have a majority, then it's not always clear that the leader of the party who got the most votes will. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, of course I meant Seats, rather than Votes. LongHairedFop (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The last time it happened in the UK was in 1951; Churchill's Conservative party had a majority of seats, but Attlee's Labour party had the majority of the popular vote (48.0% to Churchill, 48.8% to Attlee). The last time the government party had an absolute majority (55%) of the popular vote was in 1931. Tevildo (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Also the United Kingdom general election, February 1974 in which "Labour won the most seats (301, which was 17 seats short of an overall majority) with the Conservatives on 297 seats, although the Conservatives had a larger share of the popular vote". Alansplodge (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. One thing the example does show, when there isn't excessive gerry mandering and a very odd situation, under FPTP I think this party getting the most votes not getting the majority of seats mostly happens when both are very close. For this reason, I think in practice the party who got the most votes may actually be more likely to form the government than in a country with a more proportional system, particularly for a system with very high proportionality and where there's acceptance of smaller parties and the idea that the party who got the most votes doesn't have to be the one to form the government. When the votes aren't close, they will normally get the majority of seats so can form the government, even if they may not really have anything close to majority support and the majority may prefer someone else. Or in other words, the difference is in countries with a fairly high proportionality, the government should hopefully have whatever degree of support necessary (this may not be completely support i.e. a coalition) from the combination of parties that got the most votes (hopefully a majority of votes). The other thing is that it's difficult to have a situation where a party received a majority but can't form the government or other egreious examples of the proportionality seriously being out of wack. Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Some of the effects that you see more often from FPTP are depressed voter turnout in safe seats, a lack of interest in them, problems for smaller parties who have a fair amount of national interest but insufficient concentrated interest, a good majority for a party who's share of the popular vote isn't that much higher than the next party etc. Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Some countries use proportional representation which has strengths and weaknesses like any other system, as described in the article. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Our system is not parliamentary, but both of Bill Clinton's elections were by plurality, 43% & 49%, and G W Bush received a minority of 48% in his first election, but still won. μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• To expand on that, note that Bush's 2000 victory was much more comparable to the original question than either of Clinton's victories, because Bush received fewer popular votes than the other main candidate, Al Gore. Conversely, Clinton both times faced two challengers with widespread support, and while they kept him from winning an outright majority of popular votes, he still beat each of them handily. Nyttend (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviations in Latin missal

Whom do "V" and "R" represent in this portion of a 1962 missal? As far as I can tell, the website doesn't explain if they're priest and people, priest and deacon, or something else. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Versicle and Response. Tevildo (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Rhetorical Analysis/ Criticism Applicable to Social Science Research?

There are some scholarly websites that count rhetorical analysis as a research method, but there's quite a few literature discussing how rhetorical analysis should be used in an actual research. So I'm wondering if rhetorical analysis has been used as method in any published research.49.144.142.130 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if this relates to your Q, but: It seems to me that any social research should be a 2-step process. Say we establish some fact by using data, such that those living in inner city areas do worse in education. We then need to theorize as to why that might be, and then test that theory. For example, one theory might be "Inner city youth have lower educational outcomes because their perception of the potential earning value of that education is lower than the reality". We could then do surveys to establish their expectations, and compare that with their actual earning potential, to test that theory. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Rhetorical analysis is certainly a widely used research method in the humanities, much less so in the social sciences. Certainly it would be possible to analyze social science texts from a literary or semiotic perspective focusing on the rhetoric used in such texts. Certainly a great deal of research along these lines has been published. See the publications listed here, for example. Rhetorical analysis could possibly be used as a method in social science itself, though, as StuRat's comment suggests, rhetorical analysis by itself would not be enough to count as social science research. Social science research, as it is usually defined, aims to test hypotheses about the social world. One way to test certain hypotheses might be to conduct rhetorical analysis of various discourses to determine their implications about the social world. In the context of assessing a hypothesis or claim about the social world, rhetorical analysis could be part of social science research. This search turns up a number of published social science findings that seem to use rhetorical analysis as a method. Marco polo (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Costa Concordia and Germanwings disaster insurance

Given that both of the above disasters were caused by the Captain and co-pilot respectively, what liability, if any, will be accepted by the relative insurers? Apart from the terrible loss of life in both incidents, the ship and plane were total losses with enormous search, rescue and salvage costs involved, together with already paid compensation and future compensation claims to be met. I cannot believe that any insurer would include acceptance of such liabilities when the cause(s) were the companies' own officers. Thanks 92.239.221.31 (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why insurance wouldn't cover incompetence. After all, almost all incidents are caused by human error or intent, in one form or another (including design and maintenance problems). As for intentional disasters, there it would depend on who caused it. As long as it's not the people who took out the insurance that caused the incident, then I don't see any issue with that, either. (The normal issue with intentional incidents is that they might have been done to collect the insurance and make a profit, but I don't see either company making a profit here, when you account for loss of passengers who distrust them after.) StuRat (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Depends upon the policy and prevalent law. Here is a source discussing the issue, and why in US companies are in general prevented from taking out insurance protecting themselves for liability caused by an employees deliberate act. See also the Intentional Acts exclusion in Nationwide's General Liability Insurance. Of course, airlines don't sign up for such cookie-cutter policies and certain internationl agreements cover the area, so the principles may or may not apply. Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Former New Jersey Supreme Court justice, Andrew Napolitano, comments on the liability of Lufthansa here (skip the interviewer's intro, and go directly to 1:25 in the video). This article points out some of the complexities of insurance payout in the 9/11 attacks. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The International Underwriting Association of London (IUA) publishes the text of their standard aviation policy on their website (click on AVN 1C - it opens as a Word Doc). In SECTION IV (A) GENERAL EXCLUSIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL SECTIONS, "This Policy does not apply:- 10. To claims caused by... (e) Any malicious act or act of sabotage.... (g) Hi-jacking or any unlawful seizure or wrongful exercise of control of the Aircraft or crew in Flight (including any attempt at such seizure or control) made by any person or persons on board the Aircraft acting without the consent of the Insured". Although the Germanwings aircraft may not have been insured in London, it was almost certainly reinsured there. Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It's by no means certain (this being a legal matter, after all) that the co-pilot's actions were "malicious" (as he was, according to the records, mentally unstable), or that he was acting "without the consent of the Insured" (as he was still their employee - see vicarious liability). I'm sure that many lawyers are going to make a lot of money during the determination of this issue. Tevildo (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Too true. Alansplodge (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The killer reportedly said, ‘One day I’m going to do something that will change the whole system, and everyone will know my name and remember it.’ He also did searches on methods of suicide and the mechanism of cockpit doors. This was deliberate and premeditated and he knew it was wrong. The company also lied (see video above) saying at first they had no knowledge of any mental issues, then clarifying that they were indeed aware of his past treatment. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that source does have something useful, but I gave up after the stupid reporter wasted the first 1:30 minutes in a dumb mock outrage commentary on the difference between clarification and new information. Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I will see if I can just find the judge. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I see no shorter clip of Napolitano after Lufthansa changed its story, so I do recommend the clip, just starting at 1 min 25 sec. His points are relevant, cogent, and no where near as rabid as the host's. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

words printed on chicken

[7] Wtf. USDA stamp? Ink transferred by chicken touching a newspaper? Other? Please explain. Thanks. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks darker than I would expect from transfer. Can you read what it says ? Even a few letters ? That might help to identify it. Show the manager and get another free, I should think. (Of course, the ink may very well be the healthiest part of that particular meal.) StuRat (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"Send help, I'm trapped in a chicken abattoir..." - Nunh-huh 18:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Good one, Nunh-huh! I think it's obvious a strip of paper got into the batter. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It makes you wonder what other stuff might turn up in their fried chicken. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a transfer; the writing appears to be right-way-around; transfers would normally be mirrored. My guess is that a small piece of paper got stuck on the surface of the chicken, probably while it was brining/marinating, and the deep fryer bonded it together. Matt Deres (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A friend tweeted the original source saying that it was most probably the receipt, she hasn't disagreed with this yet. Nanonic (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

April 4

Is anti-positivism against the mathematical formalization of the social sciences?

Anti-positivist opposes almost all the assumptions of positivism. Does this opposition extend to the use of mathematically rigorous techniques in analyzing data and explaining social structures and functions?49.144.142.130 (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That certainly is my impression. They seem to be base their lives on using more and more obscure terms and stroking each others egos but there's no way of distinguishing dross from gold so it is all rubbish. Well perhaps if I applied some artificial intelligence it could distinguish something worth spending a little time looking at ;-)Dmcq (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

One can be an anti-positivist without opposing all use of mathematical techniques. The major critique of positivism is that a focus on only the measurable can be extremely—and misleadingly—reductionist. For example, clearly it is reasonable to count how many people a given person talks to in a day, or how many friends that person has on Facebook, and I doubt that anyone would reject the counting of such things, or even studying whether they were correlated. However, when it comes to working out the closeness of the connection between two people, an anti-positivist might question whether it is possible to measure such a thing, and would be very wary of any purported metric for such "closeness" and would utterly reject that we could develop such a metric and then proceed as if that metric were interchangeable with the original concept of "closeness." The anti-positivist would say that, for the positivist, "if you can't count it, it can't count," and would argue that there are things in the world that cannot be reduced to mathematically rigorous models. As Aristotle wrote in the Nicomachean Ethics, "…it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs." Or, to put it another way, there is a danger of attempting precision that exceeds your accuracy. - Jmabel | Talk 04:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Closeness is a measurement done every day for profit by companies like Netflix or Amazon. My own experience is that using mathematical methods gives far better results than any waffling - every time I've disagreed with the results of any such calculations I've done and asked someone else to say which of two things they think is closer to the truth they have sided with the machine against me. Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Dmcq, the questioner did not ask whether you, personally, were a positivist. He/she asked what the non-positivist position would be. - Jmabel | Talk

You pointed out closeness as something that an anti-positivist might think was not something one could measure whereas doing exactly that is the basis of most of the commerce on the internet. What is basically being rejected is the scientific method and unfortunately this leads to having journals where peer review means literary criticism. Mathematical equations can proliferate in pseudoscience just as much or even more than in proper science. Is it really using a mathematical technique or is it just for show or a mystical invocation if the result is not properly checked? Dmcq (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Dmcq (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Art Deco relief on a house in Bucharest

I know the odds aren't great, but I was wondering whether anyone would know anything about this rather remarkable, somewhat deteriorated Art Deco relief on a house in Bucharest (Str. Aurel Vlaicu, approximately nr. 125, no address posted that I could see). If you need a bit more visual context, see File:Bucharest - Str. Aurel Vlaicu 07 (derelict house).jpg, and the building next door can be seen at File:Bucharest - Str. Aurel Vlaicu 06.jpg. I was wondering whether anyone knows the date of the piece (1920s or 1930s, I'd guess), anything about the architect of the house (one of the earliest modernist structures in that area, I'd guess), its current status (looks somewhat derelict but not obviously abandoned), who might have lived there (especially originally), etc. I haven't been able to find anything relevant online, which is actually a bit surprising because there is a lot online about intriguing buildings in Bucharest. Searching is made a little more difficult by the existence of an airport with the same name as this street. Also, there's a cemetery in Județul Covasna with a similar address. - Jmabel | Talk 20:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This link takes you to the "Contact Us" page of the National Archives of Romania website. While it's all in Romanian, I suggest you send your query in English, as an archives at the national level is likely to employ academics who can read it and forward it to the staff member(s) or sister institution who can provide the information you seek. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My Romanian is probably good enough to ask in Romanian, but in my experience, this is too minor a building for there to be much available from something like that. But, thanks, it's a reasonable suggestion, and does suggest the sort of direction I'll need to go (probably something with a bit more of a local focus than that). - Jmabel | Talk 16:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

April 5

Synchronized periods

I was wondering if women's periods can synchronize at the same time. This thought crossed my mind since I have female family members who all simultaneously seem to have avoided a particular social event (don't ask) and I suspect it could be because they started their periods at roughly the same time. I'm clueless since I don't have a vagina. 78.146.104.179 (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Synchronization for periods is actually very common, but it's more likely that they all just quite simply decided they didn't want to go to this 'particular social event', and probably nothing whatsoever to do with periods. It's more likely to do with the fact that they just wanted to do something else. Females can function perfectly well whilst having a period. That's why we still have them. They don't take a week off work every month. They just couldn't be arsed going to this 'social event' and decided to do something else. It's that simple. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 08:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read our article on menstrual synchrony.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, according to Greatist.com there is no definitive proof that women's cycles match up. What is more likely to happen is that females will mimic one another's cycle. For example, if three girls live together, they will all menstruate at different times, but they will all start to experience the same premenstrual problems around the same time. General consensus is that according to evolution it would be nearly impossible for women's cycles to sink because it would mean that there would be entire weeks where pregnancy is impossible, therefore giving all of our ancestors the same birth date. According to Scientific American this is what most psychologists and anthropologists believe. This theory is further backed up by the Science Based Medicine website, though this source also claims that it is common for females living together to have their cycles 7 days apart. As a female though, I can attest to the fact that "matching cycles" does happen, and I am currently breaking out because of my roommates. A whole group of females who don't want to attend a function though probably just didn't want to go. Sometimes it's a great excuse to just have a girls' day if you all claim to come down with a bad case of the cramps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizydorek (talk • contribs) 18:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Civilization

It seems striking that all of the earliest civilizations developed in the mid-latitude regions of the northern hemisphere. Why did none develop near the equator, or in the mid-latitude regions of the southern hemisphere? Is it simply random chance due to the small sample size, so that in an alternate universe, I'd be asking why no civilizations developed far from the equator? --98.232.12.250 (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot more land in the northern hemisphere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Define 'civilisation'. China is not exactly 'mid-latitude'. In Africa, there were many ancient civilisations. The entirety of the Americas also had quite a few. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 10:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia calls the Olmec "major". Not major, but "major". That seemed striking to me. It thinks their artwork was striking. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:29, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Not anymore it doesn't. --Jayron32 01:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

See Guns, Germs, and Steel for an eloquently stated (and plausible) position on the influence of geography on civilisation - in short, the availability of plants and animals for domestication played a large role, as did the comparative easy of translating cultured plants and animals east/west as opposed to north/south. For another theory on larger political entities, see hydraulic empire. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Germans

Do contemporary Germans still feel guilty over WW2? GotGlasses? (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Reuel Abraham's conscience turned him Jewish. Not sure how he feels today. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:23, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Günter Grass didn't admit fighting for the Nazis till 2012. Suggests shame. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:34, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Oskar Gröning claimed he only felt indirect, involuntary guilt, as he didn't kill anyone, but was a "small cog in the gears" at Auschwitz. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:38, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

GotGlasses?, thank you for asking a question at the Reference desk. Unfortunately, your question cannot be answered at this time. Please go back under your bridge. Kindest regards, Peter in the other Canada, the one with deserts instead of tundra, aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Josef Scheungraber is officially guilty of war crimes, which he denied committing. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:52, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Helmut Schmidt "spoke apologetically" for Germany's role in 1981. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Gerhard Sommer is officially guilty. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:58, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

That covers everything Wikipedia knows about the last German soldiers. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:04, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Um, I'm fairly sure when the OP said contemporary Germans, they meant contemporary now, not contemporary at the time of WW2. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Those six are both. Who else would have a reason to feel guilty? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:18, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Aside from those who use time machines to kill Hitler, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:21, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Right but that wasn't stated by you until now but is an important part of your answer to the OP's question. Actually I have doubts that the OP is particularly interested in people who were contemporary at the time of the war. Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

He can ask a German, if so. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

There's an article on German collective guilt, but it seems like a dead concept. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:26, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

No they don't by and large, and neither should they. It's been 70 years! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Another article: Vergangenheitsbewältigung. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

In public online

Why is it that if a man or woman walked around naked in public they would be arrested, but posting a picture of themselves naked onto a public forum is acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.10.250.18 (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The premiss of this question is very jurisdiction-dependent. See public nudity for our article. Note that it contains several photographs of the subject-matter. Tevildo (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Who says it's "acceptable"? Anthony Weiner had to resign as a Congressman because of it. And This guy was charged for sending stuff to an underage girl. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner, eh. Nominative determinism at its finest. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Nom-? no, tha poor boy, inherited Dislexia (see Weiner)--Askedonty (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"Wiener" and "Weiner" mean different things, but they both tend to be pronounced "weener", at least in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Some nations require porn-sites to have the only those over age 18 may enter disclaimer which, if children were extremely honest, would make it similar to a strip-club; nudity behind an age wall. The level of acceptable public nudity also varies greatly across the globe; a number of highly developed and undeveloped nations allow full nudity, while more conservative and religious nations have strict rules against nudity, particularly female nudity. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

April 6

Religious deaths

What religion is responsible (both directly and indirectly) for the most deaths worldwide in the last 10 years? Thecottonbud (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Define "indirectly". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Define 'responsible'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And explain how the question could be objectively answered for say the French Wars of Religion. Was the 'religion' responsible for the war 'Catholicism', 'Protestantism', or 'Christianity'? I'm sure that the Catholics would have held the Protestants responsible, and vice versa - while an outside observer might well opine that it was 'Christianity' that was responsible - or possibly 'religion' in general. Or possibly suggest that religion was largely a pretext for a war between competing factions amongst the ruling elite. There isn't going to be a meaningful single answer to such questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There is also the very problem of defining "religion" to deal with. --Shirt58 (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Jedi, definitely. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 09:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Mammonism is a bad religion, both for killing and validiity. But don't forget that most of the "real" religions don't believe in death. When those types send their kids to war, they're not actually killing them, but sending them wherever.

May as well also define "last" ten years. We've still a few to go before the final decade. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Bad Religion, they claim "The Biggest Killer in American History" is American history itself, but that was in 1998. And of course, defining Bad Religion songs is for anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

The Rape of Nanking

Are Japanese students taught about the The Rape of Nanking in school in the same kind of way that Germans are taught about the Holocaust? 61.90.38.41 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe they are. What little they are taught about the period seems to be along the lines of trying to balance anything bad they did with bad things done to them, when the reality was that they committed far more war crimes than were done to them. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Children are not taught about the Nanjing Massacres, as it does not concern them. They are more likely to receive education which is immediately relevant to them. Spending an hour in a classroom telling them about a massacre that happened many years before they were born (and is not even relevant to the Chinese young people today, except when the government wants to divert attention from real issues), would be like wasting time telling them about how the Mongols killed 2 million people in Nishapur in the 13th Century - irrelevant. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 08:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying (and do you know for sure) that the Japanese curriculum has no history course that covers WWII? If so, that seems to be a huge deficiency in the education system. Our article on the Japanese history textbooks controversy suggests what you're saying isn't true. If there is a history course that covers WWII, and it doesn't mention the Nanjing massacre, that's obvious and inexcusable whitewashing of Japanese history. The same article suggests this isn't the case either: "Despite the efforts of the nationalist textbook reformers, by the late 1990s the most common Japanese schoolbooks contained references to, for instance, the Nanking Massacre, Unit 731, and the comfort women of World War II" --Bowlhover (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I taught in primary schools in Japan. The school books do mention it, but not in thorough detail, as the kids are still learning other things, which are actually more relevant to their lives. Did we, in the UK, learn at school about the bombing of Dresden? No. We were learning other things. There is only so much you can cram into a person's head in a short space of time. Never blame the kids for something that happened 70 years ago. It had nothing to do with them. 'Original Sin' is a ridiculous Christian concept. I didn't eat the apple that Eve gave to Adam. Don't blame people for stuff they never did. All of these Chinese demonstrations against Japanese schoolbooks being re-written is completely just to divert public attention from scandals, like the inherent corruption in Chinese government, the scandal of lead poisoning for children's milk, etc., the list goes on. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 09:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. You just said that children are not taught about the Nanjing massacre, but now you say primary school textbooks mention it? The OP wasn't asking specifically about primary school; he presumably meant to include high school, where the country's history should definitely be taught. Also, who was blaming kids for anything? You're using strawmen against imaginary opponents, because nobody was even trying to argue with you. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I find that an extremely misguided and short-sighted approach to teaching. Not to repeat platitudes, but "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". The purpose of school should not be to make tame functional robots out of children, it should be to enable them to think independently, to arrive at sound judgement, and to be able to continue learning for themselves. It's not about "blaming" the current generation for deeds of the past, it's about showing them relevant examples of what humans, under an inhuman system, are capable of doing, and thus to enable them to recognise dangerous tendencies in government and society in time to do something about them. Just as British schools should teach about the slave trade and the Opium wars, German schools should teach the Holocaust, Belgian schools should teach about Belgian Congo, and US schools should teach about slavery, the native American genocide, and, yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Kids don't have the capacity to weild guns, create concentration camps, or use nuclear weapons. If they want to learn about these historical hiatuses in the development of our species, then they will do, simply by reading about it. School is not for making them feel guilty about things that people they have never ever met did before they were born. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 11:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

All of the perpetrators of The Rape of Nanking were children themselves once. Maybe if they had been made to feel a bit guilty about things they wouldn't have grown up to be such awful people. 117.173.22.50 (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The teaching of history, as with all subjects, is a layering approach. As you get older they give you more details. Also, pure education is overrated. The murderers in ISIS were well-educated. Lot of good it did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

But Kage, then why ever bother to teach any history at all? --147.85.186.6 (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Here in the southeastern US, the main group of people you hear saying that children don't need to learn about slavery and Jim Crow (our centuries long Nanking) are white supremacists, followed by their friends who don't know any better, followed by their friends who don't know any better. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with KageTora's claim that the event "is not even relevant to the Chinese young people today". It is taught in schools as part of Chinese history, as far as I remember my students telling me. I don't know China inside out, but I'm fairly clear on this point. Whatever else Kage says about demonstrations is separate, but sounds like too much POV to me. IBE (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

We are leaving out an important question here... what level of education are we asking about? There is a huge difference between what is appropriate to cover at the primary school level and what is appropriate to cover at the university level. Depth of coverage also changes as the education level increases. Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The simple answer to the original question is no. The Japanese, unlike the Germans, have never reached a consensus that their conduct during the Second World War was morally wrong (see Vergangenheitsbewältigung), and so there is no sharp focus on Japan's moral transgressions during the war, again unlike in Germany, where Germany's immorality during the war is a focus of the history curriculum. One key difference between Germany and Japan is that, although the firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg was horrific, Germany was not exposed to the terror of the atomic bomb. This experience allowed some Japanese to maintain a feeling of victimhood. Another is that, while the Nazis were largely discredited in Germany, Japan's prewar elite largely retained its status after the war. Marco polo (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Did the Japanese have a system in place whose purpose was to exterminate an ethnic group consisting of millions of people? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, but they did murder millions of people. Most people would consider that morally wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The article says 300,000 at most. Do China or Russia take responsibility in their history classes, for the mass murdering committed by Mao and Stalin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

300,000 is the total for Nanking, not for Japanese murders during the war. Rmhermen (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that's another story; see Russian Schools to Teach Putin’s Version of History. Alansplodge (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Millions is a total for the war. See Japanese war crimes#Mass killings. Are you suggesting that if they only murder a few hundred thousands at a time then it isn't morally wrong? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No. And millions of their own died in combat, as Japan paid a heavy price for their aggressions (as did Germany). My question was whether it was a systematic slaughter, as with the German Holocaust, or was it just anyone they felt like killing (as with Stalin). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It sounded like a rhetorical question in objection to a post saying "The Japanese, unlike the Germans, have never reached a consensus that their conduct during the Second World War was morally wrong". I don't think you should have to be as bad as Nazi Germany to admit you were morally wrong. Millions of murders should be plenty. See Japanese war crimes for more details of what they did. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Politicians like to whitewash the past. We have some of that in America, as some are pushing to minimize the references to the civil rights movement, in public education textbooks and the like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? The article I linked to, Japanese history textbooks controversy, implies students are taught about the Nanjing massacre. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's review some of the reasons a nation should face up to it's own history of genocide:

1) As said before, to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

2) So they can understand and negotiate with those who are the survivors of the genocide. In the case of Japan, being able to understand the Chinese mindset would be very helpful in any negotiations. The same is true for North and South Korea, the Philippines, and everywhere else the Japanese massacred civilians.

3) Without understanding Japanese behavior prior to WW2 it's impossible to explain why just about everyone attacked them. This could lead to paranoia that the world is out to get them and isolationist policies based on that.

And, to be sure, it isn't just Japan that has this issue. It's even illegal to talk about the Armenian Genocide in Turkey, for example. This has been a stumbling block to them joining the EU. Of course, more recent genocides deserve more attention in the education system than ancient ones. In particular, the point where there is nobody left alive who remembers the event is probably where it can go to a lower priority. In the case of Japan, that's still several decades off. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

But then by the same token, should not students in the U.S. be taught of the internment of Japanese Americans as part of the history of World War II?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

We are. At least, I was. --Trovatore (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

So was I. Also note that Internment_of_Japanese_Americans#Reparations_and_redress talks about attempts to make up for this incident. I'm not aware of the Japanese making any comparable efforts, despite their mistreatment of civilians being far more brutal and widespread. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I was taught about the internment of Japanese Canadians in Canada. We also discussed the Native American genocide, the expulsion of Acadians, eugenics, voting restrictions, etc etc. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I grew up in and live in the Southeastern US. We were taught some about the internment, but more about slavery and Jim Crow (even as in elementary school), since that was a bit more along the lines of "we better not do this again, and should discourage others from behaving similarly." Some of my peers even went on field trips to go pick cotton with their bare hands, which got plenty of kids to immediately go "ok, all slavery is wrong forever, even if there's no cotton picking involved." Claims that such history isn't relevant to kids is an excuse ultimately started by people who want to repeat those mistakes (main group opposed to teaching about slavery and Jim Crow? white supremacists). Those excuses might get repeated by people who don't know better, but they start with and are rooted in justifying rape and murder.

I'm even pretty sure that a number of my peers were introduced to the concept of rape through learning about slavery. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The slave trade and Britain's role in it are taught in British primary schools [8]. Alansplodge (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar - there is no reason to teach children from the age of six (i.e. primary school children) about what happened in WW2. There are lots of other things they need to learn. If they want to know, they can do it at university, and then tell other people. In the UK, when I was in high school, we weren't even taught that it was the British that invented concentration camps (South Africa, Boer War). There are only two things I remember from High School history class - one is that the Magna Carta was signed by King John (in Liverpool - which turned out not to be true), and that the vikings didn't have horns on their helmets (oh, and one more thing - the teacher always wore the same suit). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 05:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, the OP asked about students, not specifically primary school students. There is no reason why high school students should not learn about their country's history, and in any case, the OP was asking about the actual situation in Japan, not your personal opinion. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I do apologize, Bowlhover for not stating that I lived in Japan for ten years. This is not personal opinion, this is personal experience. I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I know what I am talking about. If you find it difficult to understand what I have said, then I suggest that if you are really interested, do some research before attacking a fellow Wikipedian. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 10:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The OP would need to clarify, which he won't be doing anytime soon, as he's now on a 60-day block as an open proxy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Valuable natural resources

What are the top five most valuable natural resources? In other words, if a country wanted to be rich, which five natural resources would it desire to have under its soil? 78.146.100.146 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Google the subject and you will get a good range of opinions. The general answer would be based on "what does the given country have that other countries are willing to pay big bucks for?" That's going to vary by country. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Water, forest, wind, sun, and carbon-based energy source. They can all generate electricity, but they are not all underground. There is also geothermal energy source, but I think that is more of a modern invention. 140.254.136.157 (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A mine full of tritium, diamond, painite, californium 252 and antimatter will pay for itself pretty much instantly. As far as we know, though, antimatter isn't underground, and three others are very rare. Not what any one country will have, but what it'd want. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:45, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

A mine full of antimatter might not get you the results you'd want, but you'd be past caring at that point. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In the short term, see this and similar lists, generally featuring oil, gas, coal, various minerals, etc. In the long term, see Natural capital which could include arable land, water supplies, biodiversity, etc. Another interesting read is this World Bank report that suggests the ability to manage resources sustainably may be as important if not more so than any one natural resource. Taknaran (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Aye. A sneed is a thing that everyone needs, but unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing's going to get better. It's not. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Note that some resources tend to be more of a curse than a blessing. Fossil fuels, for example, tend to make a small number of people very rich, who are able to get control of the fossil fuels by bribing the government, which results in a corrupt government and a poor and oppressed population. Other mined resources, like diamonds, can pose similar problems. Farming, on the other hand, tends to result in a more equitable distribution of wealth and power, as it's difficult for a small number of people to control all the tillable land. StuRat (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

How far apart were English towns and fiefs in the early 19th century?

In Pride and Prejudice, I remember Elizabeth walks about five miles from her father's house to Netherfield Park. That may imply that the physical distance is really not that long, and that the distance between one English manor house to another English manor house is within walking distance, as long as the walker is willing to spend several hours and take into account of dirt and obstacles. Is the "five miles" the same five miles as the one that Americans use? Since when did England use the metric system and abandon the customary system? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Five miles is not such a long walk, really. A healthy adult can walk that distance in an hour and forty minutes. Before the advent of bicycles and cars, people routinely walked that kind of distance. The distance between English manors would have varied, but in most areas they would not have been more than a couple of hours' walk apart. Distances would have been shorter in areas of fertile pasture and cropland and greater in areas with barren uplands and moors. English miles are the same as American miles. Distances on roads in the United Kingdom are still indicated in miles. The British government adopted a policy of movement toward the metric system in 1965, but the changeover has been no more than partial and has not been enforced in many areas. As a result, the system of imperial units is still in wide use. See Metrication in the United Kingdom. Marco polo (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a long walk at all. My mother used to tell me how she used to have to walk three miles each way to school every day, back in the late 1920s/early 30s. Even in my day, in the 60s and 70s, you were only given a free bus pass if you lived more than two miles from school and were under 8 years old, or more than three miles away if you were older, as it was considered reasonable for kids to walk that far (I had a bus pass when I started primary school, had to pay the childs' fare between 8 and 10, and my secondary school was just over three miles the other way when I turned 11, so I got a pass again. At least those practices quickly made you very competent at using public transport (from a lot of questions asked on places like Yahoo Answers I get the impression that most kids nowadays are so dependent on Mum and Dads Taxi Service that they have no idea how to use buses and trains), I remember frequently travelling around 4 miles on my own to the local town when I was 8 or 9 (of course, it helped that my eldest brother was a bus driver, and all the other drivers knew who I was and kept an eye on me!). -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

English manors (the term "fief" is medieval) were often less than a mile across (in southern England at least) and there could be more than one manor in a single parish. The southern English countryside is very densely populated and visitors from outside Europe often remark that they've only just left one village (by car) before they find themselves in the next one. Walking five miles without passing through a settlement of some kind would be unusual, unless you were making a concious effort to avoid civilisation.

Although we have different pints, gallons and tons to the US, we have the same linear measurements. Sadly, everything we buy has to be measured in the metric system except milk and beer, for which we have an exemption from the European Union on cultural grounds. We're still clinging to miles on the roads though. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A fit adult walks at about 3 miles per hour. I have no reference for this but concentrated human settlements (not hamlets) appear to have been 6 to 8 miles apart. Just as foxes and other critters have a territory, are ancestors seem to have a six to eight mile territory. Even modern man that lives (in say) Los Angeles and has to commute, he still spends most of his social life in a 8 mile radius. Male youths are a little bit different. They may frequent sorties further afield. An instinctive throw back perhaps, to look for mates that their blood is not related too. --Aspro (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Which countries or cities are using biodegradable shopping bags?

Can you provide me with a list of countries or world cities which give out biodegradable shopping bags to shoppers? Is India and China using biodegradable bags? Please provide a source of reference. Thanks. 173.33.183.141 (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The United States. There are biodegradeable shopping bags in the United States. Some stores use them. 140.254.229.128 (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Back in the olden days we called those "paper". Recent reports cast doubt on the ability of plastic to degrade as claimed.[9] Rmhermen (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking about biodegradable plastic shopping bags? You might find the information at http://www.allaboutbags.ca/aroundtheworld.html to be helpful.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If we recycle plastic bags, that be would good for the environment. Do mixed recycling facilities collect and recycle regular plastic bags? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not so much in the US, that I've seen. But many grocery stores accept those bags for recycling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Chinese (PRC) law

I'm doing a little bit of background research for a project and I'm trying to understand what laws exist in the People's Republic of China regarding medical research, specifically related to indepedent ethics committee review of clinical research. I'm 99.9% sure that it happens, since it's a common global practice under the Declaration of Helsinki. I've done a few google searches, and one mentioned a 2000's-era "Good Clinical Practice Act" that talked about research subject protection. The law may not explicitly mention ethics committees (IEC is the common global term, especially in Europe; the US calls them IRBs). Is there any place to find a copy of this law in either English or in a machine-translatable format? 150.148.14.8 (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that searching for the original law means you have to understand simplified Chinese. This website looks promising. A Chinese-English dictionary may be helpful. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

ETA: I found two more sources that may be of use to you. The articles are written in English. Excuse the typo in one author's name.

• Wang, X., Liang, Z., Huang, H., & Liang, W. (2011). Principles of ethics review on traditional medicine and the practice of institute review board in China [Chinese]. Chinese Journal Of Integrative Medicine, 17(8), 631-634. doi:10.1007/s11655-011-0820-1
• Wahlberg, A., Rehmann-Sutter, C., Sleeboom-Faulkner, M., Lu, G., Döring, O., Cong, Y., & ... Rose, N. (2013). From global bioethics to ethical governance of biomedical research collaborations. Social Science & Medicine, 98293-300.

The first source is concerned with traditional Chinese medicine and the ethics and laws that deal with them. The second source is concerned with proposing ideas that may aid in ethical considerations in medical research legislations. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Friend zone

I just read about friend zone but is there such thing as acquaintance zone, whereby if someone doesn't try to turn an acquaintance into a friendships within a certain period of time, then they're stuck as acquaintances? 90.198.252.17 (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, there's a certain amount of inertia. If a coworker only expects to nod to you when passing, and never goes out to lunch with you, then nothing is likely to change unless you make a definite effort, and even then they might be suspicious that you want something. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

How does somebody 'ork' a cow? Shouldn't 'orking a cow' be somehow a criminal offence? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 10:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is. That's why they're expected to go out to lunch with you so they, otherwise yourself, may confess.--Askedonty (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "acquaintance zone". "Friend zone" is the term used to describe the concept that an individual marks another individual as a friend, not a lover. This is one aspect of life, where cultures may differ. In some cultures, men and women are allowed to become merely friends or "friends with benefits". In other cultures, such relationships are almost always likened to courtship, and social norms may guide people how to behave around members of the opposite sex. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Central Asia and Eastern Europe

why dont we hear much about central asia and eastern europe in india( west bengal)People and media not interested and no mention if not rarely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.93.163.126 (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Send a letter or email with your question to the TV news stations or the newspapers in West Bengal. This is an encyclopaedia. Not a forum. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 10:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You may also find the Media bias article interesting. (And Media bias in South Asia, although that's not very detailed.) 184.147.117.34 (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What percentage of the total male population have been convicted of a crime? Is the number lower for women?

What percentage of the total male population have been convicted of a crime? Is the number lower for women? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.218.107.66 (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Worldwide, or for a particular country? --Jayron32 13:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC) In the entire world, ever, throughout history, or are we just talking about one country and within a certain time frame? You need to be a bit more specific in order for such a question to be answered. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The OP geolocates to China. He or she may be interested in the total male population in China that have been convicted of crime and the total female population in China that have been convicted of crime. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We have an article Sex differences in crime. For the USA, you want the BJS, here is there report on women offenders [10]. This book [11], titled "Women, Crime and Criminal Justice: A Global Enquiry" may also be of interest. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Animals live in a hell of which mankind are the devils."

In The Great Code, Northrop Frye attributes this remark to Arthur Schopenhauer (I say "remark" rather than "quotation" since Frye seems to be paraphrasing). Since I don't have a copy of Frye's book in front of me, I'm having trouble finding a citation, though I suspect Frye gives a citation of some sort in an endnote. If anyone has the book, the passage in question is on page 94 of the Google Books edition (looks like the newest one), in the "Metaphor I" chapter. Alternatively, if anyone happens to know the Schopenhauer source directly, that's even better. Thanks in advance. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)