Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:02, 17 March 2016

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

March 12

When the blacks became the blacks in the US?

Immediately after being brought from Africa as slaves, blacks would not identify with each other, nor consider themselves American and lest be consider American by the white Americans. When did they become just "the black" (or the PC word of the time "Negro", "colored", "Afro-American")? --Llaanngg (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I question your assumption that they wouldn't have identified with each other. Those who spoke different African languages and not English would have had an obvious communications problem, but I imagine they quickly learned the basics of English and/or whatever creole was spoken in their area. It sounds like your Q is more about when they felt they were Americans. The obvious answer is when they were granted citizenship, but the obvious answer isn't always correct. StuRat (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is not a thing as "the blacks" (that's an identity created in the US, or at other places) and there were and are plenty of African wars to prove that they can hate each other to death. So, I question your questioning of my assumption that they wouldn't have identified with each other. --Llaanngg (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand your logic. There were plenty of wars between the Greek city states in antiquity, that doesn't mean that they didn't identify as Greeks. So absence of war does not seem to be a pre-condition. --Lgriot (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, it was only after the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s (and well into the 1980s) that people in the United States felt comfortable enough to acknowledge their African ancestry and identify as African American. See African Americans#Terminology. So, it's not that they felt they weren't American or considered American by others but that it wasn't encouraged to take pride in having African ancestry (especially if you weren't sure where in Africa your ancestors even came from). Negro, black, and colored, on the other hand, were all references to skin-color and even used as legal terms by whites. It's kind of been a back-and-forth about what's considered proper, as "Negro" was used more among the African American community because "black" was considered offensive, but now "Negro" is outdated and "black" isn't generally considered offensive. clpo13_(talk) 23:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are interesting parallels in the way i which more recent immigrant communities identify with their country of residence. The basic pattern seems to be that first generation immigrants identify with their country of origin, second generation tend to be rather mixed up about it, and the third generation usually identify more or less completely with their new country. That may have taken a bit longer within a slave society, just as it does if there are stronger cultural or religious distinctions between the immigrant and native communities today. 109.150.174.93 (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Tebbit test --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

Name a Musical Instrument

I want to identify a musical instrument. It is a small, hand held "accordion" which can be played by a woman. It has two hexagonal "boards" with bellowswork between them. It has one register as I understand on the right and a few bass buttons on the left. I saw it played in this movie shown recently on TCM (the movie's title is simply "M"). I think someone is also playing it in My Fair Lady in a bar scene. What is the name for it? Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concertina? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if not, see Template:Squeezebox --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concertina! That's it. Thank you. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Said to be the only musical instrument ever invented in England, although the Germans claim it too. Alansplodge (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not even the English horn, apparently. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

How about the Northumbrian smallpipes, the harp lute, Irish flute, theatre organ, and the magnificently named logical bassoon? DuncanHill (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Duncan, I'll accept the harp-lute as English although I've never heard of it until just now. The Irish flute seems to be erm, Irish; however a derivative called the "Pratten flute" was designed and made in London. The Northumbrian smallpipes are distinguished by being operated by bellows, but "Pipes blown with bellows appear to have come into use in Europe generally about the 16th century", see A Short History of the Bagpipe. The ingenious Robert Hope-Jones had emigrated to the United States before inventing the theatre organ (a concert organ with sound effects) although he did devise the electric organ bellows in London, making redundant the small boy that had done the job previously (BTW, the parish church of St Germanus, Rame still has a hand-pumped organ, since it has no electricity). I'm not sure that the logical bassoon counts as an entirely new instrument, but I also like the name. The other contender is the The Gizmotron invented by Kevin Godley and Lol Creme, aka Godley and Creme, which saves a guitarist the effort of strumming the strings. Again, whether this constitutes a new instrument or just an accessory is a moot point. Alansplodge (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia is wrong? The Gizmotron isn't exactly about saving the effort of strumming, it generates a rather distinctive sound. I forgot to mention the tuning fork. DuncanHill (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia wrong? How very dare you! However, I see that the BBC is a little more circumspect than me; it only claims that "...the English Concertina , probably the only musical instrument to be invented in this country in the nineteenth century." See The Concertina Man. Alansplodge (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to admit defeat on this one. Apparently, Charles Wheatstone besides the English concertina also invented the "flute harmonique", the "Acoucryptophone", something called the "New Musical Instrument", the "Wheatstone symphonium" and finally the "Wheatstone Nail Fiddle", an example of which is preserved at King's College, Cambridge. See Charles Wheatstone and the Concertina Alansplodge (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link, fascinating reading. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if no candidate receives the required number of delegates in the Republican Party presidential primaries for 2016?

This question is about the Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. If some candidate gets to the "magic number" of 1,237 delegates, then what happens? He automatically gets named as the Republican nominee? And if no one reaches that magic number, what happens exactly? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, they would hold a vote among all the delegates at the convention. If someone wins the majority on the first ballot, they would be the nominee. If no one gets a majority, it's a whole new ball game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Don't we know before the convention what the delegate counts are? So, what is there exactly to vote on? In other words, right at this moment, we know already how many delegates each candidate has (up to this point, at least). Also, my second question: if no one gets the magic number of 1,237 delegates, then what? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is always at least one round of voting. If a candidate gets the needed number of votes, they get the nomination. Otherwise, the voting continues until one candidate gets enough votes. See United States presidential nominating convention for how the convention works. After the first round (and sometimes in the first round), delegates can vote for any candidate. In recent years, only one round of voting has been needed. Sometimes it takes more than one. One year it took 103 rounds to select a candidite. RudolfRed (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Then what exactly does it mean when we say today that Trump has x number of delegates; Cruz has y number of delegates; and so forth? What does it mean to "have" that number of delegates? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It means that number of delegates are committed to the candidate on the first ballot at the convention. It's just anticipating the results. Like on election night when one candidate will be declared the winner of the presidential election, although technically he hasn't won anything until the electors vote and the votes are counted in Congress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am using hypothetical numbers here. So, if today Trump "has" a total of 500 delegates, that means that those 500 delegates must vote for him at the convention's first round. Correct? They must do so? And what about in subsequent rounds, if more than one round is needed? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's assumed they're going to vote for the guy they're pledged to, in the first round. If there are subsequent rounds, typically they can vote for whoever they want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every state has different rules for how pledged delegates are required to vote. Some states "release" their delegates from their pledge after the first round of voting, while others require their pledged delegates to continue to vote for their required candidates for several more rounds. See This excellent overview from the New York Times on how such voting would work in a brokered convention. Interestingly, there's also a lot of vetting going on with the delegates themselves, to ensure (for example) that a delegate would be more likely to continue to vote for their pledged candidate even if not required to do so. The article covers that sort of political maneuvering as well. --Jayron 32 14:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For context you need to understand the history of U.S. presidential nominations. See the above articles for more details, and maybe these previous Ref Desk questions (1, 2), but in a nutshell, the nominations used to be decided at the conventions by the party bigwigs. The delegates were free to vote for whoever they wanted. The extent of the voters' input was selecting who the delegates were, and sometimes not even that much. After the political turmoil of the 1960s (including notably the 1968 Democratic National Convention), the two major parties retrofitted the system to make the process relatively democratic. They kept the convention, but now the delegates are "bound" based on the votes in their state's primary or caucus (excepting superdelegates in the Democratic Party, who remain free to vote as they wish like before, but superdelegates are a small minority of delegates). However, this "binding" only applies to the first ballot. If a candidate has a majority of delegates, they win the nomination on the first ballot, and the convention is just a formality. The 1,237 "magic number" mentioned above is the number of delegates needed for a majority in the Republican convention. But if no ~~delegate~~ candidate has a majority, no one will win the first ballot, and then we go back to the 1960s where the delegates pick the nominee themselves. A point to stress here (and one that often seems strange to people not from the U.S.) is that in the U.S. political parties are, legally, private organizations, and the nomination process is considered an internal function of the parties, no different than, say, your local chess club electing officers. After all, there's no law that says only the two major parties' nominees can become President, though a bunch of factors combine to make that the likely outcome. So it's up to the political parties themselves how they pick nominees. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Edit: mixed up my terms there --71.119.131.184 (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem odd that nomination is an internal process of the parties, it's the whole palaver of caucuses and conventions and registered voters and what-nots that seems odd. Why not just have one member, one vote? DuncanHill (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the process is somewhat analogous to the Electoral College. In 2012 there were 332 out of 538 electors pledged to vote for Obama, so everyone knew Obama was going to win, but they still had to actually vote. The difference with the Electroral College is that if no candidate has a majority on the first ballot then a completely different set of people get to vote on the winner.

As to "Why hold the convention when it's known who will win", there are two important reasons: (1) It's valuable publicity. (2) The delegates get to vote on other things. At least, the Republicans do; if the Democrats also do, Wikipedia doesn't mention it. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Convention is also typically where the prospective nominee announces his choice to run as Vice-President, and that has to be ratified as well. Xuxl (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The convention also decides the party's "platform", i.e. its theoretical list of positions on various issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something else critical that may happen at this year's Republican convention is that everyone has to decide if they will support whoever wins, withhold support, or maybe run as a third party candidate. It's happened before. See Bull Moose Party. StuRat (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Kangaroo Courts" etc.

Hello, hopefully this is the appropriate area of the RD to place this question. The recent events with Nadiya Savchenko and her "trial" in Russia have been on my mind and while reading the article Japanese war crimes here on WP, I ran across the following: " Eight Doolittle Raiders captured upon landing in China ... were executed by firing squad on October 14, 1942."

I checked out kangaroo court, but I was wondering if somebody could help point me to (if it exists) a list of such types of "trials" that have taken place since the Hague Convention of 1907. Specifically I'm interested in neutral (ie: no bias of who's the one presiding over the trial, be they USA, European, SEA, etc) lists of cases in which a sort of "kangaroo court" was used. To whatever extent that might be possible, given bias in reporting, interpretation, etc. Thanks, PiousCorn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Roy Bean was famous for fining people whatever they had in their pockets, making it obvious he was more interested in emptying their pockets than in dispensing justice. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or suggesting that he accepted the principle that unit fines are appropriate justice. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

During the McCarthyism of the 1950's in the US, highly questionable methods were used to find people "guilty" of ties with communists. While not technically a trial, being "blacklisted" destroyed the careers and lives of many. StuRat (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under communism, show trials were common, where the verdict had already been decided before the trial. StuRat (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a category of Category:Soviet show trials that might be of interest to you. We don't seem to have a list or more general category for other countries' show trials, but the category for Category:Trials of political people has several that would seem to qualify (and many others that were probably legit). Matt Deres (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a recent practice in China, of parading someone accused of political "crimes" on China Central Television, where they admit their "guilt" and pledge to be good in future, before a trial (or sometimes, just releasing them without a trial). This seems similar to the show trials in the past. I wonder if we have an article about such things? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There can be a similar issue with plea bargains, in the US. That is, if somebody is innocent, but feel they will be found guilty because they are poor, don't speak English, are in a minority, and/or there is fabricated evidence against them (like somebody else taking a plea bargain to implicate them) they may plead guilty for a reduced sentence. Thus, they lose their right to a fair trial, if they ever had that possibility in the first place. Also, their court appointed attorney may well advise them to take the plea, because that's less work for them. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazi People's Court or Volksgerichtshof was set up entirely to conduct show trials. This newsreel shows the court in action under the direction of Roland Freisler. Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

Why do I need a broker?

Googling for "why do I need a broker", seems to imply that the purpose of a broker would help me keep a portfolio, and advice me. But assuming I don't want to pay for advice or aid with stock trading, can't I just buy stocks for myself? At my own risk? 186.146.10.154 (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In order to buy or sell stocks on the NYSE for example, you need a licence. The broker has a licence, so you use a broker for buying and selling the stock. RudolfRed (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you do business, Rudolf, but in my neck of the woods, discount brokers will execute my trades for about $10 a shot. (Of course, with my track record, they deserve to be executed with extreme prejudice.) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles on these, surprisingly, but brokers are often classified into "full service brokers" and "discount brokers" (including - and sometimes simply called - "online brokers", as they often operate online). If you do not need the management service and advice, you can use the latter. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Brokerage firm and Discount brokerage. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Pay to play" has sort of a sinister ring to eat, but people "need to eat". If you went into business for yourself, jobs would be obsoleted and children would starve (or need to steal your kid's lunch money). Other top ten Googles for "why do I need a certified..." include public accountants, arborists and electricians. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:14, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

And "why I need a..." finds "job" at the top. Then scholarship, phone, dog, wife, girlfriend, website, gun, mentor and man. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:16, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

Your assumption is not right. You don't need a broker to trade on the stock market. You could trade through a direct-access trading system. However, if you want to trade just now and then, a discount broker will provide you with a much better price per trade than setting up your own system. Think in terms of retails vs. wholesale. Besides that, do not confuse the role of a stock broker (who forwards orders to the market) and a fund analyst, portfolio manager, consultant (who advises you to buy/sell this or that). --Llaanngg (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you do need a broker to have access to the stock market. Brokers serve as gate-keepers who provide access to the market and process trades. Individuals, even wealthy individuals, cannot do this on their own. Direct-access brokers are still brokers. By accepting your trade, the broker is guaranteeing to your counterparty that you will accept and pay for the security you are buying or that you have and will deliver the security you are selling, as the case may be. As already noted, however, discount brokers provide this service quite cheaply. Full service brokers provide additional services that you may or may not feel that you need. John M Baker (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Olden Days you could only admit so many people to the floor of an exchange and you needed to make sure they can be relied on and know the rules, etc. Even though most exchanges operate only electronically these days, you still need to make sure the people who are directly interacting on the exchange can be relied on and know the rules, which is why all recognized securities exchanges still maintain a membership-based or regulated brokerage system. Even if you are trading through a web portal without ever talking to anyone, it has to be a member/regulated broker who oversees, and takes responsibility for, that portal. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need a broker if you wish to be....broker. StuRat (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Early 20thC world map

I have a shortbread tin that's decorated with an early 20thC world map. It has some rather odd features, which I'm trying to find an explanation for. Unfortunately, the map has been cropped to fit the tin, and doesn't show the name, publisher, date, (or any other metadata). Various oddities include:

It shows the USSR, which would indicate a date after On 28 December 1922
It appears to show Britain and Ireland as one country, which would indicate before 6 December 1922, at least.
- Oddly, this country is labeled "~~The~~ British Isles", rather than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland are all individually labeled).
China, Mongolia, and Tannu-Tuva are shown the same colour, albeit with borders between them.
- But Manchuria is clearly separate, and a distinct colour.
A broad swathe of countries from N Europe to SW Asia (Sweden, Finland, all of central Europe, the Balkans, Turkey, and most of Arabia) are all coloured the same.

Can anyone explain these anomalies? Iapetus (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The British Isles is a geographic entity, not a political one, so it's valid for a map of any era in human history. See British Isles. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that "British Isles" is a geographical term. But this is a political map, and I've never before seen a political map use it in place of the actual country names. Iapetus (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Partition of Ireland on on 3 May 1921 was intended to create two self governing provinces within the UK. After the Anglo-Irish Treaty on 6 December 1921, which led to the creation of the Irish Free State on 6 December 1922, the border change was not accepted by everybody, hence the Irish Civil War which continued into 1923. As a biscuit tin map would not need strict accuracy, so it's possible that they went with the British Isles option during that state of flux. Alansplodge (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Although some factions in Outer Mongolia asserted autonomy or independence as early as the 1920s, the Soviet-backed Outer Mongolian independence referendum was not held until 1945, and there was no widespread international recognition of its independence from China until much later (Mongolia did not become a UN member state until 1961, the UK did not recognise Mongolia until the 1960s, the US not until the 1980s).

Manchukuo was declared in 1932, but Manchuria (under a different regime) was also virtually autonomous from 1916 and flew a different flag to the rest of China during the late 1920s, until 1928. So if we assume China, Mongolia and Manchuria are portrayed contemporarily, the map could have been produced either in the 1920s (before 1928), or between 1932 and 1945. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't go far enough back for this question, but might be of help to similar questions: How Old Is Your Globe? —Tamfang (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful, or at least fun, if you could take a digital photo and upload it temporarily so we can see the thing. As to "the British Isles", it's possible that the mapmaker was deliberately trying to avoid offending anyone by showing Ireland in one way or another. If other parts of the map show adjacent countries the same color, then using one color for the whole of the British Isles doesn't really imply that it's one country. (Admittedly, the absence of a border is another matter.) --69.159.61.172 (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even the term "British Isles" is contentious for some: see Talk:British_Isles/name_debate. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible that they've had a map designed for a biscuit tin, based on a geographic map, but coloured for aesthetics only, as the variations you describe really don't seem to make much sense for political, geographical or geological reasons and connecting "N Europe" to "most of Arabia" appears a bit bonkers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could the original have been produced for some specific cause? Was there some sort of pan-Balkan-Nordic-Arabian movement in the early 20th century? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could one of the inks have faded? —Tamfang (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have been a highly detailed version of a Risk (game) map? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as requested: some photographs. http://s1078.photobucket.com/user/Iapetus303/library/ Iapetus (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's post-1958, or Chad would have been labelled French Equatorial Africa --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That can't be right, because it also features Trans Jordan (1921-1946, or 1946-1949), Tannu-Tuva (annexed 1944), and as far as I can see no Israel (1948/49). Maybe "Chad" in this case means the territory within French Equatorial Africa, rather than the independent country. Iapetus (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at that article in more detail: "French Equatorial Africa" was a single colony (containing several territories) from 1934-1958. But from 1910-1938, those territories were separate colonies in a federation. So that implies the map is pre-1934. Iapetus (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Chad existed as a geographic unit within AEF up to 1958 (see Chadian General Council election, 1946–47). --Soman (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few more clues:

-Alsace-Lorraine is coloured French, so this is post-1919.

-It shows Leningrad, not St Petersburg/Petrograd, so this is post-1924.

-It shows Peipeing, not Peking/Beijing, so this is post-1928. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Saudi" in Arabia, and Hejaz and Nejd are shown in block capitals (implying they are independent countries) - which would put it before 1932. (Although slightly confusingly, it doesn't show any actual borders between them, or with Oman). Going back to the Far East, the borders of "Manchuria" seem to best fit Manchuko, rather than any of the other definitions of Manchuria I could find. So that would date the map to some time in 1932, after the official establishment of Manchuko (Feb) but before the official establishment of Saudi Arabia (can't find the exact date). Iapetus (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a general note, dating the map to after a date on the basis that it shows a change is firm, but dating the map to before a date on the basis that it doesn't show a change can only be tentative, because there are any number of reasons why a change is not shown on a map for some time - in some cases for a long time. On the other hand, all the signs seem to point to it being certainly from 1932 or later, most likely no later than 1934, quite likely to be from 1932 specifically. Is that fair? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that Sakhalin appears to be divided. Romania includes Moldova. Finland includes Karelia. Czechoslovakia is missing? Germany and Poland have same colour. Burma is shown distinct from India but in same colour (indicating that the map is post-1937). I'd say it's a WWII map. --Soman (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that Demosthenes and Aristotle shared the same dates of birth and death?

The wiki articles say so, but it seems like such a coincidence. Is it really true, or did someone at some point copy the wrong set of numbers somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.147.138 (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a very reliable source, I mean, I couldn't even edit it. but Britannica says: Demosthenes (born 384 bce, Athens [Greece]—died Oct. 12, 322, Calauria, Argolis) and Aristotle (born 384 bce, Stagira, Chalcidice, Greece—died 322, Chalcis, Euboea). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both pairs of figures are given by multiple apparently reliable book publications. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad Britannica doesn't list its sources so I cannot trace it back. I'd really like to know where these dates originally came from. By the way, do you think it'd be useful to call out this coincidence on the articles? That way readers would no it's no oversight on Wikipedia's part, and perhaps a future editor will find a definitive final original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.147.138 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually think that it is a remarkable co-incidence. I am no mathematician, but in a large enough set of dead people you are bound to have some who were born in the same year and died in the same year. Some supernerd can probably use Wikidata to find more people who share that characteristic. And finding the source of the dates used in Brittanica doesn't help much, because the question is where those dates came from, et cetera, all the way back to the original source. It is a long time ago, so the information is probably not very reliable anyway. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not remarkable next to Jim, James, Betty and Linda. But still "weirder" than this "urban legend". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:43, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

About Aristotle, our article contains pointers to several works of secondary literature said to have explored the issue, so we could probably figure out what the ultimate primary sources are from there. As for Demosthenes, this contains some information. I take it that the death dates will be a lot easier to verify than the birth dates, since both men were public figures at the time and their deaths were connected with well-documented political events of their time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone can cap this [1] (couple born, married and died on the same day). 92.31.143.223 (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be quite remarkable if all the events were independent. However, people usually marry somebody about their own age, so it's not all that surprising they might have the same birth date, especially if that influenced their decision to marry, and perhaps their choice of a wedding date. Death dates, on the other hand, are closer to being random, assuming they did nothing to bring about an early death. StuRat (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know of one case that comes very close: Hermann Goering and Alfred Rosenberg. Both were born 12 January 1893, both were Nazi/Third Reich VIPs, both were sentenced to death at Nuremberg, both were scheduled to be executed on 16 October 1946. But Goering went and spoilt it by suiciding on the night before he was supposed to hang. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suiciding? Oh dear. DuncanHill (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wiktionary:suicide:

Verb: suicide ‎(third-person singular simple present suicides, present participle suiciding, simple past and past participle suicided)
(intransitive) To kill oneself intentionally.

(Both quotes given are from novomundane authors, but I'm sure this verb has reached Britain by now.)

There's also a transitive usage: To kill (someone) and make their death appear to have been a suicide rather than a homicide (now especially as part of a conspiracy).

That's not part of my linguistic armoury yet, and may never be, -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Just because some people use a word is no reason for the rest of us to do so. DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks thou dost protest too much, Duncan. I demonstrated the word's validity because you queried it. People are free to use it, but nobody is required to do so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I wasn't querying its existence, rather the taste of anyone who would use it! DuncanHill (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ~~taking you off my Christmas list~~ deChristmaslisting you forthwith. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Insurance

One argument against insurance is that insurance doesn't reduce the cost because insurance costs the policyholder in premiums. Not everyone can afford insurance. Is that true? What do insurance companies and policyholders respond to that argument?

Bonupton (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly insurance costs more on average than it pays out, or they couldn't stay in business. Even in the case of a co-op, this is still true, since the administration still uses up some of the money. The most compelling argument for insurance is that something necessary and easily replaced, if paid for by all, can become impossible for an individual to replace. For example, if your car is totaled, and you can't afford to repair it, you could be unable to get to your job, become unemployed, and lose your house, all of which could cost far more than replacing the car. Of course, people could self-insure and save up their own money for a "rainy day", but that takes time and discipline, which many lack. StuRat (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, look at health insurance. Surgery can cost upwards of € 10 000 and many people have no hope of ever saving that much, so if they don't want to die should they need the operation they pretty much haven't got any other option. Even if they could save up the money, which many people simply cannot no matter how hard they try, that won't help them if they need the operation before they reached their savings target. And if everyone did it like that, all that money being saved up would sit dead in all their accounts, so people wouldn't have the freedom to use that money to improve their quality of life in a different way. Insurance allows people to save up money for rare occurrences, so that although collectively they lose, individually they win in the sense that they free up money to spend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.147.138 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree on that "free up money for other things" part, since, on average, they must spend more on insurance than they would need to save for the expense. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They spend more on insurance that they receive back on average, but they usually spend less on insurance than they would need to save in order to secure similar coverage on their own. For example, we have a community of 10 people and one of them will need a surgery costing 10000$ during the year. Insurance (with a 10% margin for admin) would set everyone back 1100$ that year, but to secure similar level of coverage by themselves each would have to save up 10000$, severely restricting their spending on other things. Yes, insurance company will (hopefully) receive more than it pays out, but insurance allows people to spend money that they would otherwise have to save for extremely expensive low-probability events - money that would probably not be used for any useful purpose in the end, even if you manage to save that much.No longer a penguin (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that $10000 only needs to be saved once, versus the $1100 which is spent every year. Therefore, after 10 years, they will have spent $11000 on premiums, while they only would have spent $10000 if they saved the money themselves, and hopefully made some interest on the money before they did. Ideally the savings would build up over generations of inheritance, and we would no longer have the problem of being unprepared to pay our medical costs when young. StuRat (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That example was only used to illustrate how insurance can free up your cashflow for a given year. In reality, insurance is often used for very low-probability events. Make it a 1 in 100 or 1 in a 1000 event (which is more what insurance is about) and suddenly the cashflows with insurance look better than those without. Not only that, but sometimes saving enough is not even an option. Let's say I go alpine skiing. There is a very low probability (probably higher than average, since I have skiing skills of a fat cow) that I cause an accident causing (unspecified kind of) damages worth 100 000 $. As a person in his 20s I could literally beg, steal, borrow and barter and would still not be able to scrape together half that amount. Thus, I would have to delay the trip until I'm 40, diverting a large portion of my cashflows for this skiing trip of a lifetime, or gamble with my future. Instead, I can buy insurance rather cheaply and not care at all that the insurance company makes a net profit from it. No longer a penguin (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is another strange reason to have health insurance in the US, in that the hospitals, pharmacies, etc., are allowed to charge people without insurance a much higher rate than those with insurance, because both the insurance companies and medical providers provide bribes (campaign contributions) to government officials to make it that way. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that in jurisdictions with community rating laws, health insurance is a brilliant deal for the sickly, such as those with chronic health issues, but a poor deal for the young and healthy. 110.140.60.6 (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, I know it's not your style, but you should really try giving the "reference" part of "reference desk" a chance once in a while, especially when equating campaign contributions with bribes. In fact, different prices charged by hospitals, etc. towards insurance companies and ordinary folk has been mostly attributed to bargaining power (see [2], for example). Furthermore, the medical providers are not "allowed" to charge different prices, they are simply not required to charge the same price. You know what? Most other businesses are not required to charge the same price to all customers, so it isn't exactly a corrupt anomaly.No longer a penguin (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on many other businesses charging different rates to different customers. There are some big ticket items where the price is negotiated, like cars and houses, but that's not the same as charging an entire class of people (the uninsured) more. And in cases where you do have essentially the same thing sold at different prices, the strategy is typically to charge the rich more, not less, as is the case with health care, since the poor tend to be uninsured. This can only happen because competition doesn't work in health care. You can't just hold out for a better price if you need treatment now, so you end up paying whatever is charged. This is why health care prices should be regulated. StuRat (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an account of one case explaining why prescription drug prices are so high, due to Medicare not being allowed to negotiate "as a concession to the pharmaceutical industry": [3]. Such concessions come because of the power big pharma has, as a result of their political contributions and/or bribing regulators with promises of high paying jobs for them and their family members.

Another reason prescription drug prices remain high in the US is because the politicians refuse to allow ordering of prescription meds from other nations. If this was allowed, then the international competition would drive down domestic prices, too. The reason often given is that the US can't trust drugs coming from other nations. However, many other nations have regulations even more stringent than in the US, and better enforcement. The real reason ? Those political contributions again. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and miserable though it is, what the source covers is a completely different issue - it's about Medicare (which is basically government provided insurance) not being allowed to act as a normal market participant, i.e., not being allowed allowed to do what insurance companies legitimately do. It has nothing to do with insured vs uninsured. If anything, this source argues that charging different prices is good and medicare should not be prevented from doing it. No longer a penguin (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And your last point is ^{[citation needed]}, again. But I won't even bother.No longer a penguin (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As StuRat accurately but perhaps misleadingly states, insurance companies have bargaining power and negotiate lower rates than an individual can do. (There is no need to ascribe this to the effect of their campaign contributions; almost all goods and services have unregulated prices. As it happens, one of the few exceptions to this is the cost of insurance, which is regulated by state departments of insurance.) Thus, on average, an individual will pay less in insurance premiums than the same individual would have had to pay medical providers (although there is, of course, considerable individual variation). John M Baker (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as a negative of insurance, government subsidized insurance can lead to poor decisions, as in the case of government subsidized insurance in flood prone areas. Were it not subsidized, the insurance costs would be too high, where the risks are high, and construction would not take place in those high risks areas. That's how it should work. StuRat (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance is essentially just gambling - it's no different than buying a lottery ticket. Any rational person should look at the price of a lottery ticket, multiply it by the odds against winning and compare it to the prize money. If you do that then it's almost never a good idea to buy lottery tickets. If it was a good idea, you can bet that big businesses would buy up as many tickets as they could get their hands on!

So why we buy insurance is the same reason we buy a lottery ticket. Either:

We're badly mis-informed, or "statistically challenged".
The loss of a few dollars for a lottery ticket makes no practical difference to your life - so the "cost" seems like zero...the benefits of a significant win is generally believed to be an ENORMOUS (even 'infinite') benefit. So normal arithmetic doesn't quite apply here - it seems like zero cost for infinite gain - which is a good deal.

Same deal with insurance. The cost of the policy is small enough that you're willing to bear it - but the potential loss if you don't have it in a worst-case-scenario could be the ruination of your entire life. If you accidentally drive your car into a Rolls Royce worth a million dollars - and you don't have insurance - then you'd lose EVERYTHING in paying it off for the rest of your life. So while the risk is small, the consequences are more or less infinite...and again normal arithmetic doesn't apply.

However, some people are statistically challenged. When offered an "extended warranty" on (say) a TV set that costs 20% of the price of the item for 5 years extra coverage - people aren't facing an infinite benefit. So they should say "Is there a 1:5 chance of the TV failing in the next 5 years?" - I have 4 TV's in my house - I've owned them all for at least 5 years and none of them has failed. So I strongly suspect that buying the extended warranty is a bad idea. Furthermore - I ask myself "How does the company that offers this make a profit?" and it can only be if the purchasers of the warranty make a loss. Furthermore, I know that they have great statistics on a million TV sales - so they know the exact failure rate - and even if my estimate is wrong, theirs isn't. If they're willing to take the bet - then I shouldn't. Logically, I should put 20% of the cost of every major purchase I make into an interest-bearing savings account and use the money to replace items that fail. Over the long term, I'll make a profit by doing that - I am (in effect) my own insurance company.

So for items you can't afford to cover (cars, houses, lives) then insurance makes sense - but for items you can afford to replace (TV's, kitchen appliances, computers, phones), it doesn't. Betting on the lottery at odds of a billion to one makes sense - betting on a roulette wheel does not.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Extended warranty, I can't lose !" - Homer Simpson

"Whoa, that's a little too far." - Moe, after inserting a crayon back into Homer's brain, in order to restore him to his dim-witted state, so he would fit in better with friends and coworkers. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Re: ‘... for items you can't afford to cover ... insurance makes sense - but for items you can afford to replace ... it doesn't.’: As I've shown above, even that isn't a rule set in stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.147.138 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of Monarchy

One argument for a republic is that it costs alot to have a monarchy. Is that true? Is that an argument for why a country should be a republic. Do advocates for a republic in Australia argue this way? What is the response of advocates of constitutional monarchy to that argument?

Bonupton (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on your assumptions. If you're going to set up the monarchy with dozens of castles and then have them grant lands to thousands of relatives and nobles, then yes, it will get rather expensive. On the other hand, if you set up a monarchy where only the current monarch gets paid, and then only enough to live on (or maybe more, so they won't be tempted to take bribes), and all their relatives are expected to work for a living, it could be quite inexpensive. Democracy isn't all that cheap, either, when you consider that all the elected reps get paid (and even worse, vote for things not in the public interest, in exchange for bribes/campaign contributions). StuRat (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although in the case of Australia or the UK, you have the cost of the monarch and the cost of elected representatives. Iapetus (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does Australia support the monarchy ? Is there a budget line for funds they contribute ? StuRat (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family, it appears that they don't. So whatever benefits Oz gets from having a Queen, they apparently get for free. But the British taxpayer still has to pay for a monarch and a parliament. Iapetus (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Oranje, or Orange, was Europe's most expensive monarchy last year, costing 39.9 million euros. So that is one extreme. For the other extreme we probably got to look at micronations and microstates. For example the Kingdom of Elleore and Tuvalu. So, a monarchy costs something between 0 and 40 million euro per year. It's however expensive you want to make it. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And a republic too, can be as expensive as you want. The President of the Republic gets € 178 923.72 a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.147.138 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which republic? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think 80.114.147.138 means the president of France who receives €178,923.72 according to this. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy buckets. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not a simple one. For example, you need to offset the nominal "cost" of the monarchy with income they bring in to the country. This is often simplified down to tourism (this can be a lot of money) but there's often a trade role for royal families, as they travel the world drumming up support for their country. Any head of state can fulfil this role, but there are intangible benefits from them being royals - some people respond with great deference to royalty and they're untainted by association with political parties, past political failures etc. They're subject to personal failures, but so's everyone. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to compare the cost of a monarchy with the cost of a presidency in a similar sized country (and it has to be a non-executive presidency, so not France or the USA where the president is head of government with a much more complex role). The British monarch is quoted as costing £35.7 million. The German presidency costs £30.8 million, the Italian presidency an astonishing £181.5 million. As far as I know, neither of those presidents attracts a lot of tourist income! 109.150.174.93 (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily true, since a democracy could democratically decide they need neither monarch nor president and e.g. dump the applicable duties on the PM.

When Prince William married Kate Middleton, the government declared the day a public holiday, which cost businesses massive sums (maybe someone is in a position to quote estimates?). On the other hand, the event brought in huge numbers of tourists from around the world. So I suppose there are both costs and benefits, both direct and indirect, and the economics are not necessarily so simple. But let me put it this way: I doubt getting rid of the monarchy would have a significant impact on countries' budgets.
Of, course, I'm strictly talking about western constitutional monarchies, such as the European ones, where parliament are the ones who ultimately control the monarchs' budget allocation. An absolute monarchy such as Saudi Arabia or Swaziland, where the royal family has absolute control of the nation's wealth (and hogs a lot of it for themselves, at the expense of the powerless common citizen), is very obviously a totally different kettle of fish. In such countries, getting rid of the monarchy likely would save a fortune. Which is precisely why such royal families will brutally preserve their power at any cost. 110.140.60.6 (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not just huge busloads of tourists - all the people who had a day off went and spent their money on leisure activities. The economy doesn't just turn on things being produced, the people who earn money by producing things need to also spend the money to keep the wheels spinning.

Bear in mind that the constitutional monarch doesn't just "do nothing" constitutionally speaking, they are an important part of the constitutional checks and balances. Countries that have non-executive presidents often seek to emulate the institution of the constitutional monarch. And while you may have to pay for a coronation ever few decades, it saves the expense of having to choose a new one every 5 years. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and even looking at manufacturing, a day off doesn't necessarily mean lost productivity. If there was an oversupply of whatever they were making, then a day off might have been needed sooner or later anyway. If they were producing just the amount needed, then they might need to put in an extra day sometime (maybe an extra hour at a time), to catch up. Only if they were running flat out and not able to meet demand would a day off actually cost them.

If we look at retailers, those who sell essential items will still sell just as much, but on other days. Nonessential item sales might even go up, as noted previously, with people buying a variety of "Royal Marriage" items they wouldn't have otherwise. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wills/Kate Middleton wedding was a colossal waste of time and money, given that she is still regularly referred to as "Kate Middleton", as if they were simply shacking up together and ~~living in sin~~ cohabiting without the benefit of matrimony. It's not that married women are automatically assumed to take their husband's name/title these days, as would once have been the case - but she kind of did, which was sort of the whole point. "Let's all go berserk and ga-ga about their wedding, but then let's pretend it never happened" seems to be the current journalistic paradigm. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the media do in Australia, but in the British media (or certainly the British media that I read) she's now usually referred to as "the Duchess of Cambridge". Proteus (Talk) 14:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Australian media are crap, therefore a wedding was a waste of time and money" seems to me to be stretching logic just a little too far. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an international issue, folks. Here are just a few of the many sites that discuss this very question: [4], [5], [6], [7]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory link to C P E Grey's video on the subject, with its surprising twist. -- Elphion (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the UK has the fewest public holidays of any nation in Europe, and worldwide, only Mexico has less, [8] I don't really see how an extra day off for a jubilee or a royal wedding can be added to the "cost of monarchy". It's just a public holiday and republics (bar one) have more than we do. Alansplodge (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to guess. 163 million pounds were spent on Royal Wedding memorabilia - some of that by tourists, some by UK residents. The wedding itself cost 50 million. With the standard rate of VAT (purchase tax) at 20% - we know that the wedding netted around 32 million from tax on the sale of mugs and t-shirts, etc. So it only had to earn 18 million in increased tourism. On the month of the wedding an extra 350,000 visitors came to the UK compared to the previous year - so the government only had to get about 50 pounds per tourist to break even...and at a 20% VAT rate, that reflects an average of 250 pounds in purchases per person. Trust me, when I go back to visit my family in the UK, I have to spend a LOT more than 250 quid on hotels alone for even one week in the UK...not including transport, food, etc. In truth, a lot of people in the UK must have traveled into London that day - so there were more hotel, food and transport purchases because of that too.

CONCLUSION: We know for a fact that the Royal Wedding turned a significant profit for the UK government. Whether the day off work had economic benefits or downturns is a separate matter.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VAT's not the only money the government makes from purchases - it also makes money (albeit more indirectly) from the corporation tax paid on the profits of the retailers and manufacturers, and from the income tax paid on those companies' employees' salaries and shareholders' dividends. So an even greater proportion of the £163 million would presumably have ended up in the government's coffers one way or another. Proteus (Talk) 14:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people spent the Royal Wedding day at their local boozer, which was allowed extended opening hours for the occasion; [9] the duty on a pint is 52p, 13 times higher than in Germany. Then you have to pay VAT on the duty. 17:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

March 15

Socher Reshus, Orthodox Judaic law, and the Establishment clause

Hi, this is an odd one. see this page: [10], our page on Eruvs, and maybe [11] for a little more background on the relevant (religious) law underpinning this. Basically, in 2008, Sheriff Lee Baca of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department signed a 20 year rental agreement with "a representative of the Jewish Community of Los Angeles County", signing the entirety of Los Angeles County (or, more specifically, Sheriff Baca's "Jurisdiction", which I assume is the entirety of Los Angeles County) over to him/her for $1.

I realize that, in practice, any attempt to use that rental agreement to do anything more than erect and maintain an Eruv would be struck down by a court, but my question is a bit more esoteric than that. It appears that, to meet the halachic needs of the Jewish Community, there is no limitation of the rental to "public property" or accurate wording terming it a license to use utility poles to run their cable around the area. Now, it's possible that the "contract" shown in the photo is just for show and that some more formal, real contract was actually drawn up and is the legal document underpinning all this and I've just misunderstood a poorly-printed press release, but at this point I'm wondering. If that is the actual contract, isn't it a violation of the Establishment clause, along with the Fifth amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use? Obviously, just because something is a violation of the constitution doesn't mean it can't happen; things get fixed by cases, not whining, but I figured I'd ask some other people because looking at it it's hard for me to conceive of a line of thought that leads to this being "kosher" (if you'll pardon the pun). I'm also wondering whether I could "rent" the city of Los Angeles if The Goddess Eris gave me divine inspiration that I needed to own all vendors of hot dog buns within a 100 mile radius to avoid displeasing her, though obviously that question may veer too close to a request for legal advice for the Refdesk. Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 06:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The permission of the land owner is what's required. What mickey mouse wording is used is irrelevant. And what's definitely irrelevant is whether the contract that's been drawn up would stand up to scrutiny in a civil law court. Eruv is an entirely notional concept, albeit one that needs to be grounded by the existence of some kind of physical border (existing hedges, fences, railway wires, phone wires, specially-built wires etc) but it needs the permission of the land owner in the first place, to allow the area to be considered as one massive private domain.

It helps to think about this on a smaller level. A block of flats contains private and public areas, all contained by the walls of the block. With the agreement of the freeholder (or other relevant owner), the entire block can be considered one "private" area (albeit that different parts are still owned by different people) and Orthodox Jews can carry items on the Sabbath in the hallways or between each other's flats.

Simply put, the notion of private/public is entirely different from ownership - nothing changes in terms of who owns what. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those who do not follow those religious rules nothing has changed. For the people who do follow those religious rules life has become a little bit easier. If you would start a religion with over half a million followers in the greater Los Angeles area, and you would ask for something that doesn't affect others but makes the lives of some of the followers of your religion a bit easier then I, as an atheist, would be totally OK with that. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Story of Philosophy

Was Will Durant's book The Story of Philosophy first published in 1924 or 1926? I have looked through the article on Durant and the article on the book, and they both contain contradictory information on this matter. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go straight to the source and ask the horse. He'll give you the answer that you'll endorse. The Will Durant Foundation website says 1926.[12] Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book article says that it was first published as pamphlets. Maybe 1924 is referring to that? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. While several pamphlets titled "The story of X's Philosophy" (X being various thinkers) are dated 1924, "The Story of Francis Bacon's Philosophy" is from c. 1923 and "The Philosophy of Herbert Spencer" is from c. 1925, according to this newsletter. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

Latin and the Bible

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The New Testament was written in Greek. What about Latin?

Bonupton (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no Latin in the original texts, but fragments of the Hebrew Bible might have been translated into Latin before Christianity started, and there were a few different attempts to translate the Bible in the first centuries of the Church, before Jerome translated the standard Vulgate in the 4th century. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew, Greek & Aramaic. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not much Aramaic - ablout 250 verses, mostly in Daniel and Ezra. 109.150.174.93 (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New Testament was written in Greek - there is no Latin apart from a few personal or place names, and even those are written in the Greek alphabet. When things were first translated into Latin is unclear: the earliest Latin manuscripts date from about 350 CE, but the first translations must have happened before then. Once the Vulgate came into use, a lot of older translations seem to have been destroyed, to avoid confusion. 109.150.174.93 (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

God Too Good For Hell

Annihilationists and universalists believe that God is too good for and to condemen people to hell. Is that true?

Bonupton (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How the h*** would we know? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP is asking if it's true what those groups believe, then it's answerable. As to the nature of God, there's no way to know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)If you mean "are annihilationism or universalism true," or "is their view of God accurate," -- If anyone was capable of answering that question, there would be no different religions, merely different sects within the same religion (if that).

If you mean "do annihilationists and universalists believe that God is too good to send people to hell," that could potentially be answered. In the case of Universalism (more specifically, Universal reconciliation), that's probably the simplest way to summarize their views on the matter. In the case of Annihilationism, it is not so much a matter of the goodness of God but the weakness of humanity; annihilationists believe that the soul is mortal and will die with the body. In fact, it's possible to argue that they're on opposing beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that all believers in all monotheistic gods would claim that their deity is both omniscient and omnipotent. Most refuse to allow that their god's powers are limited in any way whatever. So no matter what, they should logically admit that their god might decide to toss someone in hell (or even create a formerly non-existent hell and toss someone into it) despite previously saying that they won't. It all boils down to what believers expect their god to do - not to what they can absolutely guarantee (s)he will do.

So if you're a Catholic - you're supposed to believe that God will absolve your sins if you're truly penitent - and there is no hell for you. But they also REFUSE to place any limitations on what God can and cannot do - so if pressed, they should (logically) admit that there is a possibility that God WON'T absolve some particularly heinous sin. Of course if he's believed to have promised to absolve all sins, then we have to ask whether holding him to his promise limits his power.

This comes down to the classic: "Can God make a rock that's so heavy that he cannot lift it?" - or in this case "Can God make a promise that's so binding that he can't break it?" - and at that point, we don't get good answers! So, it's very possible that various religions will make these claims - but if pushed into the "Rock-too-big-to-lift" hypothetical, then all bets are off. SteveBaker (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rock is dead, since 2002 AD. Long live the burrito paradox! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:39, March 16, 2016 (UTC)

Year of the Bull Meese — can U.S. presidential candidates make binding agreements?

This year it has appeared possible that both Democratic and Republican party leadership in the U.S. would cast aside their most popular candidate in order to nominate a pro-Trans Pacific Partnership functionary. Conceivably, a counter to this could be a Trump-Sanders coalition ticket. My question is: is there any way for such a ticket to be genuinely bipartisan, where Trump would make a binding agreement with Sanders to make specific Cabinet appointments or to even to veto bills that Sanders opposes? Wnt (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen what Trump says? This is about as conceivable as a Pope-Osama bin Laden anti-secular alliance. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see Trump running as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the Republican nod, but I don't see Sanders doing any such thing. Also, if Trump does get the Republican nomination, some of the Republicans might run their own third party candidate. So, it's a potential split in the Republicans, not the Democrats. StuRat (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The answers above seem to have ignored the question (in the last sentence) and instead given opinions about the scenario. That is not what this page is for. --ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As unlikely as a Trump-Sanders third party ticket would be... if it did happen, then the answer to the question is "no"... Nothing a candidate promises to do before election is binding on their actions after election. Blueboar (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump and Sanders (aka "the Oddest Couple") could make a binding agreement. (Get it in writing and notarized, Bernie!) Whether that agreement could extend to the things you specified verges on legal advice I think, so mum's the word. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's only legal advice if I'm Bernie (or Trump). I hate to disappoint, but no. :) Really, we can answer legal questions provided we're not advising people. Wnt (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL. Certainly the candidate could sign a binding contract or some other legal instrument in which they promised to either do something when in office or suffer some huge penalty. The question is whether that would be enforceable once they take office - and my suspicion is "no".

There is a principle in law called Sovereign immunity which basically says that you can't sue the King when he acts as the King. See: especially Sovereign immunity in the United States. I believe this means that individual members of the government cannot be sued when they act as "the government". So I suspect that if you persuaded a presidential candidate to enter into a contract or tort or some other thing in which (s)he promised not to do some specific thing as president...then once they are in office, they could just go ahead and do that exact thing as an agent of the government. To get recourse to justice, you'd have to sue the government (on behalf of which they acted), and you can only do that if government consents to be sued. You could perhaps sue the individual once they'd left office...but even that is kinda doubtful. SteveBaker (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a claim against the sovereign, nor a tort claim for the consequences of the act: it's a claim under a private contract (which would presumably include, implicitly if not explicitly, a waiver of personal immunity). I don't know under what circumstances a party can plead external compulsion against the terms of a contract, but this isn't one, since an officer of the United States can always resign; even if that were not so, I'll bet that compulsion is an excuse only if it cannot reasonably be contemplated in advance! —Tamfang (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Argonauts

Has there ever been a Satanist organisation called “the Argonauts”? I found this but I can′t find more information. 2A02:582:C76:1800:FC41:B099:42:ED84 (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Farnham played for the Toronto Argonauts, and his son Bobby is a New Jersey Devil. But the Argonauts the Devil in your link speaks of are just the classic crew. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, March 16, 2016 (UTC)

There was a long-running (40 years) ABC radio program for children (of all ages) called the Argonauts Club. I'm sure they'd be horrified to know their name was also appropriated for a Satanist organisation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "Home" link at the bottom of your page - click on that and you will find that your Argonauts are just another of the many variants on Freemasonry. 109.150.174.93 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

meditation

what is meditation? what are the different type of meditation? what are the benefits of doing meditation? What are the research reviews on meditation practice? Which form of meditation is more effective ?how and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbrd.agtsp (talk • contribs) 16:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is meditation. If it's done its job (and you read it), you should find the other answers. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, March 16, 2016 (UTC)

There's also the wonderfully dubious research on meditation. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:30, March 16, 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should advise them to seek the answers within themself. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

There are no selves, if you're doing it right. Socrates got it wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:52, March 16, 2016 (UTC)

An article like this makes me wonder whether meditation has identifiable risks. My general impression is that a treatment capable of real benefits has real risks and vice versa. Wnt (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot cite many sources, but meditation can definitely be abused by manipulative and exploitative cults as both a recruitment and retention tool. Ask your local Exit counselor. Reason is,some forms of meditation can involve a sense of "escape from reality", similar to drugs. Some people don't want to return to reality. So yes, there are "risks", if you like. But this doesn't mean meditation as a whole is a bad thing - just that it can be abused and misused. As long as the people who teach and practice it are responsible and decent people, I don't think you're at serious risk. But if you're thinking of joining any form of "meditation society", I'd consider it prudent to google them first. 110.140.60.6 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EJ Roye Building image

Does anyone have an idea where I could find a free image of the Edward J. Roye Building, a major skyscraper in Monrovia, the capital of Liberia? I've gone through Commons:Category:Buildings in Monrovia and other Commons categories about the city, but I've not found anything. Flickr appears to have just two images, both all-rights-reserved images by people who haven't uploaded anything in years (so contacting them for a license change would be pointless), and I don't know where else to look. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Google Earth ? Presumably a pic from a satellite will be closer to a top view, and not have as good resolution, but it might be better than nothing. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Google Earth images are copyrighted, aren't they? Rojomoke (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Google seem lenient about fair use and attribution. Not free free. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, March 16, 2016 (UTC)

You could also try Panoramio. Someone might have a sufficiently licensed image there. clpo13_(talk) 05:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No such luck. Here's the area, but there are only a couple images of the building itself and both are copyrighted. I did find that "E J Roye building" brought more relevant search results than "Edward J Roye building", though, FWIW. clpo13_(talk) 05:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Geoghan

1) I´m trying to submit a query but I can´t because appears this: <<An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.20.40.202 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been hit by one of Elockid's edit filters. The way round it is to save the edit paragraph by paragraph in the Wikipedia:Sandbox. When the filter hits you will know what paragraph the offending word is in. If it's not immediately clear which the rogue word is save the paragraph sentence by sentence until you come to the one the filter objects to. 77.96.127.152 (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2) Which was his second name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.20.40.202 (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, presuming we're talking about the same person - John Geoghan. See signature in this letter. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3) Or his mother´s name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.20.40.202 (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad things happens when you make multiple sections with the same name. I fix. StuRat (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

March 17

Protestant on the Supreme Court?

Who was the last protestant member of the US Supreme Court? Edison (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page should help you answer your question. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Souter (retired 2009) was Episcopalian (which describes itself as "Protestant, yet Catholic"). clpo13_(talk) 05:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wishy, yet washy. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so not so clear who was the most recent Protestant in the strict sense (which I take to mean Lutheran or Reformed, the latter including Presbyterians and Congregationalists). O'Connor was (per our article) again Episcopalian, but Stevens is listed as "Protestant" without elaboration, so hard to tell. Rehnquist was a Lutheran, so he's the most recent one who's clear. --Trovatore (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked pretty hard, but I cannot find anyone going into more detail on Stevens' religion. I suspect he keeps it private. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most any denomination that's not Roman Catholic qualifies as "Protestant" even if they weren't around yet when the Reformation occurred. And David Souter is, indeed, the answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people would regard the Anglican/Episcopal Church is "Protestant". Even if it calls itself "also Catholic", the key point is that it is not Roman Catholic. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure all of the Orthodox Christians will be comforted to know they are all Protestants. Thanks for setting them straight. --Jayron 32 14:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republican primaries, people feeling betrayed?

As I read media coverage of the US Republican presidential primaries, I keep seeing this result that the primary voters "feel betrayed by party insiders", but I haven't seen anyone actually explain what this means. Who specifically do primary voters feel betrayed them? How? I'm not interested in a debate, and definitely not in editors' opinions. I'm wondering if any experts or polls have gone into more detail about why exactly so many republicans feel betrayed and by whom. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This, from Salon, for instance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miniature depicting siege at Fall of Constantinople

This image, supposedly a depiction of siege of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks in 1453, is also variously described as the siege of Jerusalem during one of the Crusades, the siege of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204, or Charlemagne’s troops storming Rome. Especially the last option seems to me more plausible than what the current description says, as the picture shows a kingly-looking figure on the right whose crown appears to have a cross on top of it, and the image itself, a miniature, is sourced to an incunable of the medieval romance Ogier le Danois (Paris, Antoine Verard, c. 1498/1499), which is kept in the Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria di Torino.[13] This romance is set in the time of Charlemagne, whose troops conquer Rome at some point in the story (see [14], p. 325). A facsimile of the Turin edition was published by K. Togeby in 1967, but it is not available on Google Books. The Turin incunable seems to be a “one-of-its-kind” version with a number of unique illustrations, and I have not been able to find this specific illustration in the digitized edition of Verard’s Ogier in Gallica.[15] Is there someone here who happens to know more about the original context of this picture? (Question also posted at [16].) Iblardi (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Answering at the article talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 429: / Line 429: @@
 :An article like [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/09/idaho-shooting-suspects-hypersexual-martian-manifesto-is-a-window-into-an-unraveling-mind/?tid=pm_national_pop_b this] makes me wonder whether meditation has identifiable ''risks''.  My general impression is that a treatment capable of real benefits has real risks and vice versa. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 23:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
+::I cannot cite many sources, but meditation can definitely be abused by manipulative and exploitative cults as both a recruitment and retention tool. Ask your local [[Deprogramming#Exit_counseling|Exit counselor]]. Reason is,some forms of meditation can involve a sense of "escape from reality", similar to drugs. Some people don't want to return to reality. So yes, there are "risks", if you like. But this doesn't mean meditation as a whole is a bad thing - just that it ''can'' be abused and misused. As long as the people who teach and practice it are responsible and decent people, I don't think you're at serious risk. But if you're thinking of joining any form of "meditation society", I'd consider it prudent to google them first. [[Special:Contributions/110.140.60.6|110.140.60.6]] ([[User talk:110.140.60.6|talk]]) 15:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 == EJ Roye Building image ==

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between revisions