Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:25, 14 July 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.

July 9

Westward ho!

I've downloaded "Westward Ho!" a novel by Charles Kingsley in my Kindle and now am trying to read it. It is a hard going. Paragraphs 3 pages long, etc. I wonder about the "ho" part however. I checked with on-line dictionaries, and also Webster Third International and nothing really fits from what they offered. I personally suspect it was a variant of "go" in Elizabethan time. Am I correct? Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Ho!" is an interjection that's been around for over 400 years.[1] See also Westward Ho. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not sure what online dictionaries you're looking at. Beyond BB's source, see wiktionary:ho#Etymology 1, Merriam-Webster [2] (first definition, I'm surprised that the print one doesn't have it), Oxford [3] (second definition), Collins [4] (first definition), Dictionary.com [5] (first definition and various other places), Freedictionary.com [6] (first non capitalised definition), Google at least for me [7] (second definition, does require expansion to see it), and Bing also for me [8] (second definition, again requires expansion, it's coming from Oxford and actually I think Google is using Oxford too). A number of these even specifically mention westward ho. Cambridge is the only one that seemed to lack a definition, probably because it was only found in the business dictionary [9]. Well maybe urbandictionary too, I didn't look through all 5 pages but wouldn't be surprised if it's absent from there [10]. 01:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk)

Now added to article. Trivia point: it also inspired the town of Westward Ho! in Devon. Only place in Britain with an explanation mark in its official name. Blythwood (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exclamation mark, please! Wymspen (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic license! The subject itself an obvious possible cause of cognitive distortion I'm personally gratefull for those risks the writer's been taking. --Askedonty (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Tally-ho!, a hunting cry dating from thew 18th century in English, but said to be derived from the medieval French taille haut meaning "blades up" (according to Wikipedia) or ta ho meaning "goads halt" (according to Wiktionary; see Wikt:tallyho). Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might be on to something there - that the "ho" could be an English transliteration of the French for "up". That word "up" is often used in connection with horses - I'm thinking specifically of "Giddyup!" which is a slurring of "Get ye up!" Tonto used to say, "Get 'em up, Scout!" after the Lone Ranger would say "Hi-yo Silver!" which was originally "Hi-ho Silver!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a tangent perhaps, but there is a place in Plymouth called the Hoe, which features heavily in the story of Sir Francis Drake. I wonder if the etymology of the two are related? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a tangent; Richard Carew wrote "vpon the Hawe at Plymmouth..." in 1602, see The Survey of Cornwall (p. 2) but The place-names of England and Wales by Johnston, James B, 1915 (p. 306) says its from Old English hoh or ho meaning a spur or hill. Alansplodge (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Land ho !" is another usage, by sailors, meaning land has been spotted. It seems that "ho", used this way, pretty much always requires an explanation mark. StuRat (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean exclamation mark? But I'd love it if someone really invented an all-purpose "explanation mark". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

They have. It's called a footnote. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about a an S on top of an H, meaning "shit happens" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Proof of God's existence is the death of revealed religion

I had argument like this: suppose that science could prove that God exists and that Jesus is God, this would mean the death of revealed religion, replacing it with theology based upon scientific experiments. Are there any WP:SOURCES which made this argument? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look through the ref desk archives, you will probably find a number of variations on this same question. Basically, you can't prove it absolutely, because you can't prove what or who God is. I could say God = Nature. Then it's easy to prove, because Nature exists. But is the original premise absolute and complete? No. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not ask if science could prove that God exists, I have asked a different question: what if science could prove it? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure that our present-day science does not study the supernatural. So, I was not asking about that. However, for science in the future all bets are off. So, suppose for the sake of argument that future science will have proven that God exists. Would that mean the death of revealed religion? I am not even asking if this follows. What I am asking is if there are reliable sources which made this argument before. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there are countless references you can find on Google. The search topic would be something like, "what if we can prove god exists". But keep in mind that anything anyone says is going to be speculation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a very smart Catholic person I know: "Of course you can't prove it. That's why it's called faith." Blythwood (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu your abrupt dismissal of the first response by Baseball Bugs suggests that you do not understand its relevance to your question. Your question uses terms "God" and "Jesus" that are absolutes only within the Christian belief system. There are millions of people with different belief systems with different axioms to whom your speculative question is not a Well-posed problem. However within what appears to be your Christian system, the consequence of "science proving God" would be the loss for humanity of the blessing (see Grace in Christianity) expressed by that religion's founder thus: John 20:29 "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." AllBestFaith (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Christian and I don't think the way science is practiced today could prove that God exists. I only wanted to know if the argument was made before by someone else. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument was made at [11]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a philosophical level, science can never prove anything. Science is empirical and based on inductive reasoning, which is not a sound inference principle. If I see 150 pink penguins in an hour (and no others), I might come to the justified conclusion that all penguins are pink, but I would still be wrong. Science gives us a sequence of (stochastically) better and better descriptions of reality, not absolute truth. That remains in the realm of mathematics and maybe philosophy. See e.g. Simulated reality and Evil demon. If we say "science has proved ...", there is always an implicit understanding that this really means "to a high degree of probability, not absolute certainty", or, as Stephen J. Gould put it": "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, I have quoted myself http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10 inside Wikipedia arguments. However, a valid point can still be made using very blunt concepts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the argument (or something very similar) has been done by someone, see Babel fish (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)--Pacostein (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was: if science could prove that God exists, you would have the scientifically correct religion instead of revealed religion. So it wasn't about God disappearing/ceasing to exist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also coming to mind is the fantasy story Hell Is the Absence of God, wich is set in a world where the existance of God an the afterlife is a proved fact wich results in the concept of faith being quite different. Not exactly what you were arguing either but maybe of your interest.--Pacostein (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

God created the universe ten minutes ago, including Wikipedia and all your false memories of having edited Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is hypothesizing based on Abrahamic religions. But what if it could be proven that all forces of nature actually are caused by conscious entities? Then, all of a sudden, monotheism would be in jeopardy, in favor of polytheism - as if the ancient Greeks and Romans had it right all along. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an example, speaking for myself, I would not bet on Jesus being God (unless we all are God). Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bet on anything regarding religion. Although polytheism is often cited, even by monotheists, when they talk about angry clouds or seas, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polytheism is the wrong word; you mean animism which hold that all animate objects, which usually includes not only people and animals, but also plants, the sun, moon, and other celestial objects, as well as even things like the ocean, volcanoes, and perhaps even gems and swords have spirits. This can develop into or coexist with polytheism, reach refers to a pantheon of personified gods. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either one, or both, if proven, would either demolish or severely alter the monotheistic religions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really. Look at Demiurge. The notion that a supreme God created divine beings to carry out his will is neither alien to the angels of the Old and New Testaments nor the [[[Tolkien's legendarium|mythology]] of the quite orthodox Catholic J.R.R.Tolkien. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my argument that Hinduism and Catholicism are not as different as one would think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me restate it: today's science cannot prove there is a God. If that would be made possible for future science, it would come at a price for religion. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't come at the price of religion, only particular religions, and only if everyone agrees that whatever is discovered is "God." If what is discovered doesn't line up with Brahman, then it would be reasonable for Hindus to claim that the being discovered is (at most) a local manifestation of Ishvara within Maya and not truly God in Its totality. If the majority of religion's perceptions of God are proven, then Buddhism will regard it as just another being trapped in Samsara (and just as in need of the Buddha's teachings as any other being).

If Trinitarian Christianity is somehow scientifically proven, then Christianity is not destroyed: Romans 1:20 lead most Christian theologians for a long time to conclude that this was inevitable (Fideism coming about around the time that people started to realize that science only handles material claims and cannot handle ideal claims, and can't even philosophically "prove" anything within its own matters). Christianity already teaches that simple agreement is not saving faith, and it tries to be one of the less works-based religions. Many of the more works-based religions wouldn't be affected in the slightest by being scientifically proven.

Faith is not so much "belief that cannot exist in the presence of evidence," but "belief that exists despite a possible absence of evidence." For example, a person may have faith that their lover will stay with them for the rest of their lives -- but they won't have proof until they die. This faith can be proven and doing so does not retroactively invalidate the faith that existed throughout the couple's lives. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The kicker would be if it were proven that all religions are true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"So this is how logic dies. With thunderous applause...." - with apologies to Natalie Portman. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai International

To whom it may concern, I was reading the articles mentioned above, for months now and again, and could not fail to notice that two editors apparently strongly associated with the matter are editing in considerable frequency. I understand that Wikipedia has regulations in place when it comes to corporations, but what about religious corporations and its members? As a reader these articles somewhat fail to be objective at all.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonisana2 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC) --Tonisana2 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tonisana2 - This question would be better on the Help Desk, but the relevant guideline is WP:COI. I see you've already mentioned the issue at the article talk page, which is the best place to discuss any changes to the article. Tevildo (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to open a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You will need to demonstate why you think there is COI, beyond editors having a different point of view than the view you hold. You should also be wary of WP:OUTING any user. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have no intention to edit the article. I just find the article to be highly biased and somebody might want to take a look at that, which obviously is not the case. Thank you. --Tonisana2 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The normal course of action would be to discuss the alleged biases on the article talk page. Right now you're kinda waving your hands in the air, rather than providing any examples of the said bias. Be clear that the possibility that there is bias on what is, as I vaguely understand it, a fringe religion, is good: clearly those who adhere to or revile the religion will be drawn to it. So it's not that your assertion is being dismissed out of hand. I put it to you that if you, who alleges you know enough about the subject to be able to pronounce on bias, is unwilling to lift a further finger to educate the rest of us, then we will probably find other and more rewarding ways to fill our time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh now that’s a truly nice welcoming which would make even less likely that I should lift a finger. It’s nice to see that when a reader points out that an article basically seems to have a bias issue one is redirected only. What you do fill your time with beats me though. It was my understanding that single purpose accounts go against Wikipedia regulations. I shall leave it there then. --Tonisana2 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tonisana2, we have over five million articles, many of which are in need of attention. We are edited by thousands of volunteers, who choose what they are going to work on. It is always welcome for somebody to point out a problem or potential problem, but whether it gets anybody else's attention depends on how interested they are in the article and how serious they think the problem is. --ColinFine (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Wikipedia is created by volunteers some of whom have niche interests and contribute using single-purpose accounts. Their contributions are welcome given awareness of the policies against undue promotion, advocacy and personal agendas. Anyone tagged as an SPA should not take this as an attack on their editing. The OP has made no article contributions. AllBestFaith (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frankly baffled by your self-defeating approach, Tonisana2. I think I can speak for most of us on wikipedia when I say that this thread is the first any of us have heard about Soka Gakkai. And along comes Tonisana2 who says "the article is biased" but will not say a word on what the nature of the bias is. And so, presumably, expects that someone is going to gear themselves up to understanding enough of the subject matter to be able to deliberate on the unidentified bias, on the basis of a compaint which amounts to "there is a problem but I'm not going to tell you what it is". And is dismayed and pulls a hissy fit when we react by saying "tell us more". So, really, either put up or shut up: provide some information on the supposed bias so that we have something to work on, or else, as you put it, "leave it there" and drop the whole issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As obscure as the subject seems to be, that alone could explain why it's only had a few editors. Really, this discussion should be moved to the article's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe, and just maybe, the reason why you few poor souls have so much work on their hands is that any dumb can write just about anything here on Wikipedia and if it’s just fringe enough it goes unnoticed, unchecked in YOUR name(s). Any information presented here if less mainstream enough turns out to be dubious. The reason for why that is can be only answered by you guys. I was 'warmly' welcomed here and for that reason I do understand media reports on editors leaving Wikipedia better now. For your information I hinted at a Wikipedia guideline on editors with a conflict of interest or one purpose only accounts, both of which to my knowledge are in conflict with current guidelines. You all seem very complacent and yet again huffy at the same time. Ta ra!--Tonisana2 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, pot kettle black me thinks.

Anyway, people have already explained to you this is the wrong place. This is actually a significant point since there's a very good chance this discussion is going to be archived, and no one either now or in the future with any interest in the article will ever read it. At least if you raised your concerns in the article talk page there's a chance someone with interest in the articles will read them. This isn't actually that different from most of the world. If I see someone collecting trolleys and I started complaining about my hard disk broke, they may just tell me I'm at the wrong place and to see the customer service centre (or whatever) in store. If I keep ranting, perhaps they'll take me there or perhaps they'll just ignore me. Likewise if I go to the kitchen of a restaurant and start complaining about the quality of the food to the person washing dishes, well.... In the end, if I don't take my complaints to the appropriate place, it will be fairly stupid for me to make a fuss about how my complaints were ignored when I took them to the wrong place and was told that.

Anyway you seem to have answered your own question. There are many many articles with far greater problems then the ones you presented seem to have so it's understandable if these will receive less attention. Appparently unlike others here, I have actually heard of SG and SGI before as I knew some people who belonged. However I'm still not interested enough (nor do I know enough to make it easy without a lot of reading) to get involved in those articles. And incidentally, those articles weren't written in the names of anyone here. You could just as well say they were written in your name since apparently you have been watching them unlike I think anyone here.

If your claims are true, the primary fault is with the people who caused whatever problems you found in those articles. If you really want to find someone else to blame, that would be someone else who apparently is interested enough and can actually see the problem but still not willing to resolve the problems and there's only one person that applies to in this discussion. So yeah, pot, kettle, black.

BTW it sounds like you're confused. WP:SPAs and WP:COIs aren't forbidden. Editors with certain COIs (receiving payment) are require to disclose the COI, but that's all. Editing with a COI, particularly a paid COI is strongly discouraged, but not something sanctionable in and of itself. Editors with SPAs and COIs will generally be monitored and if their editing itself is problematic they may be sanctioned as with editors who aren't SPAs and COIs. The only thing these really do is make it slightly easier to sanction. You're free to read the appropriate guidelines, policies and essays yourself if you don't believe.

Anyone who believes there has been a violation is free to report it in an appropriate place. Still editors belonging to a religion editing the article on that religion is hardly uncommon. Do you really think that Catholics aren't editing articles on the pope or Catholicism? Or Christians and Muslims aren't editing the articles on Jesus Christ? Or people belonging to the LDS aren't editing article the Book of Mormon? Likewise many editors of articles about the US are Americans. Even more so many editors of articles about New Zealand are Kiwis. Not ideal, but difficult to avoid considering differing interests, knowledge etc. (For wider interests there is the advantage that there is generally already a wide variety of views, still nothing is perfect.) So in and of itself you haven't even said something which raises significant concerns except for claims the article is biased etc.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This might all be very true, but that means that the less ‘prominent’ an article is the more it is prone to be unreliable? For large parts of the article in question I could just as well turn to the SGI homepage – what is the point then? When I read through the numerous regulations anything goes actually, there is an exemption for almost everything. Yet, at the same time there seem to exist mechanisms to get edits checked. As someone who also knows SGI folks I find that the reservations some have about the group are being downgraded. I know that this discussion is probably useless and unimportant, it’s on the fringe so why bother. At the same time I do get the impression that some fail to put themselves into the position of the ones seeking Wikipedia for information. In the end this means I can only trust Wikipedia if the subject is popular enough?! Right? It would then be fair to introduce some kind of system that shows the reader how popular an article is and to what extent its authors are devoted to a specific article only … and this should be visible at glance without reading through volumes of guidelines, help desks and regulations. I mean this whole project should have a use without defaming anyone who does not want to get lured into the project itself. It might be worthwhile if you allow for some sort of ‘letter to the editor’ section. For now I get the impression as if you were saying ‘how dare you little earthling questioning our work’. --Tonisana2 (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar time frame for correspondence

A couple/few weeks ago, around the same time frame I wrote to Today (U.S. TV program), CBS This Morning and Good Morning America, I also wrote to Allstate Insurance and Virgin America. How long does it take for the latter two to get back to me?2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same question = same answer. It depends on what you wrote to them about. If you wrote to your insurance company to make a claim following an accident, they will have a set time within which they have to reply. If you wrote to ask for a job, you will never get a response unless they decide to interview you for a position - and if that happens how long it takes will depend on when they have a suitable vacancy. Wymspen (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to Allstate Insurance about promotional items, and Virgin America about a merchandise catalog.2604:2000:7113:9D00:CDEE:E2C8:B362:33BB (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did they get back to you? And did you literally write a letter, or was it via internet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, they haven't gotten back to me yet. And yes, I literally wrote a letter.2604:2000:7113:9D00:CDEE:E2C8:B362:33BB (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion on the misc page, I don't know that you should count on getting an answer. Maybe a phone call would stand a better chance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

How and when do the Republican and Democratic Party announce their official candidate?

When, and in what form, are official presidential candidates made official? Llaanngg (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Democratic National Convention, 2016 Republican National Convention. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what (and why) were they voting lately (for Trump and Clinton)? Couldn't they just hold these national conventions and no previous elections? Llaanngg (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there were no previous elections that would be undemocratic. Politicians (which is what the delegates are) do not need more power. They used to have no previous elections and the conventions used to really choose the candidate, the current system of BS infomercial conventions is just a kludge grafted on on top of that, just like many other things in the American political system they just duct taped a kludge to something centuries old whenever society advanced enough that they didn't want something undemocratic anymore which was originally "acceptable". Your country's core laws explicitly allow slaves? Duct tape something on to fix that. It allows former slaves to be prevented from voting? Duct tape stuff on to fix that. Doesn't let anyone who lives in the capital vote for President for 160 years? Duct tape something on to fix that.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They voted for the delegates to the conventions. The process is explained in countless wikipedia articles, newspaper articles and TV programmes. Start with Presidential nominee or United_States_presidential_election#Procedure and take it from there. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been talked about recently in the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Hour by The Housemartins

I had a conversation with one of my friends who stated that the 1986 Happy Hour (The Housemartins song) was an anti-Margaret Thatcher song, but I fail to see how and why? Is it about her or something else? --Cabinetto-Polo (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been described in WP:RS as an attack on casual sexism rather than Thatcherism. Perhaps your friend is referring to the album it appeared on, London 0 Hull 4, which, as our article notes, is infused with Marxism, including in the liner notes. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was aristocratic women allowed to mix with men in 18th-century China?

I have the impression, that it was not accepted by custom for upper class women in early modern China to mingle with men, socially. For women of the poorer classes, things were different, but aristocratic women were, as I understand, only allowed to socialize with other women, and that there were not gender mixed aristocratic social life such as in 18th-century Europe, with balls and other events were men and women regularly socialized with each other. My question is: exactly how strict was this? Was socializing with men outside of the family really non existent for a Chinese upper class woman in the 18th-century? Was there really no social occasion were the genders would mingle in aristocratic social life? Was there no gender mixed banquets, parties or religious ceremonies, when it was socially accepted for non-related men and women from the same social class to meet each other? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least according to literary stereotypes, major festivals provided an opportunity for otherwise cloistered upper class young ladies to meet young men. For example, in romance literature of that era, the Lantern Festival is often where the young lovers first meet, because it was socially acceptable for young ladies to walk out on the evening to see the lanterns. Major religious festivals often involved "temple markets" or fêtes around the temple, where a devout young lady returning from prayers might meet a young man. In the spring time, the viewing of peach blossoms (or some other flower) could also take young women and young men to the same monastery garden or a private garden which is accessible to visitors. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for an interesting reply, PalaceGuard008. So, there was no social interaction of this kind at home? Women and men did not mix at the banquets at parties, not even at the royal court? Banquets are mentioned at the Imperial court, both for women and men, but perhaps they were separate ones?--Aciram (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central Heating Boilers in South Sudan

According to http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/ssd/, South Sudan imports $1.71k worth of central heating boilers from Uganda. Why would such a hot country want central heating boilers? --Cabinetto-Polo (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan#Climate puts the low average temp at 20°C (68°F). While that might be acceptable, although on the chilly side when bathing, that's only the average low. The extremes could be quite a bit worse. Also note that $1,710 could be a single boiler, so it's not exactly a huge quantity. Maybe it's for a single hotel that wants to provide warm bathwater for it's guests. StuRat (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan does have mountains; Geography of South Sudan#Topography mentions the Imatong Mountains. Whether any of these have sufficiently sophisticated structures that they could have boilers I don't know. As StuRat has mentioned, the dollar value is very low so it doesn't take much and I'm not sure how reliable such low figures are anyway. If central heating boilers are used to heat water for human use then it seems even less surprising. It's hardly uncommon in KL to have heated water and I don't see a reason for things to be different in South Sudan due to climate. (Due to the different social and economic situation, sure.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is KL? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 194.66.226.95 (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry for the confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

The ABC of Chairmanship, Walter Citrine

Does anyone know if Walter Citrine says anything about votes of no confidence in The ABC of Chairmanship? DuncanHill (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is getyourshare.ca a phishing site?

Is getyourshare.ca[12] a phishing site or a legitimate website? I've heard of banks offering sign up bonuses of $10 or $20, but $200 sounds way too high. And this site isn't even a bank or a credit union, but instead just direct you to other credit unions, which adds to the fishiness. If credit unions were indeed offering $200 sign up bonuses then they would at least advertise it on their own sites. Crudiv1 (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems legit. From what I can tell, it's a promotion put on by Central 1, a trade association for credit unions in British Columbia and Ontario. clpo13_(talk) 15:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were the Zhou dynasty ethnically different from Shang dynasty

Were the Zhou dynasty ethnically different from Shang dynasty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C6:4000:609E:CDD7:2F72:5DCC:640B (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Zhou dynasty c. 1046 BC–256 BC followed directly after the Shang dynasty c. 1600 BC–c. 1046 BC. The aforementioned articles mention that many Shang clans migrated northeast after the dynasty's collapse. A legend says a disgruntled Shang prince named Jizi left China with a small army and founded a state known as Gija Joseon in northwest Korea. AllBestFaith (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to modern historiography, at the time of the early Shang the ancestors of the Zhou rulers lived in Ban, in modern Shaanxi. Where the Shang came from is debated, but generally regarded as being in modern Henan province. There is some distance between the two, and it is generally accepted that they were different tribes. During the Shang dynasty, the Zhou tribe was by all indications only a loose vassal of the Shang. Whether they are different ethnic groups in any modern sense is debated and possibly not possible to answer with certainty, given limitations in how much we can learn from linguistic and archaeological evidence available. If you delve deeper you'll see plenty of debate and lots of theories in this field - there is even debate about whether the late Shang rulers were more Turkic than the early Shang rulers and therefore ethnically different. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

Is anyone notable enough to have a Wikipedia article an example of this kind of thing?

Paranoids with safe lives who got murdered.

People so fearless/stupid/action-hungry they had almost no chance of death from old age but lived anyway. (Not people with death wishes. Unwitting*/impulsive/bad at math okay).

Hypochondriacs who actually had a serious medical problem eventually.

Smokers who lived to 100. (Is that even possible?)

Health nuts who died in their 20s because of an undiagnosed medical condition which made exercise bad for them.

Gambling addicts who won a many millions jackpot before they'd suffered much and somehow didn't blow it.

Gambling teetotalers who would've won millions if they'd joined the office lottery pool or something.

Hardworking people that aren't rewarded with money because of things they can't control (i.e. raiders keep pillaging his farm).

Lazy people that had money fall on their laps (i.e. he got high one night and painted blobs with his nose, someone in the abstract art world passed by and now every time he needs another pile of cash he makes another horrible Nasalist painting. Even though he doesn't even like art has no skill, and thinks anyone who'd buy this is stupid).

Men that literally bit dog(s)..

(*I'm reminded of my dad who was drafted and was fooling around with his rifle, finally flipping it around and jerking it into the over the shoulder position and the bayonet almost cut his neck without him realizing) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... this question really needs work. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Apples not falling far from the tree, &c? I nominate Damien Hirst as a candidate for the art question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have you know that my mother's one of the least likeliest people to be told "that bayonet almost killed you!" and I managed to dodge his tendency to bayoneted rifle tricks gene. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is unlikely an artist would be successful if they "got high". Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be for only some drugs or too much of others? And who knows, if there's a way to make good money while being high all the time modern art is probably one of the likeliest. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am not a moralist. And it is easy to see that some drugs, such as a cup of coffee in the morning, could not be considered a vice. But I think in the final analysis the quality of the artwork is tied to the quality of the life lived (by the artist). Only we can write our own autobiographies but it is safe to say that we have misgivings about some aspects of our lives as well as aspects we are happy with. The future of art represents a break with the past. Past art history tolerated, even celebrated negative character traits. But I think future good quality art will be predicated on lives of self-improvement (of artists). That does sound like moralizing. But the artist is the final arbiter of what counts as a life well-lived. It could be argued that a heroin needle hanging out of an arm is an attainment worth crowing about. I just don't see it that way. And only I can write my autobiography. I'm an artist so I've given a lot of thought to this. Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a heroin needle hanging out of an arm as positive for anyone either. And I did not know that the future of art is a break from the past. When I was growing up I heard about this controversial exhibition in my city and it was all things like a real cow cut in half and encased by its drained blood (maybe Damien Hirst?), a crucifix in urine called Piss Christ and literal poop on a painting of the Virgin Mary or Jesus (or maybe the "paint" was 100% feces). Pinky and the Brain had an episode where the paint was sneezed from the nose. There's a performance art where the artist picks a random man from the audience and goes on a first date with him for I dunno, 2 hours? I think someone was allowed to plastic wrap all the trees in a section of Central Park once. He only wraps things in plastic wrap, he never gets tired of it. Things like that gave me the idea that modern art's like that. My city likes new things, lol. Some of them sound like the artist was smoking pot. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say "And I did not know that the future of art is a break from the past." That is a valid point. Perhaps I should have said that it is my hunch that "The future of art represents a break with the past." Bus stop (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re Y'all: People with traits that get the opposite consequence to what you'd expect. The more unlikely and ironic the better. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a great example for "Smokers who lived to 100. (Is that even possible?)" - Jeanne Calment - who had "the longest confirmed human lifespan on record". Smoked from 21 to her 110s.John Z (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wawa-wewa. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The man who is claimed to have invented jogging, Jim Fixx, died of a heart attack in his 50s. (Which may be old to some people but believe me, it's not to me!) --TammyMoet (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was working on a sequel to his famous book, to be titled Run Yourself to Death. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evel Knievel always seemed to have a death wish. That he survived to age 69 is almost miraculous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's possible to win millions from an office pool, that office is likely in violation of gambling laws, and you're better off not participating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about those pools where they buy Powerball or Mega Millions tickets. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you've heard the classic / apocryphal epitaph of a hypochondriac: "I told you I was sick." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I doubt "hypochondriacs who actually had a serious medical problem eventually" are very rare. Howard Hughes "eventually" died of kidney failure. Andy Warhol is perhaps a special case, as his hypochondriasis went hand in hand with a fear of hospitals too (we have a stub on nosocomephobia), delaying the correct diagnosis and treatment of an ailment shortly before his death (though the delay didn't necessarily cause his death, see Andy Warhol#Death). In A Condition of Doubt: The Meanings of Hypochondria, Catherine Belling writes that "(...) in referring to what cannot be proven while signifying what is so absolute that it need not be proven, hypochondria is always ironic" (we all "eventually" die). ---Sluzzelin talk 21:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extra points for getting your fatal disease early. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not apocryphal when it comes to Spike Milligan. That is his actual gravestone epitaph (albeit in Irish Gaelic). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The story about the soldier with the bayonet sounds like your classic schlemiel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, gambling activity within a company which is limited to members of that company and which is not advertised to the public does not require to be licensed (e.g. the office sweepstake for the Grand National, for which an entry form is printed in the popular press around Easter). The football pools promoter and the bookmaker have to be personally licensed, like the publican. Our high streets are now awash with betting shops, because the replacement of a more innocuous business is not classed as a planning "change of use" and whereas betting office licences were formerly granted by magistrates who required evidence of "demand", nowadays applications are dealt with by the local planning department. 86.168.123.201 (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US debt 3

Question In this article https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50250 (cahce , pdf) is said that "Because of the large deficits, federal debt held by the public soared, nearly doubling during the period.". I have tested it here and yes, Debt Held by the Public was doubled. But Debt Held by the Public is Treasury debt -- what Treasury must pay back. But in article is said about federal debt -- what federal government must pay back.

In another article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3886857/ : "The increase in Medicare spending, which currently accounts for 14 percent of federal outlays, is a major factor in projected growth of the national debt.".

Federal government debt we can see here in table D.3.

Can anybody explain me, how does federal government or Treasury create their debts. E.g. for welfare (Emergency Assistance (EA), General Assistance (GA), Supplemental Security Income, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid) federal government takes money in Treasury. So federal government must pay these money back to Treasury. Correct? But why does then Debt Held by the Public increase? Debt Held by the Public should increase when public buys Treasury bonds.

Also there is Intragovernmental Holdings -- money that Treasury must pay back to federal government.

So how this system of debts actually works? And why there is no netting of debts. E.g. if Treasury owes 5 tn. to government and government owes 5 tn. to Treasury, it's equivalent to total zero debt.

Remark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016_April_18#US_.28external.2C_foreign.2C_public.2C_intragovernmental.2C_total_etc..29_debt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016_May_1#US_debt_2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username160611000000 (talk • contribs)

How much did silver owners lose under Executive order 6814?

We have a decent article on Executive Order 6102, which deals with the Roosevelt administration's forced acquisition of gold, and the amount of value lost to the gold owners who were forced to surrender their gold. The gold was paid out at $20.67 an ounce, with the dollar subsequently reduced in value to $35 an ounce. I'm no expert at maths, but I think this equates to gold owners being stripped of just under 43% of the value of their gold.

Our article on Executive Order 6814, on the other hand, is unfortunately nothing more than a stub. It says nothing about how the owners of the compulsorily forfeited silver were paid out, and at what rate. Given that American coins at the time contained silver, how much (coin) silver would the person surrendering his (non-coin) silver under the order get if he hypothetically took his payout in coins rather than notes? In other words, what percentage of their silver (or the value of their silver) were those forced to surrender it under the Executive Order stripped of? Eliyohub (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I quite understand what it is you're asking, but some quick googling yields some relevant facts that maybe you can use to figure out what it is you want to know.

According to Section 4 of the Order, people were to be paid "$1.2929 a fine troy ounce, less a deduction of 61 8/25 percent thereof" for the silver they surrendered. Doing the math, that is $.50 per ounce.
The value of silver in Oct 1934 was $8.43 in today's dollars, which would have been $.47 in 1934 dollars
1934 dollar coins contained 0.77344 troy oz of silver, which means a one dollar coin would have contained a fraction more than $.36 ($.3635168) worth of silver
Using these numbers if somebody turned in 2 ounces of silver (then worth $.94), they'd receive $1.00, which, if in coin, would contain .77344 oz of silver. So, taking payout in coin would have resulted in a loss of 61% of their silver.

I hope that is what you were looking for.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 08:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) [13] seems to have some details. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

death of 100 Germans, or 50 Frenchmen, of 20 Belgians, or one Englishman

There is a quote, during the time of the British Empire, something to the effect of "The death of 100 Germans, or 50 Frenchmen, of 20 Belgians, or one Englishman, is notable/newsworthy/tragic". Note this is most definitely _not_ the quote from Stalin about the death of millions being a statistic. I do not know the real quote nor who to attribute it to, Kipling, Lloyd-George, Rhodes... but someone like that. Help?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A version using decidedly non-PC language is a common search result - this article cites it to "A British editor", this one to "1970s journalists working at the BBC", and TV Tropes to "some British newspapers". I've not been able to find a named author so far, I'm afraid. Tevildo (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Native American treaties from before 1776

List of United States treaties#Pre-Revolutionary War treaties lists a number of treaties that were negotiated by the United Kingdom or one or more of the separate colonies. Is there a reception statute or other mechanism that incorporates these treaties into federal law and makes them binding on the United States under the 1789 constitution? Looking for a source I can cite to update those articles plus Law of the United States. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating question. I was able to find this, from Victoria Sutton, American Indian Law—Elucidating Constitutional Law, 37 TULSA L. REV. 539, 545-47 (2001):

Another interesting question that arises, is whether the United States still recognizes treaties between the tribes and the colonies prior to 1776. Pre-Constitutional treaties are recognized with successor-in-interest logic; the United States is the successor to the colonies. But a different relationship arises in the consideration of the treaties made between Indian nations and the Republic of Texas. A treaty made between the Republic of Texas and the Texas Cherokees was not assumed by the United States when Texas joined the United States. Since Texas was considered a different country, the United States did not succeed to interest in Texas's treaties. The Indian Claims Commission heard this case in the 1950s.

Sutton cites to authority—1976-1977 Op. Va. Atty. Gen. 107, 108 and Baker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481 (1901)—apparently indicating that the Commonwealth of Virginia "stands as the successor to the Crown" with respect to the Treaty of 1677 (also known as the Treaty of Middle Plantation) between the Mattaponi Indian and Pamunkey tribes and the English Crown.

This idea is developed further in Part 4.A.1 (pages 71-73 ) of Allison M. Dussias, 36 Protecting Pocahontas's World: The Mattaponi Tribe's Struggle Against Virginia's King William Reservoir Project 1 AM. INDIAN L. REV. 1 (2012) (available online). Dussias notes that the federal courts did not address the succession of states question in the Mattaponi litigation, but makes a few arguments on why for why the 1677 treaty should remains binding on the government today:

Both parties benefited from following the treaty provisions historically: "from the perspective of both sides, it was unnecessary to negotiate a new treaty in the years following American independence." In particular, the U.S. "certainly had no interest in trying to repudiate the land cessions and other rights gained by Great Britain via treaty-making with the Powhatan tribes."
"The lack of a new treaty between the Powhatan tribes and the newly independent nation is also understandable in light of contemporary legal theory on succession to treaties when sovereignty passed from one nation to another."
In Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Marshall, wrote that Congress assumed the power and responsibility for relations with the tribes post-Revolution, and so the U.S. "succeeded to all the claims of Great Britain, both territorial and political." Dussias argues that "If the United States succeeded to Great Britain's claims, then, logically, it would also succeed to its obligations, including obligations under treaties entered into with tribal nations."
"Ultimately, it is simply an historical accident that the 1677 Treaty was entered into early enough that it was signed with Great Britain rather than the United States. For the Mattaponi Tribe to be regarded as not having a treaty with the United States seems to be particularly unjust in view of the fact that the Tribe’s peaceful relations with Americans obviated the need for a new treaty to be signed. It seems absurd for the federal government to treat the Mattaponi Tribe as having fewer rights as against the United States and its citizens than tribes whose belligerence necessitated a post-independence treaty with the United States."
"Finally, failure by the United States to honor the 1677 Treaty is inconsistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which provides that indigenous peoples have the right to have their treaties recognized, observed, and enforced."

Neutrality^talk 01:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Killings by US Police: demographics

I was looking at these stats for people killed by the US police, and scaling them according to the population stats here (and assuming the same sex ratio for all races, as I couldn't see separate figures for each). There is a clear race and sex bias (the paler you are, the less likely to be killed, and males are more likely to be killed than females).

Category	Total killed	Population	Per million
Black m	132	19,168,243	6.9
Native m	9	1,443,797	6.2
Hispanic m	87	24,854,450	3.5
Native f	4	1,488,451	2.7
White m	263	110,074,450	2.4
Whole population	574	323,341,000	1.8
Asian/Pacific m	12	7,491,288	1.6
Black f	8	19,761,076	0.4
White f	18	113,478,815	0.2
Hispanic f	1	25,623,144	0.0
Asian/Pacific f	0	7,722,977	0.0

However, there were a couple of anomalies: 1) Native American females are much more likely to be killed that females of other races (the only ones to be more likely to be killed than white males). 2) Hispanic males are more likely to be killed than white males, but Hispanic femles are less likey to be killed than white females. Does anyone know the reason why these anomalies might be? Iapetus (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of the numbers are so small that they have no statistic significance. If you compare e.g. 2015, there were 0 Native American women in the database, but 3 Hispanic women and 35 white women. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should see today's NY Times which had an article about stats and came to the counter intuitive conclusion that blacks are not more likely to be shot by police. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you need to look at the numbers of stopped and killed vs. just stopped. Looking at the numbers the way the Guardian pointed out doesn't do anything. More blacks are killed because more blacks are criminals. You need to look at police interactions, not just the raw numbers. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strong statement, and one I don't think should be taken at face value. This is a vicious circle in more than one way. I very much wouldn't bet that the percentages of crimes solved (not to mention rates of wrong convictions) are the same for white and black perpetrators. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the article, the numbers were such that once there's an interaction with the police, blacks and whites were equally likely to be shot. Blacks had higher incidents of arrests, touching, gun drawn, but once it got down to actual shooting, the numbers were the same. As to my more crime numbers, that is the fact, blacks are a larger percentage of the criminal class in the US so looking at the raw numbers may give a skewed result. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You miss my point. Why do you think that blacks are a larger percentage of the criminal class in the US? Indeed, is that even what you wanted to say? The NAACP here says that less than half of the prison population is black. It's also well-known (i.e. I'm to lazy to look up a source, but there is enough on that NAACP page to make it plausible) that for the same crime, blacks are more likely to receive a prison sentence, and receive on average harsher sentences (again, probably for a variety of reasons, from simple prejudice to economic differences that means they have a worse prognosis and worse lawyers). I suspect that what you want to say is that the percentage of criminals (or at least people so classified by the system) is higher among the black population. But back to the original points. As long as people are busted for Walking While Black, blacks will have more police interactions then whites, and hence be involved in more cases of police overreaction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same behavior by blacks and whites may be classified differently. For example, a white guy carrying a gun may be "exercising his Constitutional right", while a black man doing so may be "brandishing a firearm", a crime. And even if we did accept that a higher percentage of blacks commit crimes, there's still the question as to why. There's the racist argument that somehow they are more criminal by nature, but more likely it's due to being poor, which is a result of slavery, discrimination, etc. It wouldn't make much economic sense for a rich man to mug somebody, but for a poor man, it can. It's all about relative risk versus reward. StuRat (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to fix police racism ?

I can think of several ways. Have any of these been suggested, and, if so, by whom ?

1) Limit police stops. Since a certain percentage of these seem to lead to police shootings, despite no actual threat to police, limiting the total number of stops would reduce this number, too. Traffic stops for failing to use the turn signal when changing lanes, having a taillight out, etc., could just be handled like a traffic camera, where the license plate is photographed and the ticket mailed to the person. Of course, somebody else might be driving, but we must have a system in place for that with traffic cameras, anyway. And for serious threats to the public, like drunk driving, stops would still be needed.

2) Eliminate the inherent conflict of interest in allowing the city to keep ticket revenue. That leads police to pull people over for trivial things just to steal money from them, leading to motorist outrage, resulting in police shooting the motorist. The money could be given to a charity of the motorists' choosing, instead.

3) Use elected civilian police oversight boards with subpoena power to review all allegations of police misconduct. Those allegations should not even go to the police first, who might then get a chance to kill or intimidate the witnesses before the board can question them. If the oversight board recommends charges be brought, those should be Federal charges, as local prosecutors often have bias towards the police officers they regularly work with.

4) Require all police to wear body cameras, and fire any who refuse, or who turn them off during work (I assume they can turn them off when going to the bathroom). This needs to be a law, not just left up to the judgement of their supervisor.

5) Perhaps some type of downgrading of police testimony needs to take place, similar to how under Sharia law women's testimony can be considered less reliable. This is because, time and again, they have shown they will lie to protect fellow officers.

6) Psychological testing of police could be done, such as having people of various races insult them while monitoring their vitals. If they show an extreme reaction (rise in adrenaline, blood pressure, perspiration, etc.) in a test environment, then they shouldn't be a cop.

7) Since subjecting police to all these restrictions might make fewer people willing to become police officers, more pay might be required. StuRat (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of your 7 suggestions, few address racism. The UK has had a lot of problems with police racism in the past: see Murder of Stephen Lawrence. NB it would seem to this Brit that the bigger problem than racism is the police shooting people, whatever their colour. It doesn't happen very often here and when it does, it causes an enormous fuss, no matter their race, see Death of Jean Charles de Menezes. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note the miniscule size of Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom. I suspect the real answer here is not about racism but gun control. Racist police offers in Britain don't shoot black suspects because, 99% of the time, neither of them is armed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain the "sus" law under the Vagrancy Act, allowing police to stop a person "on suspicion", was abolished, as was the 1713 Riot Act under which police could control a disturbance by reading a proclamation ("reading the riot act"). This caused problems in dealing with the 2011 London riots. Whenever they stop someone police must now fill out a form and give the person a copy explaining their reasons. Does any other country use this system? 194.66.226.95 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure of the US, and it may vary by state, but it seems to me that police are not supposed to stop motorists without reason, but can stop pedestrians and insist on being shown ID. If no ID is presented, the person can be arrested on vagrancy charges, giving the police a chance to check fingerprints, etc. I think there is a current Supreme Court case asking whether they are allowed to detain a person for no reason other than to wait for the computer to search for warrants for that person. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the state, some states have a "stop and identify" statues and others don't. Where I live, if a police officer asks for my ID I can just keep walking and tell him I have no interest in speaking with him. In NY, that is not the case, if a police officer asks for ID, you must give it. Terry stop should be an article about what and how a police can stop and ask for ID and check out Stop_and_identify_statutes.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a short story

I read it in translation. It's about praying mantises from outer space invading Paris - written in the mid 20th century I think, as a reaction to the nazi occupation. Can anyone help? Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Les premiers jours de mai (The First Days of May), by Claude Veillot? See "Alien Invasion Revisited". An English translation appeared in A Century of Science Fiction, first published in 1962 and edited by Damon Knight. (By the way I copied my answer from Sluzzelin in May 2015 :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 05:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah shivers - sorry, Sluzzelin - but thanks as ever for an excellent answer Adambrowne666 (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

Warren Buffet: luck or ability?

Question moved to the math desk (and I fixed the spelling in the title while I was at it). This is the sort of thing that can be sensibly answered only through statistics. --69.159.60.163 (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 Well maybe, and just maybe, the reason why you few poor souls have so much work on their hands is that any dumb can write just about anything here on Wikipedia and if it’s just fringe enough it goes unnoticed, unchecked in YOUR name(s). Any information presented here if less mainstream enough turns out to be dubious. The reason for why that is can be only answered by you guys. I was 'warmly' welcomed here and for that reason I do understand media reports on editors leaving Wikipedia better now. For your information I hinted at a Wikipedia guideline on editors with a conflict of interest or one purpose only accounts, both of which to my knowledge are in conflict with current guidelines. You all seem very complacent and yet again huffy at the same time. Ta ra!--[[User:Tonisana2|Tonisana2]] ([[User talk:Tonisana2|talk]]) 20:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 :<p>For starters, pot kettle black me thinks. </p><p>Anyway, people have already explained to you this is the wrong place. This is actually a significant point since there's a very good chance this discussion is going to be archived, and no one either now or in the future with any interest in the article will ever read it. At least if you raised your concerns in the article talk page there's a chance someone with interest in the articles will read them. This isn't actually that different from most of the world. If I see someone collecting trolleys and I started complaining about my hard disk broke, they may just tell me I'm at the wrong place and to see the customer service centre (or whatever) in store. If I keep ranting, perhaps they'll take me there or perhaps they'll just ignore me. Likewise if I go to the kitchen of a restaurant and start complaining about the quality of the food to the person washing dishes, well.... In the end, if I don't take my complaints to the appropriate place, it will be fairly stupid for me to make a fuss about how my complaints were ignored when I took them to the wrong place and was told that. </p><p>Anyway you seem to have answered your own question. There are many many articles with far greater problems then the ones you presented seem to have so it's understandable if these will receive less attention. Appparently unlike others here, I have actually heard of SG and SGI before as I knew some people who belonged. However I'm still not interested enough (nor do I know enough to make it easy without a lot of reading) to get involved in those articles. And incidentally, those articles weren't written in the names of anyone here. You could just as well say they were written in your name since apparently you have been watching them unlike I think anyone here. </p><p>If your claims are true, the primary fault is with the people who caused whatever problems you found in those articles. If you really want to find someone else to blame, that would be someone else who apparently is interested enough and can actually see the problem but still not willing to resolve the problems and there's only one person that applies to in this discussion. So yeah, pot, kettle, black. </p><p>BTW it sounds like you're confused. [[WP:SPA]]s and [[WP:COI]]s aren't forbidden. Editors with certain COIs (receiving payment) are require to disclose the COI, but that's all. Editing with a COI, particularly a paid COI is strongly discouraged, but not something sanctionable in and of itself. Editors with SPAs and COIs will generally be monitored and if their editing itself is problematic they may be sanctioned as with editors who aren't SPAs and COIs. The only thing these really do is make it slightly easier to sanction. You're free to read the appropriate guidelines, policies and essays yourself if you don't believe. </p><p>Anyone who believes there has been a violation is free to report it in an appropriate place. Still editors belonging to a religion editing the article on that religion is hardly uncommon. Do you really think that Catholics aren't editing articles on the pope or Catholicism? Or Christians and Muslims aren't editing the articles on Jesus Christ? Or people belonging to the LDS aren't editing article the Book of Mormon? Likewise many editors of articles about the US are Americans. Even more so many editors of articles about New Zealand are Kiwis. Not ideal, but difficult to avoid considering differing interests, knowledge etc. (For wider interests there is the advantage that there is generally already a wide variety of views, still nothing is perfect.) So in and of itself you haven't even said something which raises significant concerns except for claims the article is biased etc. </p><p>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)</p>
+This might all be very true, but that means that the less ‘prominent’ an article is the more it is prone to be unreliable? For large parts of the article in question I could just as well turn to the SGI homepage – what is the point then? When I read through the numerous regulations anything goes actually, there is an exemption for almost everything. Yet, at the same time there seem to exist mechanisms to get edits checked. As someone who also knows SGI folks I find that the reservations some have about the group are being downgraded. I know that this discussion is probably useless and unimportant, it’s on the fringe so why bother.
+At the same time I do get the impression that some fail to put themselves into the position of the ones seeking Wikipedia for information. In the end this means I can only trust Wikipedia if the subject is popular enough?! Right? It would then be fair to introduce some kind of system that shows the reader how popular an article is and to what extent its authors are devoted to a specific article only … and this should be visible at glance without reading through volumes of guidelines, help desks and regulations. I mean this whole project should have a use without defaming anyone who does not want to get lured into the project itself. It might be worthwhile if you allow for some sort of ‘letter to the editor’ section. For now I get the impression as if you were saying ‘how dare you little earthling questioning our work’. --[[User:Tonisana2|Tonisana2]] ([[User talk:Tonisana2|talk]]) 16:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 == Similar time frame for correspondence ==