Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 29

Is the nature of warfare changing?

Throughout the history of the world, there were large and small empires, monarchies and states that engaged in full-scale warfare involving their military and territorial incursion. From the Greco-Persian Wars, Mongol invasions and conquests, Crusades, Hundred Years' War, Thirty Years' War, Seven Years' War, to Napoleonic Wars till 18th century, all were fought with imperialist ambitions.

In the 20th century, the only large scale war fought with imperialistic ambition was the Second World War. Cold War-era proxy wars like the Korean War and Vietnam War, or post-Cold War Yugoslav Wars were small scale regional conflicts .

On the other hand, in the 21st century, the major wars Iraq War, Afghanistan War, Libyan war were aimed at regime change. Whatever the motive, the number of warfare is decreased in the 21st century compared to the previous centuries.

The second point is that West Europe, North America, and South America are no longer the theater of major wars. The only modern post-1945 war fought in the western world in the Falklands War. There is no war in West Europe in the 21st century. List of ongoing armed conflicts clearly shows today's large-scale wars are limited to Africa and Middle East.

An Europe without war was unimaginable in the 17th or 18th centuries, but war in West Europe today is unimaginable. Does this mean the theater of modern warfare is shifting from the West to Africa, Middles East, and Asia? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Aside from conflicts between or within undeveloped countries, modern warfare is shifting to be almost exclusively asymmetric warfare. The middle east finds itself the home of many of these wars (at least the ones involving world powers) because that's where the oil is. You might reasonably conclude that what's happening is that developed nations are averse to warfare amongst themselves, but not with undeveloped nations, and the undeveloped nations people care about the most are the ones that are home to valuable resources. The shift in theatre is thus logical. It's been argued strongly that mutual assured destruction has prevented open warfare between major world powers. You can imagine this should work even if the nations in question don't have nuclear weapons - basically every country that was home to major battles or bombings in World War II suffered devastating damage to its economy and sometimes population, and only one of those countries was actually nuked. There's no point going to war over some economic or territorial dispute if you are likely to wind up even worse off than before, even if you win. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Unimaginable"? You're at war right now, with extremists of various types. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Complete nonsense. We have a minor crime problem blown out of proportion by the press and populist politicians. What you claim is a "war" has orders of magnitude fewer direct victims than those caused by traffic accidents. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Keep telling yourself that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC) I know. Thats why I tell you ;-). More seriously, we had 3500 traffic death in Germany in 2015. We had about 650 cases of homicides (fewer than 300 are actual murders), nearly none of which are acts of terror, let alone war. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Whistling in the graveyard. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Germany's awesome. Detroit has 298 murders and 119 times less people. The most populous state has 1,699 murders and 39 million people. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Complete nonsense indeed. Don't drop by just to make inflammatory incorrect statements. That's the sort of thing extremists thrive on. Fgf10 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Sure, it's a well-known fact that bomb-throwers consider Wikipedia a primary source of inspiration. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Stop embarrassing yourself. You know full well that I meant such hysterical fearmongering creates a climate of us-vs-them which only encourages terrorism. Can someone else please hat this latest instance of BBs trolling? Fgf10 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Or better yet, delete your typical personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

During the Falklands War, the United Kingdom invaded mainland Argentina with the aim of directing aerial bombing on its military airbases from the ground. But a British helicopter crashed in bad weather and the troops withdrew to Chile on foot.
Sleigh (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that, Sleigh? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The plan was Operation Mikado. The helicopter crash incident was during a scouting mission. Though that wasn't about bombing, but about taking out the Argentinian air force, specifically their Excocet capacity. Fgf10 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Someguy1221, not sure about your "that's where the oil is" claim. Pakistan and Afghanistan have been pretty hard hit with assymetric warfare and massive terrorism (terrorist attacks in Pakistan seldom even make the western media, even though I think there are many more terrorism deaths in Pakistan than in all of Europe?), and neither country has significant oil or other significant natural resources that I know of. Afghanistan's main export by value is probably Opium, so do illicit drugs count, from the occupier's perspective? Yes, if you believe conspiracy theories of U.S. government involvement in the drug trade? But control of Opium production is a massive issue to the insurgents, as it allows them to fund their operations. Perhaps their biggest funding source? Eliyohub (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Afghanistan was invaded because that's where the group that caused America's biggest terrorist attack by an order of magnitude was. Then Osama snuck into a neighboring country hoping he'd be safer there and the asymmetrical warfare continued till 2016. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Iraq was invaded by Bush, not Osama. But Pakistan's issues are largely of its own making, nurturing Islamists for decades to use against India and dominate Afghanistan, than seeing these very Islamists turn against them. The invasion of Afghanistan may not have helped, but when since independence has Pakistan enjoyed true political stability, as in, healthy robust institutions of governance, not strongmen and their armies keeping a superficial lid on things?

To be fair, America did the same, backing extremist Mujihadeen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, only to see them and their successors turn against America in a horrifying way a decade or two later. Eliyohub (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

In this day and age, it takes maybe five seconds to look up the natural resources of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Both countries have significant mineral and oil wealth. Please do the bare minimum before responding on the reference desk. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The other issue of possible relevance to the changing nature of warfare is robotics, be it ground, sea, and air. Drones are probably the most-high profile of these - and they are not limited by any means to the United States. China is building a drone fleet too, I gather (can anyone source this?). But many other robotics are taking over battlefields - like, experts are asking, why does a tank need a human crew on board, as opposed to remote control? And if Pakistan should block land access for US forces into Afghanistan, simply ship supplies to just off the Pakistani coast and have unmanned planes or cargo helicopters deliver through Pakistan or Iran by air (forcing through airspace is much easier for the U.S., both militarily and politically, than forcing their way overland. The Soviet Union did not attempt to shoot down supply deliveries during the Berlin Airlift, though they no doubt had this capability). Even infantry roles - traditionally the most "human" of the jobs - are seeing robots push their way in. And once robots replace humans, war becomes a cheaper proposition, as human losses on the part of the invader (and the political ramifications of them) are significantly reduced. Eliyohub (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Henry Owner

Please help me find more information about a man named Henry Owner, who served as an American commercial agent in the Society Islands, mainly additional biographical information, his lifespan (birth and death dates) and other events of his life beside his 1858 to annex Raiatea to the US.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

See our article National Archives and Records Administration, one of their facilities would be the place I'd look first for such info. Not familiar with their systems, but you can ask them for help with this sort of request. Whilst I highly doubt they'd do your research for you, they could point you in the right direction as to which of their facilities might have this info, and how to search the databases. Eliyohub (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Country Gentleman: Jan-Jul 1857 (p. 68) says "Henry Owner of California" (not much but at least we know where he comes from). The National Intelligenser: January 1, 1861 - June 30, 1863 says: " Info received from Mr Geo F Seward the US Cnsl at Shanghai, of the death on Apr 23 last at that place, of Henry Owner, formerly U S Cnsl at the Society Islands, once a resident of Wash City". It's only a "snippet view" so I can't tell which year, but it's on p. 385, quite a way through the book, so 1862 would be an intelligent guess. It's a difficult name to search, you get lots of "John W. Henry, owner of the Florida Marlins" and "Howard Henry, owner of Howard Tire & Auto"... Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

People who love human being what are they called?

People who love human being what are they called? I mean that I see sometimes people who hates human beings (as ridiculous it is...) but loves animals. Do they have some professional term which describe such people? 93.126.88.30 (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It isn't ridiculous, some people no doubt hate all of humanity with a passion, but they'd usually be deemed to have a psychological problem (not sure what diagnosis? Would think some personality disorder-type phenomenon?).

Rapists and partner-bashers motivated by a burning hatred of the entire female half of humanity are also not all that uncommon (not all rapists fit this definition by far, but some do. Peter Dupas definitely fit this category). Again, I'm not sure what the psychological term is, but such crimes are certainly Hate crimes.

On the other hand, people who don't hate humanity, but just don't want to be around their fellow humans would be deemed Hermits. These exist, but from my psychology studies, every society sees them as unusual, not at all the norm. But you wouldn't necessarily deem them to have a mental problem. Schizoid personality disorder might apply to some of these individuals, I'd say.

As to love of all humanity, the hippie stereotype sort? I'm sure there's a term for it, but I don't know what it is. Any psych students able to help? Eliyohub (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Humanist might be a good word. Alansplodge (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that Humanists (in the modern sense) have concern for others without reference to religion. However, all the adherents of the Abrahamic religions are required to love their neighbours by the Ten Commandments. Jesus argued that any person that you came into contact with was your neighbour (see the Parable of the Good Samaritan), so any Christian who doesn't at least try to love other humans isn't a very good one. The Buddhist principles of Karuṇā, "the desire to remove harm and suffering from others" and Mettā, "the desire to bring about the well-being and happiness of others", form part of the four immeasurables. Alansplodge (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Philanthropist if you want Greek. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. And what about those who hate human beings? (I checked out the term Androphobia but it doesn't fit my question) what about animal lovers (not in meaning of sexuality) but just about people who love animals more than the average person.93.126.88.30 (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Check out Misanthropy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That it's exactly what I looked for! Thank you 93.126.88.30 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Journalists interviewing Trump re his positions on domestic American Jewry's concerns

Hope this question is not mistaken as trolling or anti-semitic, I ask in good faith.

I am Jewish myself. There was a lot of focus of Trump's likely political position towards Israel. Now, I do not consider that irrelevant, but it missed what was, for me, an equal issue.

Have any Jewish journalists had the opportunity at any point to ask Trump questions regarding his positions on the issues of importance to the Jews of America? I mean domestic ones, not foreign policy ones.

Some of these issues are not uniquely Jewish (e.g. healthcare policy), so a Jewish journalist would not bother asking the question, it will likely have already been canvassed. And with "two Jews equals three opinions", American Jewry will hardly be united in what it wants from the President.

But let me give an example of a "Jewish" issue, of huge importance to the American religious Jewish community: Government support for private religious schools. Religious Jews do not want to send their kids to public schools - they very firmly want a "Jewish education", and this is expensive, even for the middle class, particularly given that orthodox Jews tend to have large families. Lessening the tuition burden (e.g. making tuition tax-deductible) would be a huge issue for the Orthodox Jewish community. Probably not strictly the President's jurisdiction (it would fall to congress to make any changes to taxation or budget policy), but neither was Obamacare (not a Presidential powers area either), and the President's views clearly have influence. (The Catholic church may share this concern about government tuition relief, but American schooling is generally far more public-oriented than say, Australia's education system, meaning those who want private education are expected to generally more or less foot the whole expense themselves. In my country, Australia, private schools get generous government support, controversial though this policy may be).

There must be other similar issues of domestic policy where Jewish concerns are particularly concentrated. Can anyone point me to any interviews with Trump by a Journalist from the "Jewish" media (Newspaper, blog, magazine, whatever), which canvassed domestic American Jewish concerns, and was not dominated by "Israel policy"? Eliyohub (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I would avoid using the word "Jewry", as it has a history of being used in antisemitic rants. StuRat (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Does Eliyohub ever post a question that doesn't start with a caveat? I am tempted to start an SPI. μηδείς (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Trump's daughter is Orthodox Jewish.92.8.220.149 (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Medeis, I don't have any other accounts, but I have often posted questions and replies without logging in. See other questions of mine on this page, not all begin with caveats. Some end in caveats, often to avoid you labelling the question medical or legal advice, or a BLP violation, or someone crying "troll!". Forgive my mild paranioa, this place can get heated, so I do perhaps attempt to guard myself somewhat with Disclaimers, for what they're worth.

StuRat, I do apologize for the use of the term "jewry", I don't tend to hang around antisemitic conspiracy theorists if I can help it, either online or in real life, so would be unfamiliar with such usage. We had a somewhat similar situation of me quoting a judge who used the word "niggardly". No, it's not racist, any more than "country" is a swear word.

I see my question is too narrow, so I'd like to broaden it. Interviews are too narrow, so instead, can anyone track down any articles online from Jewish publications, looking at the various positions Trump holds in regards to issues the author deems of importance to American Jews? I.e. Not Israel-policy centric? Eliyohub (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Start your search with the pages in Category:Jewish newspapers published in the United States. Open each link, scroll down to External links, and visit the newspaper's website where you can find content on this topic, perhaps aided by the site's "Contact us" feature. I'll also suggest you rephrase your inquiry, considering:

• Donald Trump is likely to continue refusing to be held accountable for what he says or has said in any public medium, and his actions cannot be predicted in advance, and
• Unless you rely on stereotypes (e.g. the superiority of "skullcap-wearing" accountants) there is no homogeneity to the population of Jews in the USA: not in their political affiliations (i.e. issues), nor in their religious practice (including sending their children to a private parochial school), nor even in their affiliation or self-identification as Jews.

The main issue common to US Jews qua Jews anticipating Trump-era America is how they might be mistreated for being Jews or simply non-WASP, and whether they'd have any protection or post facto recourse under such law as will be upheld. . -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sikh Singaporeans

In the 1960s, Singapore had a campaign against long hair. How did this affect Sikh Singaporeans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.100.136.48 (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Added header. Fgf10 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't know, but knowing what i know of the Singaporean mindset, they probably wouldn't have objected to hair hidden under a turban or the like. It was probably more a crackdown aimed at the then-emerging Hippie movement (and its politically subversive nature), I would think? Or general messiness, which used to cause people to be occasionally rejected when attempting to enter Singapore. But I have no source, can anyone clarify? Eliyohub (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Can women have long hair? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the ban was aimed at males with "hair covering the ears", "hair reaching below an ordinary shirt collar", and/or "hair falling across the forehead and touching the eyebrows". It was intended to discourage "anti-social" youth cultures from imitating the "decadent West" - see Long hair in Singapore. As Sikhs wear their hair concealed, the ban seems not to have applied to them, although I can't find a reference to support that. The minority group which did run foul of the ban was the Malay Singaporeans and migratory Malay workers, who have a tradition of wearing long hair, according to this 1976 newspaper article. Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC).

Sounds like I was right with my guess: Singapore hated or feared Hippies, so it forcibly cut off their hair. Eliyohub (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Has there ever been warfare in a modern city?

I was looking at pictures of skylines and thinking... has there ever been a battle in a big, modern, gleaming, vertical city? The world outside New York and Chicago wasn't really built upwards during World War 2, and all the wars since then have been in less developed countries. Aleppo, Baghdad, and Donetsk all have some taller buildings, but has there ever been any warfare at all in a city/metro area with a building taller than fifty floors? Other than terrorist incidents, of course. --Golbez (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Paris, Eiffel Tower, 300 metres, WWII (surrendered without fighting really). Paris, WWI, was bombed by the Paris gun, Eiffel Tower wasn't hit. We're getting closer. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Eiffel Tower isn't a building! It's a tower! With only 3 floors! :P --Golbez (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I presume you mean ground urban warfare, not aerial bombing? If not, how built up was Belgrade at the time of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia? Eliyohub (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Any kind of warfare, and that's a good suggestion. I was also thinking maybe Kuwait City, but I'm pretty sure it didn't get vertical til well after the Gulf War. Looks like the tallest building in Belgrade at the time was 35 stories, which is pretty big. --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Not warfare, but for several examples of genuine non-terrorism sky-high horror, see http://web.archive.org/web/20160101071544/http://www.skyscraper city.com/showthread.php?t=1801571 . Remove the space I inserted in the URL, I have zero idea why the site is on the blacklist! I had to use internet archive, as the images seem to be broken in the current version. We had such an incident here in Melbourne, Australia. Thankfully, sprinklers and fast evacuation meant zero deaths. But the same problem has caused true horror in places like Dubai. Any interest? Or am I way off track? Eliyohub (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, clarified blacklisting reason: "this site is extensively used in mainspace despite being a forum and thus not suitable as a source of information". [1] Should be Ok for the refdesk, though, shouldn't it? Not a "reliable source" in itself per se, but the photos are amazing, and the page in question does quote media reports. Eliyohub (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing for articles is stricter than for the ref desk. As an example, there are often questions for which the best answer is a youtube video, which are not considered reliable for articles, but can be "reliable enough" to answer a question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I've submitted a request to get the blacklisting modified so it only applies to mainspace, but it may take a few days to get attended to. Eliyohub (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the answer to your request is going to be that it's not possible. The blacklist system is pretty simple and doesn't allow much flexibility. I don't think even the whitelist allows for limits by namespace. Obviously wait until you get a response from one of the people deeply familiar with the system, but I just don't think it's possible. Ravensfire (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Turin was bombed in WW2. Allied soldiers came to capture the city from the Nazis but found it already liberated by a revolt that started 5 days before Hitler killed himself. The Mole Antonelliana has only 5 floors but it's 550 feet tall and was a museum. I looked at every pre-1946 building over 149 meters extant or destroyed and this was the tallest outside America (I suppose the database could be incomplete, who knows if the Tower of Babel story wasn't inspired by a real say 50 floor building and a battle happened to happen nearby before some natural disaster prevented it's 50+ floor height from entering reliable history?). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Before the Lebanese Civil War, Beirut was known as the "Paris of the East" and was then largely destroyed. I don't know the architectural facts, but it was full of high-rises. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Beirut Trade Center was the tallest building in Beirut during the war. But not quite the OP's criteria. It's only 40 floors, doesn't have enough height to fit 50 floors (459 feet) and was never even finished. The BTC was almost done though (when war stopped work). It managed to survive the war with some bomb damage. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, SMW. Where do you get this?!?!? In any case, the "floor" criterion seems arbitrary, and Beirut certainly counts as a world-class city worthy of consideration. Larry Niven even considered it an example of high civilization in his magnum opus, Ringworld. μηδείς (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

[2] [www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=354751]. 500 feet is the most common cutoff for skyscraper. That would be 50 ten-foot stories. (A metric skyscraper is 150 meters/492 ft). (there's also supertall, a real word): Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

List of architects of supertall buildings

Websites similar to peoplesmart that work for addresses in Canada

Are there any websites similar to Peoplesmart that work for addresses in Canada? I'm trying to find names of previous residents of a certain address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Canada 411 sort of does that, although it won't tell you who is a former resident and who is a current resident. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there ability to be a lawyer in many countries by study in one institute?

Is there ability to be a lawyer in many countries by study in one institute -in one country, or it's necessary to study in any country in its own institute in order to know the specific laws? I'm looking for information about an option of to be international lawyer, if something like that exists. I believe that there is a basic infrastructure between all the law system in the modern world (excluding religious countries) 93.126.88.30 (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid your last point isn't true. Apart from religious law, there are two distinct "basic infrastructures" - Common law systems (basically, everywhere that was once part of the British Empire) and Civil law systems (most other countries). See List of national legal systems for details. Tevildo (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

And note that international law is distinct, too, involving lawsuits from one nation to another, the International Criminal Court, etc. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Then if I want to be an international lawyer, meaning that I want to have the basic infrastructure in the common lows in the modern world, then what do I need to study? (of course L.L.B but I mean what do I have to focus on?)93.126.88.30 (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see the articles public international law and Municipal law (a/k/a civil law in the sense of law of the country/state). Hopefully I'm not repeating anything you already know, but the term "international law" (and, correspondingly, "international lawyer") is ambiguous and sometimes used in an unclear manner (i.e., an incorrect or confused manner, according to purists). Put simply, every country or political unit (even theocratic or "religious" countries) has a legal system, which can technically be referred to as municipal law (not to be confused with local "municipal" law of towns/cities). Municipal law applies within that country, but the municipal law of many countries is similar; as mentioned, many countries belong to either the "civil law" or "common law" tradition (but those are not exhaustive groups). International law in the technical sense is public international law, which governs the relationship between countries (states). Out of the world's legal activities (and out of all of the world's lawyers), only a very small number practice public international law. However, in regard to the "basic infrastructure" of laws in the modern world, this is not a very substantive area in the academic study of law. You can study basic concepts that apply to nearly all modern legal systems or you can also focus on either the civil law or common law countries and study on the "basic infrastructure" that underlies either the civil law tradition or common law tradition--in any case, studying only basic concepts will not take you very far....aside from limited theoretical discussions, "basic concepts," are just that, a very limited stage of academic study of law. You would then need to specialize in the law of a particular country (it is rare to have a degree in public international law without having a foundation in the law of at least one given country). Does this help or do you still have questions?

You will probably get a little more traction if you make a choice to pursue either common law or civil law: i.e., you can spend a few years studying English law and then apply that knowledge, plus another degree or qualification exams, to many other Commonwealth countries, and you can do the same thing if you first study Spanish law and then want to move to a Latin American country. However, the "civil law countries" are much more fragmented (even putting aside language) than the common law countries, so it would be harder to start out with French law and then move to Latin America. Within the civil law countries, you will find a rough breakdown among French-speaking, Spanish-speaking and German-speaking civil law countries (these are the larger groupings for the sake of example only). Chinese and Japanese law in the modern age have their roots in European civil law (largely German) but have evolved so that they now diverge from civil law/German law fairly significantly for practical purposes. --208.58.213.72 (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. For now I learnt from your things that there are two main systems of law: civil law and common law (mainly British countries or colonies). Then I cannot study both of them? I just want to have a common language between me and colleague or judges as someone who want to be a lawyer in the future. In addition I don't know how what specialty to choose for this purpose while the institutes suggest for the students of L.B.B to focus on something already when they are in the studies of first degree. (I don't have yet any background in law). 93.126.88.30 (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

You may be able to study both civil law and common law but it most likely you will have to focus on one and make the other a secondary focus (e.g., get a degree in ta common law country and take just a few courses on civil law, or the reverse), or get one degree in civil law first and then an LLM (masters of law) in a common law country. However in regard to a topical discipline, you could go with comparative law, or you could try to think about your future interests...for example, would you like to be a litigation attorney arguing before courts? A commercial lawyer dealing with corporate and financial transactions? A lawyer dealing with matters of marriage, divorce, family and children? In many countries (e.g., UK and China) it is common for a first university degree to be in law, but if your country (like the US) doesn't allow law as a first degree you can find something that matches one of the interests I described above, e.g., finance, government, social work, etc.--208.58.213.72 (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

December 30

End of war in the future

request for speculation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Will warfare ever completely come to and End? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 06:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC) See above: "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate" --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:2931:7BD1:EE28:2B6E (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Will warfare ever completely come to and End? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 06:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Most, if not all of this "user"'s questions are able to be considered violations of the ref desk guidelines. Here, we are asked to speculate. It seems rather clear from the user's edit history that we've got a sock-abusing troll. μηδείς (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources which predict the eventual end of warfare? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 07:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"Is There an End to Warfare?". Clarity Magazine. 1 April 2015. --But "reliable source" not verified. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:2931:7BD1:EE28:2B6E (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, one trivial answer is that there will be no more warfare between humans when there are no more humans. As for other species, the same applies, so that the end of all warfare must occur when all species cease to exist. This may take billions of years or more, though, depending on which model of the end of the universe you use. StuRat (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Heat Death of the Universe: The Ultimate Peacemaker. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I did once see this question discussed in a Science magazine, from memory. It may have been Scientific American or New Scientist. They looked at trends in human warfare behaviour over history, including casualties, and the likely future. They certainly speculated on the possibility of a world with less war, but I don't recall them predicting an absolute end. This article (open using your browser's "incognito window" feature if it doesn't work - they have a limit on the number of free articles you can read) is written by someone who has studied warfare from an evolutionary perspective, and may give some insights on your question, though not an absolute answer. An absolute answer about the future may well be impossible. (I think this is WP:RS enough for the refdesk, read the author's biography). Eliyohub (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

There's the famous theory about countries with McDonalds. It's actually quite interesting. See The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree#Golden_Arches_theory. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

George W. Macfarlane

Can someone help find the exact birthplace and birthdate of George W. Macfarlane?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Damage to humans of real bear traps

I wonder what kind of damage those bear traps that consist of two teethed jaws would cause on a human. I assume they are not as bloody as in the movies, but how could they make them safe for humans? Llaanngg (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't answer your question, but the relevant section is Trapping#Leg-hold_traps. Rojomoke (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That type of trap can probably never be made completely safe for humans. You could post signs, but people might not see them, be able to read the language, or might figure they are old and ignore them. You could design it to only trigger if a 500 lb weight is on them, but some bears would escape and it's possible a morbidly obese person might trigger it (although such a heavy person doesn't seem likely to be walking in the woods). A snare trap might be safer for humans, with a knife/saw right by it so anyone caught can cut themselves free (in case they can't just undo the knot with their hands). However, they don't seem to be used for bears, so maybe there's a reason why they don't scale up (I imagine you would need a thick steel cable, and maybe they could detect that). StuRat (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

By way of contrast, see the damage done to trespassers and poachers by the Mantrap (snare), which was made illegal in England as early as 1827. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

.. one of which features near the end of Kind Hearts and Coronets (where it's mentioned that they are illegal). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

One is on display at an English local museum. Apparently: 'Man traps were made illegal in 1826 but in 1830 a new law was passed enabling landowners to apply for a licence to use them. They were finally banned in 1861, although Gertrude Jekyll, writing in 1904, observed that "notices of such dangers were posted on the outsides of plantations to within a comparatively recent date"' ("plantations" here means stands of trees intended for raising and shooting game birds). The museum also comments that 'It is hard to imagine that the poacher would not lose his foot'. Ouch. Alansplodge (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not just the risk of losing his foot. Many misdemeanours which we would now consider minor offences were capital crimes in the C18; the Black Act (1723) "introduced the death penalty for over 50 criminal offences, including being found in a forest while disguised". So a poacher caught by a man-trap could die of gangrene, waiting for the gamekeeper to release him; or die on the gallows, with or without his foot. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a name for a method which focuses on to learn from mistakes?

93.126.88.30 (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Trial and error. 92.8.220.149 (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Can be linked: Trial and error. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Try all and error. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Trail and error. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Trial and error. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the method used with flashcards, including modern versions, on electronic devices. There, you remove the cards once you have learned those items, leaving the ones you got wrong, so you can focus on those. So, you are using your previous errors to customize your learning process. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The scientific method also relies on negative results to point the way to new theories. For example, the geocentric model of the solar system could not explain apparent retrograde motion (adding epicycles improved it, but it still wasn't quite right), leading to the heliocentric model of the solar system. If our solar system only contained the Earth and Sun, we wouldn't detect any retrograde motion, and might still incorrectly believe the geocentric model. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm not sure that trial and error is the term that I'm looking for. I'm talking about to take a printed paper with some information written in it, and then while some of the information is incorrect, submitting it in front of the students and they have to say what's not true in this information, or what's the mistake in this information. 93.126.88.30 (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It might have been better had you said that in your original question. So you're looking for a term that describes, for example, a teacher presenting a mathematical proof which contains one or more logic errors, and having the students try to figure out where the errors are? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. But obviously math is not necessary. It could be a informative text about biology facts or biochemistry etc. which contains also some errors and the students should identify them. (sometimes some teachers even say some false'facts' in order to see whom of their students is attentive and controls the materials of the subject... and then they can identify that it's not true and they will tell him 93.126.88.30 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Given that description, it sounds like you're talking about Fact checking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

A common term for this sort of exercise is "error identification test" or "error recognition test", although we don't have anything on it in the Test (assessment) article. Tevildo (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

We do have lots of Wikipedia articles that could be used as exercises!

The technique is useful in teaching grammar and punctuation, and in mathematical pseudo-proofs, but I'm not sure that it would be as helpful for documents that present facts, since it risks confusing the students. Perhaps choosing the correct version from multiple choices would be safer. Dbfirs 12:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

portantina granducale cosimo III - FIRENZE

• Transferred to Miscellaneous desk.

Names of these Royals please?

Please could you tell me who these people are in this photo? It is taken at the christening of Prince Charles. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

They're his 'sponsors'. Standing, left to right: Lady Brabourne; Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (representing Prince George of Greece); King George VI; David Bowes-Lyon; The Earl of Athlone (representing King Haakon of Norway); Princess Margaret. Sitting, left to right:The Dowager Marchioness of Milford Haven; Princess Elizabeth holding Prince Charles; Queen Mary[3] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Now to find out who they all were and their relation to Prince Charles (if any)! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Their relationships to Charles are:

Lady Brabourne - mother-in-law of Lord Mountbatten's daughter. Mountbatten was Prince Philip's uncle.

Lady Brabourne - first cousin once removed. (Daughter of Lord Mountbatten).

Prince Philip - father.

George VI - grandfather.

David Bowes-Lyon - great-uncle. (Brother of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother).

Earl of Athlone - great-great-uncle. (Brother of Queen Mary).

Princess Margaret - aunt.

Dowager Marchioness of Milford Haven - great-grandmother. (Prince Philip's maternal grandmother).

Princess Elizabeth - mother.

Queen Mary - great-grandmother.

Tevildo (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Tevildo - but I think you have the wrong Lady Brabourne. That one is the next generation - Patricia Knatchbull, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma, who was Mountbatten's daughter, and Lady Brabourne before her father's assassination, and is described as Charles's godmother in the article. Wymspen (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right - my apologies. (Incidentally, "sponsor" rather than "godmother" would be the correct term to use here, and the link in the article is wrong anyway. Something to fix.) Tevildo (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added the correct Lady Brabourne to the list. Tevildo (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Tevildo and Wymspen. Most enlightening! --TammyMoet (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a Movietone News item reporting on the christening here, which also identifies the sponsors. The baby (described as "Prince Charles of Edinburgh") even gets a smile out of the usually stern-faced Queen Mary. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

December 31

Anti-American Revolution

Are there any movies, television show or books which portrays the American Revolution in a negative light and the British in a positive light?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The most recent bestseller that comes to mind is The Book of Negroes (novel) and its associated miniseries. The term you may want to search for is "Loyalist"; we have plenty of articles about them. Here's "the first book-length investigation of the literature written by loyalists during the revolutionary period" (review Cambridge 2014, of book Oxford 2013). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The Sergeant Lamb novels by Robert Graves show the American Revolution from the point of view of a British soldier serving in that war. Naturally, he's none too sympathetic to the American cause. --Antiquary (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like The Fort by Bernard Cornwell and several of Kenneth Roberts' novels might also fit the bill, but I've read none of them and can't say for sure. --Antiquary (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The Scarlet Coat (1955) has the British officer John André as hero. Tevildo (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Those Damned Rebels: The American Revolution As Seen Through British Eyes" by Michael Pearson is a historical account of the American Revolution that I found informative.--Wikimedes (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the early Fox books by Adam Hardy (a pen name for Kenneth Bulmer) portraits part of the revolutionary war through the eyes of a member of the British Navy. Sorry, I only inherited the German editions, and even those are 600 km away, so no details. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Benjamin Grierson

After the Civil War his only pedigree or credentials was attacking inocent children. Not only have I never found that line to be true but it is contrary to the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quillrun (talk • contribs) 04:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

There was a bunch of vandalism by an anonymous IP — I've reverted to the last good version. Thank you for reporting this here! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

political violence and not terrorism

(Originally posted and moved from here by me. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC))

Hi I am a new user as well. My question is why is this defined as political violence and not terrorism? Isn't political violence by definition terrorism?

ter·ror·ism

ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit

noun

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Source:https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=definition%20terrorism&oq=definition%20terrorism&rlz=1CAASUA_enUS719US719&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3895j0j7 --Wimp35 (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Our Terrorism article discusses the difficulty of defining the word - there is no clear answer. Alansplodge (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps even more specific, see Definitions of terrorism. Note the plural - there is no universal definition. Eliyohub (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

January 1

Why Buddhism no more in India?

Buddism come from India, now big in China, Korea, Japan and South East Asia countrys, but no more in India. Why? Other religions still big in the place they come from, like Muslim in Arab countrys. --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Because Buddhism in India was concentrated in monasteries, easy targets for Muslim conquerors – or so I've been told. —Tamfang (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

See Decline of Buddhism in India. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

And Pushyamitra_Shunga#Alleged_persecution_of_Buddhists. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's incorrect to say that Buddhism is "no more in India". There are millions of Buddhists in India today. See Dalit Buddhist movement.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

While it's true that it's not nonexistent, it's a tiny minority. The U.S. has the same percentage of Buddhists as India. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

One might also ask why there are so few Christians in Israel, the birthplace of Christianity. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Bethlehem and Nazareth have significant Christian populations, though Bethlehem's in particular, has shrunk over the years, I believe. Blame the Palestinians, not Israel for this, I say. Fighting between rival Christian factions in Israel may also be in issue - see our articles on Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Church of the Nativity, where things got so bad at times that Muslims had to step in to save the situation. (The keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre have been held by a Muslim family for generations. And it was the Muslim Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas who pleaded with the rival Christian factions who control the Church of the Nativity to agree on funding desperately-needed renovations to the historic building). Christianity in Israel is the relevant article. The Romans have long gone, almost all of Israel's Christians today are either Arab (though labelling some, like the Copts and Marionites, as "Arab" is controversial), or immigrants. Note that Israel's northern neighbour, Lebanon, has a significant Christian population, who claim (truly or otherwise) descent from the days of Phonecia. Eliyohub (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Parmailitaries killing each other during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland

I have specific question. The Troubles involved many participants, but for the purpose of this question, I'm focussing purely on paramilitary groups and their members and associates. Both on the one side, the Ulster Loyalist ones and other other side, the various groups calling themselves Irish Republican Army. Note there were various groups using this title, but all are included for the sake of my question. The British army is explicitly not included.

My question is, how many paramilitary fighters died at the hands of rival or enemy paramilitaries? As I said exclude casualties suffered by or from the British army, or "sectarian" or politically-motivated murders (of political figures in the troubles who were not involved in paramilitary activity), even if carried out by one of these gangs. I'm solely interested in how much these gangs managed to kill of each other. Do we have any data on this question, preferably for each gang vs gang? (e.g, how many members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army were killed by members of the Ulster Volunteer Force, and vice versa? And ditto for other groups?) Eliyohub (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You might get some information from Timeline of Ulster Volunteer Force actions and List of chronologies of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions (there may be similar articles for other groups). From what I remember, IRA actions tended to be directed towards British soldiers, and to "economic targets", though (from a quick glance) the IRA articles also list some killings of UVF members. Likewise, the UVF attacks seem to have been mostly towards Catholics in general, presumably on the assumption that they might be IRA sympathisers if not actual members. "At the time, the attitude was that if you couldn't get an IRA man you should shoot a Taig [catholic], he's your last resort". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

[ec] The Troubles#Casualties gives the raw figures - between 1969 and 2001, Loyalist paramilitaries killed 41 Republican paramilitaries, and Republican paramilitaries killed 57 Loyalist paramilitaries. See the article for the difficulties involved in narrowing down the numbers to specific paramilitary groups. Tevildo (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't get those figures. Both loyalist and republican paramilitaries killed significantly more of those of their "own side", than those of "the enemy"? Republican paramilitaries killed 187 of their own, but only 57 loyalists? And loyalist paramilitaries killed 84 of their own, but only 41 Republicans? Can someone point me to an explanation of this, or explain it themselves?

It seems also that loyalist paramilitaries were not particularly effective in hurting the IRA, if all they could nail was 41 of them? Targeting the IRA was the loyalists' stated goal. Our article claims:

Thus while republican paramilitaries caused the greatest number of deaths overall, they caused fewer civilian deaths than loyalist paramilitaries, and had a lower civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio than either of the other two belligerents.

The IRA, had the British army to target. The loyalists' raison d'etre was supposedly destroying the IRA, a very different task. so it isn't really a fair comparison, considering their different aims? The IRA had easily identifiable targets, as in the British army, whilst loyalist paramilitaries did not. Eliyohub (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Both groups used violence as much to exert control over their own communities as to pursue any political ends. A lot of the people they killed were informers or suspected informers within their own communities. They tried to control crime in their own communities through punishment beatings and shootings, and there were groups like Direct Action Against Drugs, an IRA front that killed drug dealers within the Catholic community. Rival groups within the same community vied for control of territory - there were various feuds between different loyalist groups that cost lives within the Protestant community - there were power struggles within paramilitary groups, and people like Robert McCartney, killed simply for getting on the wrong side of paramilitaries. Also, a lot of the sectarian killings were claimed to have been against paramilitary targets - loyalists and elements within the security forces thought Pat Finucane was in the IRA, for example, and when the IRA bombed Frizzell's Fish Shop on the Shankill Road in 1993, they said they were targeting an upstairs room where UDA leaders met. Such attacks would be counted objectively as being against civilians, but from the point of view of the people who carried them out, they would have been against paramilitary targets.--Nicknack009 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not a Republican sympathizer, but the fish shop WAS used as a UDA meeting spot. It just so happened that the meeting ended early. Or they switched meeting spots, believing the police had bugged the room. But clearly, most of those killed in the attack were civilians. (There was only one UDA member amongst the dead). Michael Stone (loyalist) would also have seen himself attacking an IRA funeral as hitting people who were logically presumed to be IRA members and sympathizers. However, most of those killed and wounded were not in fact IRA members. POV, the British should not have returned the bodies - end IRA funerals cold. That's what Israel now does to deal with the problem.Eliyohub (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Eliyohub, you may be interested in What if British had treated Northern Irish like Israel treats Palestine? by Mira Bar Hillel (perhaps equally POV but let's see both sides of the coin). Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: I don't think the Israel-Palestinian conflict has ever had any true parallel actors to Northern Ireland's "loyalist paramilitaries". Acts of violence by non-army Israelis towards Arabs (or fellow Jews whom they view as sympathetic to Arabs, such as Rabin's assassin) are sadly not unheard of, by any means. But the sort of organization and scale NI's loyalist paramilitaries showed is totally lacking, I'd say. The Altalena Affair was pretty much the end point in organized paramilitaries outside the army in Israel, the leader of the Irgun, Menachem Begin went into self-imposed political exile for two decades or so, to avoid a civil war. Modern-day Jewish extremism is mostly associated with Kahanism, but as I said, nothing of the scale of loyalist paramilitaries. The most violent act by a supporter of it was carried out by Baruch Goldstein, but I'd say though his victims were Palestinians, his bitterness was more against the Israeli Government for (in his eyes) surrendering to them. And an act of this scale was absolutely a one-off, and never occurred since.

(Raises an interesting question I'd love if you could answer: what was the most violent act done in an attempt to sabotage the Good Friday Agreement, may I ask? Whichever side it came from, did any such act occur?) Eliyohub (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be the Omagh bombing. Alansplodge (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :) On the Republican side, yes, that would be the worst. What about on the loyalist side? Were there any significant violent attempts to derail the agreement? Eliyohub (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, most of the Loyalist paramilitaries observed ceasefires during and after the talks. The Loyalist Volunteer Force, a hardline splinter group of the Ulster Volunteer Force (which had largely observed a ceasefire since 1994), continued a campaign of murders and other attacks; but on 15 May 1998, the LVF announced an "unequivocal ceasefire" in support of a "no" vote in the referendum. However, they were implicated in a concerted arson attack on 12 Catholic churches on 15 July, before announcing "the war is over" on 8 August. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

What's the oldest patriotic song in the world?

One at least kind of well known in its country. My country's national songs aren't that old (Yankee Doodle Dandy, the Star Spangled Banner, My Country, 'Tis Of Thee.. (=God Save the King with different words)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yankee Doodle, actually. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably the hymn Bhoomi Sukta from Atharvaveda (around 12th century BC which at least makes it one of the oldest anyway). Anthem-wise, Kimigayo (in terms of lyrics) and Wilhelmus, according to our list. Brandmeister^talk 22:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Won't be American, as whites only arrived in America not that long ago. Native Americans would have no "national" song, as they were separate tribes, but would a Native American song about their attachment to the land count? If you mean "national" songs as in countries, you'd have to look at nations which have existed as such in some form for many centuries or more than a Millenium, obviously, like England, maybe? Or some other old civilisation, which later became a nation? Sorry I don't know the answer, just giving you some pointers as to where not to bother looking. But perhaps Brandmeister has the right idea. Eliyohub (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The article Kimigayo, which is the national anthem of Japan, states that it is among the oldest anthems. Now the question is about patriotic songs in general so I will be interested to see what other editors research comes up with. MarnetteD|Talk 22:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Kimigayo has the oldest lyrics as a song, but was only adopted as a national anthem in 1922, so it may not be the "oldest anthem" by some definitions. But the OP is not limiting the question to anthems, so Kimigayo it may just be. Eliyohub (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The American national anthem wasn't officially so designated until 1931, although by then it was the de facto anthem. The Japanese anthem is kind of an odd one, in that it seems to stop short of actually finishing. But maybe it makes sense within the language. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The Wilhelmus is, according to our article, "the oldest known national anthem in the world. The national anthem of Japan, Kimigayo, has the oldest lyrics, dating from the 9th century. However, a melody was only added in the late 19th century, making it a poem rather than an anthem for most of its lifespan". God Save the King is widely credited as the first song to actually be used as a national anthem [4] although it only dates from the mid-18th century in its present form. But we digress... Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Our article on Bhumi Sukta redirects, but you can read the lyrics here - it certainly seems to qualify to me. More than a thousand years later, Roman hymns such as Carmen Saeculare have also been described as patriotic. 184.147.116.111 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem with very ancient songs is that you can't tell how long people might have been singing them before someone actually wrote them down for the first time. Some of the Psalms probably go back three thousand years, and have a patriotic element to them. Wymspen (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Not quite so old but in Ancient Greece: "...at about 1000 BC when the Homeric poems began to be chanted or sung by travelling minstrels called Rhapsodists.The schools of rhapsodists lasted for about 250 years, when choral and patriotic song began to be developed". A Popular History of the Art of Music by W.S. Mathews (pp. 48-49). Alansplodge (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

There are two songs whose authorship is traditionally credited to Saint Adalbert of Prague (d. 997), a Czech bishop who became missionary (and martyr) to what is now northern Poland. One of them, Bogurodzica, a prayer to Mary as Mother of God, has been since then quite popular as a patriotic hymn in Poland, serving as a de facto national anthem on some occasions in the past, be it before battles or during coronations. However its language reflects somewhat later medieval Polish (the oldest surviving manuscript containing Bogurodzica dates from 1407), thus casting doubts upon alleged Adalbertine origins. A 14th century dating of the lyrics seems more plausible. The other song, Hospodine, pomiluj ny (God, Have Mercy Upon Us), once fulfilled the same functions in medieval Bohemia (present Czech Republic) around 11th-12th centuries (first attested 1056), but since then dropped out of prominence and its use remains limited to religious services. It retains pretty much archaic language features, close to Old Church Slavonic. The current Czech counterpart to Bogurodzica is the Saint Wenceslas Chorale, attested 1368 as an already "ancient and well known" song, presumably originating in 13th century, more specifically in the turmoil after death of King Přemysl II Ottokar (d. 1278) - the period referred to as The Brandenburgers in Bohemia. While the above mentioned couple of songs are essentially purely religious hymns without country- or ethnic- specific wording, the Saint Wenceslas Chorale, is also a religious hymn, but heavily stuffed with patriotic references to Bohemia, kinship of the whole Czech ethnic to Saint Wenceslas and names of other regional patron saints. Perhaps because of these explicitly patriotic lyrics it has retained quite undiminished appeal through centuries. Its text, a prayer to Duke Saint Wenceslas (d. 935) as an idealized perpetual ruler of Bohemia and heavenly protector of Czech people is quite well known among generally irreligious Czech populace even today (thanks to being included in school curriculum) and (apart from being regularly used in churches) the song functions as an unofficial national anthem on very solemn or very critical occasions that are considered important for the Czech lands and Czech people. In short: In Poland the oldest popularly "living" patriotic song is about 650-700 years old, in the Czech Republic about 750 years. Not so impressive as the Classical Antiquity but an example of the genre anyway. GCZPN3 (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

What Wymspen says above about some Psalms being used as a sort of patriotic song is definitely true, and they were sung by the levites as part of the daily temple service in Jerusalem. See Shir shel yom. The one used on Mondays (Psalm 48) is probably sort of patriotic. It was apparently written by the Korahites, so it in fact predates king David, though he was the one who recorded it in his collection of Psalms. Modern Jews still sing songs from psalms, but the old tunes used in the temple have long been lost, even though we know the words perfectly. Eliyohub (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Solomon and the baby

Am I right in thinking that, in the story of Solomon and the baby, we never actually find out which of the two women in the dispute was the mother?

As in, I understand the ending and the wisdom of Solomon etc.

But the dispute was: 'A says B lost her baby and swapped them in the night so that B ended up with the live one. B says A completely made that up.'

The story doesn't seem to disclose which of A and B was the true mother? In other words, did the nighttime switch actually happen or do we never find out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amisom (talk • contribs) 23:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

According to [5] it seems to be B. Eliyohub (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that's not how I read it, but I suppose either interpretation is possible. Dbfirs 00:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Solomon concluded that B was the mother, because she cared about the child, whereas A didn't seem to care. A's true child was already dead, so she had nothing to lose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Where in the text is the basis for that assertion? Amisom (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The way I read the text, it was A who cared for the child, and the dead child belonged to B. Dbfirs 12:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Solomon's judgment was that the woman who begged not to kill the child was the real mother. That would be B, as I understand it. But no matter what letter or number you assign to them, the real mother is the one who implored Solomon not to kill the child. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, obviously! That was the point of the story! Dbfirs 15:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

One point that seems to need further elaboration - Baruch Cohen's argument (linked by Eliyohub) for the real mother being B is based on his analysis of their relationship as mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, and its legal consequences. He cites various medieval and modern sources for this. However, the actual text describes the women as "harlots" (KJV/RSV) or "prostitutes" (NIV/TEV), which seems (to me) incompatible with the respectable situation Cohen posits. Are the English translations all inaccurate? Tevildo (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The word used in the Hebrew bible is "זֹנות", which all modern translations of the language turn into "prositute" or something of similar meaning. I wouldn't know if there is any basis to believe this word had a different meaning thousands of years ago. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

An analysis based on nonsense is bound to be nonsense. Cohen's argument is predicated in part on the "fact" that "no normal mother lies on her own child and crushes him in her sleep" which is, of course, ridiculous. (It also seems to put the Talmud cart before the Tanakh horse, but nevermind...) - Nunh-huh 02:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw that JLaw piece but the author seems to have ascribed the labels 1 and 2 to the outbursts at the suggestion of dividing the child without any basis? Amisom (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I don't know any Hebrew, but unless there is something in Hebrew grammar that the English translations aren't rendering, the text seems to contain no hint whatsoever which of the two responses at the end is to be ascribed to which of the two women presented in the beginning. (Oh, and I agree with Nunh-huh that the argument about "no normal mother" accidentally killing her child in her sleep is nonsense – accidental "overlying" was an often-cited and commonly supposed cause of infant mortality throughout history.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It actually can still be a problem. See [6] [7] for example. Note that while the risk can be increased by things that people may consider shouldn't be the case with a "normal mother" (like alcohol consumption and smoking) others are realisticly perfectly expected of a normal mother especially if the info isn't known (i.e. historically) or isn't easily available (e.g. poor people in developing countries) [8]. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

... so may we conclude that, despite Baruch Cohen's argument, Amisom was correct that there is nothing in the story to tell us whether or not the switch actually happened? Dbfirs 12:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

All we have to go on is Solomon's judgment as to who the real mother is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I've always assumed that he doesn't know which was which until he sees and hears the reactions to his proposed action, and when he does know, he doesn't tell us which claim was the lie. Dbfirs 14:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Bugs, you're not getting the point. Of course we all assume that for the purposes of the story, Solomon's judgment is correct – the true mother is the one who (in 3.26) rejects the proposal to cut the baby in half. What we don't know, because apparently the story doesn't tell us, is whether the speaker in 3.26 is the same as the initial plaintiff, who (in 3.17–21) was accusing the other of exchanging the dead child for hers, or whether it's the other one (who was claiming she kept her own living child with her all along). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Another possible reading is that Solomon is making no judgement whatsoever as to which of the women is the biological mother of the child, but only as to which of them comports herself as, and therefore is, a true mother to the infant. - Nunh-huh 17:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This article (by L. H. LaRue of W&L Law, and therefore likely to be a fairly reliable source), analyzes the judgement as a (common-law) trial. LaRue doesn't make a definite statement of the identity of the parties, but he makes the interesting point that Solomon being wrong (that is, the real mother was the one who said "cut up the baby") is more consistent with A being the successful litigant: she's clever enough to both accuse B of the theft and know what to say to convince Solomon. This would imply, assuming Solomon was right, that B was in fact the mother (as Cohen concludes on rather more doubtful grounds). But, for our purposes, I think we can say that it's not possible to determine the issue from the Biblical text alone. Tevildo (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a very interesting essay, and it's fascinating to consider such duplicity, but the suggestion that Solomon got it wrong is not supported by 1Kings3:26 Dbfirs 19:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Reading the link posted by Eliyohub, A awakes with a dead child and B awakes with a live child. So B has possession of the live child, but is willing to give the child to A to spare its life, whereas A is like "whatever". Solomon concludes that B is the real mother, and B retains possession of the child. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Bugs, please, read what people are saying here. That's Cohen's assertion. It's not backed up by the text. Tevildo (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It is always interesting to see the debate that arises over this. For other takes on it some of you might be interested in the article for the Brecht play The Caucasian Chalk Circle and the Chinese play The Chalk Circle. MarnetteD|Talk 18:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I've always understood it to be the way I explained it above. I don't know who this Cohen guy is, and I didn't read his commentary, just his quotation of the scripture. I guess you could say that we don't know absolutely because there isn't a "narrator" (i.e. God) saying "this is how it really was." The best information we have is Solomon's judgment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Bugs, Solomon does not give a judgement on the question here. He does not declare whether (a) the night-time switch happened, or (b) it was totally invented by a mendacious claimant. I know you say you "always understood" it to be the latter but is there any reason for that that you can point to? Solomon didn't say it was the latter. Amisom (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The "question" was "we never actually find out which of the two women in the dispute was the mother." Sure we do. Solomon declares that the woman who begged for the child's life is the mother. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the question was, "Did the nighttime switch actually happen?" Amisom (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me reframe it thus: Alice said that, during the night, Betty stole her live baby and claimed it as her own. Betty says that Alice's baby died and now she's inventing stories to try to get hold of Betty's live baby. Solomon was about to cut the child in half when Miss Smith called out, "No, let Miss Jones have it!" – but Miss Jones is all in favour of it being cut. Solomon declares that Miss Smith is the real mother. But what is Miss Smith's first name, Alice or Betty? Amisom (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this elegant restatement of the problem. But I honestly don't think this is needed at this point. Bugs is evidently hell-bent on not getting the point, and if he hasn't by now, he won't. Everybody else seems to be already on the same page, so let's just leave it at that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, everyone, I did not particularly screen the link I posted to make sure it meets WP:RS, and am not endorsing Cohen's interpretation. I had until just now not studied the tale personally in the original text (I just looked it up now), and Cohen may well be wrong. The interpretation I have heard from another source: And the other woman said: 'Nay; but the living is my son, and the dead is thy son.' And this said: 'No; but the dead is thy son, and the living is my son.' Thus they spoke before the king.. The woman who began by saying "the living is my son" was the real mother, for that was the point she sought to emphasise (I want my child!). To read the text yourself, see [9] verse 22. So it was still B, as I see it, since she was the one who said this. The liar was A who began with "the dead is thy son" (she had other issues to chew the bone over, rather than a craving for the child). I don't recall the source for this, sorry. Eliyohub (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Following your logic, I still see A as the real mother. There is nothing in the text to distinguish who spoke which words in verse 26. Dbfirs 19:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Solomon-like, the best decision. Mothers-in-law to the left, daughters-in-law to the right... the discussion has clearly run its course.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know. Let's cut User:Baseball Bugs in half. That might just stop him proffering his personal opinions on this matter inter alia, when everyone else has provided what's required here, viz. references. Except maybe he'd become the Headless Chicken of the Ref Desks and continue to run around wildly opinionating, only there'd be two of him then, one speaking out his mouth and the other from ... somewhere else. Nah, best to limit the damage and keep him down to one entity who speaks from ... somewhere else. Happy New Year, BB. You'd make it a happy one for the rest of us if you would vow to play by the rules of the ref desks and provide references for most responses and not just your personal, private opinions on stuff. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC) The citation was already given, I merely referred to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Let's close this thread; there's nothing more to be had here; everybody except one person seems to be in agreement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC) The OP's other question was, "Did the nighttime switch actually happen or do we never find out?" The answer is that Solomon did not directly address that question. Maybe he didn't consider it important. His sole interest was in identifying the real mother. But logical reasoning would indicate that the switch did not occur. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC) BB, can't we just drop this because we are obviously not going to convince you? Dbfirs 22:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Maybe it was important to characterize the women as "harlots", implying that their word could not be trusted, but their emotions could be trusted. So the answer remains, no, we don't know for sure. It might be more instructive to look at earlier versions of the story and see if it's less ambiguous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2

U.S. law and order

In Prohibition there was a lot more criminals and cops with automatic guns than now. When did that tail off? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you certain of that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It would certainly seem to be the case that the use of automatic weapons in crime is rare in the United States. FBI statistics don't mention how many murders are committed by submachine guns specifically, but presumably it would fall under firearms-other [10], which constitute less than 1% of gun homicides. I'd imagine this is related to the incredible difficulty in obtaining such a gun after the National Firearms Act of 1934. But how prevalent was it back then? Murder by Tommy Gun was certainly quite a famous cause of death back in the 20s and 30s, but how did it compare to all firearms deaths of the period? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec) [citation needed]. Izzy Einstein and Moe Smith "...usually did not carry weapons and made arrests while unarmed." There may exist a certain gap between the Untouchables (law enforcement) and The Untouchables (film). Eliot Ness never shot anyone, and carried a .38 Colt Detective Special: [11].

Specifically considering the Thompson submachine gun (the "Tommy Gun"), it was invented in 1918: less than two years before the start of nationwide Prohibition in the United States. One could argue that the Tommy guns proliferated during Prohibition (1920-1933) simply because they didn't exist pre-Prohibition. The National Firearms Act, passed in 1934, imposed registration requirements and a (then-)hefty $200 excise tax on all machine guns (and a number of other classes of firearms), which would have made their acquisition and ownership significantly more difficult and costly.

Since then, a number of court rulings and extensive lobbying have significantly watered down the restriction on firearms ownership in the United States. On the police side, similar lobbying has led to the militarization of (some) U.S. police forces, supplying them with battlefield weapons the Untouchables would never have imagined carrying. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Heh. I believe all of this is based on SMW's having seen some black and white movies. In any case, regardless of taxes, I know that in the 90's in the South Bronx you could either buy an illegal gun for $50 or pay for a hit for $50, whichever you preferred. When a neighbour offered to do a hit for me, I declined, and tipped him (with his .358) and his accomplice (carrying an Uzi) $20 with the instructions not to do so. In any case, I saw the target's boss the next day, but never again the target. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Is life so cheap in the Bronx? Here, the going rate for hitmen is $250,000 per murder, apparently. [12]. If you want to put a price on a public figure, you can ask for them to be put on an Assassination market on the Dark web, though these have yet to result in any successful hits. Intriguingly, the Federal Reserve is seen by the contributors as enemy number 1, for their supposed opposition to Bitcoin. Ben Bernanke supposedly had a huge price on his head, but I have no idea if those charged with protecting him were concerned by an "attack of the nerds" in the form of real-life murder, as opposed to cyber-attacks. (The classical terror in the FBI's eyes was Kevin Mitnick, the only cyber-criminal to ever feature on the "FBI's most wanted". Er, wasn't this a slight overreaction to a man who did a lot of intrusion, but very little actual damage to computer systems? Angry nerds crashed fbi.gov with a Denial-of-service attack in retaliation. fbi.gov took a long time to recover, as they waited for a new firewall. Ouch). Eliyohub (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Cultural structure of social media communities

I asked this before, and was engaged in discussion with another editor when the section was archived. Lemme know if I shouldn't bring it back like this.

Are there any sociological studies about the cultural structure of social media communities?

Dan Howell made a video about the Five Pillars of Tumblr, (Aesthetics, Fandom, Social justice, Memes, and Porn) and it made me wonder if there's any validity to that idea.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=InTZfnNyLIQ&t=7m

I know that it's just one guy's opinion, but I was wondering if there were any formal studies of the cultural structure of social media communities, in general, not just regarding the five pillars.

By cultural structure I mainly mean subcultures and ingroups, such as the ones Dan mentioned, but I wouldn't so narrow my search.

Benjamin (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes there are. Here's an example: [13]. This popped up using your keywords in Google scholar; if it's not exactly what you need you can play with the keywords or keep scrolling through the results. Another way is to email the lead author on this example or a related article (academics almost always have a public email address) and ask for help. Best luck. 184.147.120.32 (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is the original discussion, in archives now. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Anything about Tumblr specifically? Benjamin (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Essex man

Isn't there something missing in the caption 1995 Ford Mondeo of the type "Mondeo man" may have aspired to?--Hubon (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Grammatically, no. John Dryden would have insisted on "the type to which 'Mondeo man' may have aspired", but this rule is not generally considered valid in English. See terminal preposition. Tevildo (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tevildo: Thanks, but I still don't quite get what "of the type" actually refers to, since, to me, the "type" already seems to be defined by the information "1995 Ford Mondeo". Hope you see my problem... Best--Hubon (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure really, but a) there were several models of Ford Mondeo, b) "Mondeo man" was only a stereotype for a particular kind of voter, so lots of those who might have attracted that label actually drove different types of cars, or may have owned a Mondeo but aspired to something different. Alansplodge (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hubon: I see your point - the sentence could be reworded as "1995 Ford Mondeo: the type of car 'Mondeo man' may have aspired to", if that would be clearer. The point is that "Mondeo Man" didn't specifically aspire to own a green 1.8 diesel Mondeo Verona (which would be implied by "1995 Ford Mondeo that 'Mondeo man' may have aspired to"), just that general type of car. Tevildo (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, now I see! Yes, of course, you're right. Thanks for explaining to a non-native speaker...! Best regards and Happy New Year--Hubon (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll change "of the type" to "such as". It's shorter anyway. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The Questions of King Milinda

I recently finished reading the translation of Milinda Panha, also known as The Questions of King Milinda, by Thomas Rhys Davids, an author who lived in the late 19th century and early 20th century. My question is, is there a more modern translation of the work available? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Milinda Panha#Translations lists a second translation, from 1969. Rojomoke (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The accuracy of the first world map ever!

Hello Wikipedians !

I have been looking into cartography articles, and i have stumbled on the matter of how accurate the first map made by greek people were.

500 BC
Ok so i have been looking into Hecataeus of Miletus's map, as (one of) the first world maps ever. It is interesting to see how he could clearly delineate the italic peninsula. and the Mediterranean Sea to the East. Greeks had such insight !

AD 1154
But then i've stumbled over another map made during the middle ages, by an arab geographer working for the Sicilians. The Tabula Rogeriana
They say it was a map which remained hailed as a brilliant work for a long time by that time. While it is obviously a good looking map, you can see however the awful depiction of the italian peninsula and the waters surrounding it! and i'm not even talking about France, the UK and the black sea! It is incredible how the middle ages were such backward compared to ancient romans and greeks !

But then again, giving a more thorough look at Hecataeus life and article, i don't exactly pinpoint the actual way we modern people got a hold on his very map. And some reconstructions seem to give different versions of Hecataeus one and only map! So i think maybe the maps of Hecataeus and others were not completely retrieved but only some of the toponyms and they might have reconstructed it with current knowledge of scales and they didnt mentioned it in the page.

So just simply, is Hecataeus's map is genuine or fake?

And if it is fake, then what exactly do we know about Hecataeus's map? (how he viewed size of the seas, their shapes and the shapes of the land, etc) and why do we say we could retrieve Hecataeus map?

Thanks in advance ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koozedine (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hecataeus' map no longer exists, the picture in the article is a reconstruction - basically it's just a guess at the general land area he would have known about and included, but depicted in a more-or-less modern way so we know what we're looking at. In ancient maps that do survive, Italy is depicted more horizontally, like in the medieval Sicilian map (for example the Tabula Peutingeriana, although that was probably not intended to be strictly geographically accurate). Adam Bishop (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

January 3

troops volunteered when they enlisted for Vietnam

Someone told me that 2/3rds of the troops volunteered when they enlisted for Vietnam, while it was only about a third for World War 2. Is this true? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

That sounds about right for WWII. According to the WWII museum, 38.8% were volunteers, 61.2% drafted.[14] And for Vietnam, this source says 25% were draftees. Thing with the Vietnam draft is that the way it was structured, it was highly advantageous for men to volunteer once they'd found out they were likely to be drafted. `--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 06:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

JPgordon is right. Many volunteered in anticipation of being drafted. By volunteering, one maintained a certain level of control (or at least a feeling of being in control) by being able to choose which branch of the military and list their choice(s) of M.O.S. (they, of course wouldn't always get their requested job, but the goal was presumably to avoid the Army/Infantry). This PhD thesis addresses this, particularly starting at the end of page 40.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 07:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I presume the question and answers all relate to USA only. If the original questioner reads this and is reflecting on other countries too, please do say so. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

With regard to Australia, 15,381 conscripts were deployed to Vietnam out of a total of about 60,000 Australians who served in the war, so about three quarters were professionals. See Conscription in Australia and Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War. Alansplodge (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Cultural upheaval

Hank Green recently said We are in a time of cultural upheaval.

Is there truth to this?

Benjamin (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to hear of a time when there wasn't cultural upheaval. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly a large early chunk of the paleolithic. Though that could just be us hoping for the best out of an era that didn't leave much that could be considered records. Then there's also the debate of whether they have the sort of culture necessary to qualify as not having cultural upheaval. Otherwise, yeah, you can always find doomsayers in any era, and Hegel-influenced historians (not as explicitly common these days) assume that history is just a series of cultural upheavals. See Oswald Spengler for an example. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Who is Hank Green and do you have a link to where he said it, Benjaminikuta? Do you think that everybody is on the same wavelength as you? Here you refer to a "Dan Howell" and a momentary mention in a longer video that you do not link to. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

We have articles on a Hank Green and a Dan Howell, both being internet personalities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that is the way to pose a question. A question should be posed to facilitate those responding. Some feeble attempt should be made to clarify an area of inquiry. I don't mean to discourage the editor from using the Reference boards. And I am sympathetic to the difficulties of participation here. But there was already mention made of problematic question-posing in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If the poster actually is a teenager, he may have the notion that "everybody" knows who these internet characters are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. This is the video I'm reffering to, but I didn't include it because I know a YouTube video probably isn't a good source, and I'm looking for other sources. Benjamin (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The full quote in the vlog is

We are in a time of cultural upheaval. That's probably true of everyone who has ever lived but it seems particularly strong right now.

So I suppose you are asking if the rate of change in culture is on the rise. I also assume you are asking about Western culture.

Wikipedia has interesting articles on Transformation of culture and Accelerating change. There are reasons to believe that culture is evolving faster than it did in the past. It is also possible that we simply attach more significance to cultural changes in our own time because we are witnessing them first hand. Schnitzel8 (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you know about MCLR, and how MCLR is different from the base rate?

After reading many articles I gained knowledge about MCLR and the difference between MCLR and Base Rate. I am sharing my views here on MCLR and Base Rate, if I missed some points so please let me know about it,

MCLR means: The Reserve Bank of India has brought another approach of setting loaning rate by business banks under the name Marginal Cost of Funds based Lending Rate (MCLR). It has adjusted the current base rate framework from April 2016 onwards.

The MCLR ought to be updated month to month by thinking of some as new components including the repo rate and other borrowing rates. Particularly the repo rate and other borrowing rates that were not unequivocally thought to be under the base rate framework.

According to the new rules, banks need to set five benchmark rates for various tenure or time periods ranging from overnight (one day) rates to one year.

Now the point come that How MCLR is different from base rate?

The base rate or the standard lending rate by a bank is calculated on the premise of the following factors:

1. Cost for the funds (interest rate given for deposits),

2. Operating expenses,

3. Minimum rate of return (profit), and

4. Cost for the CRR (for the four percent CRR, the RBI is not giving any interest to the banks)

On the other hand, the MCLR is comprised of the following are the main components. 1. Marginal cost of funds;

2. Negative carry on account of CRR;

3. Operating costs;

4. Tenor premium

It is obvious that the CRR costs and operating expenses are the normal components for both base rate and the MCLR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhushbooGupta07 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not (as far as I can tell) have an article about MLCR (Marginal Cost of Funds Based Lending Rate). See Wikipedia:Your first article. Alansplodge (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternatives to AFF

Are there any alternatives to AdultFriendFinder that are free or lower cost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.147.246.88 (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

A bar? --Jayron32 16:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried Tinder? uhhlive (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

FetLife may be of interest. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I think PlentyOfFish claims to be the world's largest "free" (in reality, "freemium") dating site, but it's not specifically adult-oriented, so it may not be what you're looking for. Though, to be honest, if you take the right approach (don't be a sleaze or a creep, ok?), I think you'd be just as likely to meet a potential sexual partner there than on adultfriendfinder? They do have categories as to what people are looking for, so you can screen out those explicitly seeking a long term relationship.

AdultFriendFinder's behaviour in some regards in controversial, and I'd like to see any data, or even estimates, as to how many of the male users of the site seeking female partners ever successfully meet a female off the site in real life. Any studies or estimates on the matter? Or any stats released by the site which may give some guesses? (The nature of such sites is that they're obviously more attractive to the average man than the average woman, so a significant sex imbalance is probably inevitable. But that does not excuse unethical behaviour to make it look like there are more active female users than there actually are). Eliyohub (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ingersoll on Moses

Mark Twain said "I wouldn't give a cent to hear Ingersoll on Moses, but I'd give ten dollars to hear Moses on Ingersoll." Moses I know about, but what is Ingersoll? Was he talking about The Ingersoll Lectures on Human Immortality? 208.95.51.72 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Must be Robert G. Ingersoll, a contemporary writer and orator and personal acquaintance of Twain, who had published a work called "Some mistakes of Moses". Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

One wonders what Twain would have thought of Oolon Colluphid. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

US constitutional definition of treason - "declaring war on the US"?

Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution contains the definition of treason. To quote, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or (rest is irrelevant here).

But in my earlier question it was generally agreed that A non-State cannot declare war. Acts such of those of the Symbionese Liberation Army, or less likely, Timothy McVeigh (I don't think he made any statements of the sort the SLA did of a "declaration of war" type?) would be limited to being classified as Seditious conspiracy (putting aside "common" criminal charges for individual acts such as murders, including Federal charges of "Murder of a Federal Official", or terrorism charges). So is "levying war against the U.S." only grounds for a treason charge if done as part of an action by or on behalf of a country at war with the U.S.? Could non-state-aligned "acts of war" or, put another way, "warlike acts" ever qualify under this definition?

(My guess is, reality, the Government wouldn't bother with Treason charges if they were in any way doubtful in such cases, when there are clear alternatives for things like this, like the alternative charges I mentioned. But I'm still curious about the theory). Eliyohub (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)