Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:34, 19 January 2017

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

January 14

Ancient Greek cremation

Is there any reason why the Ancient Greeks started cremating their ~~dreads~~ dead instead of burying them like their Mycenaean predecessors that are hypothesized or known in the archaeological records? What form of burials did the Minoans of Crete practice and are their any archaeological finds of Minoan burials? Also did the Hellenistic Greeks who settled in Egypt and the native Egyptians have any incidences of idealogical conflict in each cultures alternate forms of burial practices. I'm aware Ancient Greek funeral and burial practices exist. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If only we could cremate our dreads. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Your first question can only be speculated upon. Cremation most probably spread to Greece from the East. It started in around 1000 BCE, peaking in the Archaic era, then declining through to the Classical era when burial and cremation were employed equally. A possibility is that it was first introduced during war, to enable a body to be easily returned to the family for interment. The Iliad features several heroic cremations, which may increased their popularity. More likely there were religious motivations (e.g. worship of Dionysus, whose mother, Semele, became immortal after incineration by Zeus; possibly an etiological myth) and links to purification rituals (the word comes from "fire"). Religious beliefs were not consistent throughout Greece and changed over time, which may help explain the fluctuations between burial and cremation, and geographical anomalies.

Minoan practices can easily be googled. Try here for starters: Minoan_religion#Burial_and_mortuary_practice.

There doesn't seem to be much evidence of ideological conflict between Greeks and Egyptians. Herodotus offers a dispassionate account of Egyptian mummification. (The Christians, however, took umbrage with the process and it was banned by Theodosius.) Greek communities in Alexandria were inconsistent in their funerary practices, some followed traditional Greek custom, others adapted to local norms. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 09:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism deities names

what are the 108 names of Hinduism deities?--2001:B07:6463:31EE:1089:3E00:FCCF:529C (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindu deities and the article Hindu deities will help you in your research. Rojomoke (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

108 (number) may also be of interest. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Desam#List of Deities in Divyadesams gives names associated with 108 Tamil temples dedicated to the Hindu god Vishnu. Blooteuth (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii County Act 1903

I am trying to find secondary source summarizing the history Hawaii County Act 1903 (https://archive.org/details/countyactactses00hawgoog) which seemed to have been declared unconstitutional in 1904 by the Hawaii Supreme Court. The current day counties weren't created until 1905. I am looking for secondary sources, not law books, or newspapers please, something writing about the subject with some level of hindsight.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see much of it, but County Government in Hawaii, published in 1935, looks like a great source. Warofdreams talk 03:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found a copy, however, I was wondering if a few more can be found to back the information up. It doesn't speak about the elections which were held in the latter months (c. October-December 1903) of the year before and the newspaper sources are too scattered for me to pinpoint when county elections were held in 1903. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

First purpose-built/dedicated courthouse

What are the earliest known purpose-built or dedicated courthouses? Neutrality^talk 00:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest buildings contains some very old structures built for public use, though whether they had court-like functions as well as other public assembly functions is hard to say. Look at 5,500-year-old Sechin Bajo in Peru, or 4,600-year-old Mohenjo-daro in Pakistan. The earliest purpose-built-for-justice-functions buildings I've found so far are the original basilicas in the Roman Forum, the Basilica Aemilia and Basilica Fulvia, built in 179 BC. Bet you get a better answer soon. 184.147.116.166 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The three ancient Athenian courthouses in the Agora date from c. 420-380 BC, and this source mentions no other function they may have had, which is as close as an archaeologist is likely to get to saying they were purpose-built. Our article on Law court (ancient Athens) suggests that many trials may have been held in other places, sometimes out of doors. --Antiquary (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks, instead of men, in the front-line of Normandy landings?

Why did not the allied military planners deployed tanks in the first line of Normandy landings? Men were sent in the front line by landing boats, who were shot dead immediately by German machine-gunners just as the front door of the boats were lowered (as can be seen in this video, 10:15). But instead of sending men in the front-line, if tanks were sent first, human casualties could have been vastly reduced. The tanks could have destroyed the first line of German defense; after that, troops could be sent under the protective cover of the tanks. Also, these obstacles, which were meant for unarmored landing crafts, could have been easily overcome by the tanks. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks are very heavy, making it difficult to land them without a port. I believe they did have some special tanks designed to be able to float for the landing, but they didn't perform well, and many sank. To carry normal tanks you would need much larger landing ships, with much deeper drafts, and that means they couldn't come as close to the shore, so the tanks would be submerged when they launched. The Germans did have a heavy tank designed to run along the bottom of the water, using a schnorkel to get air for the engines and crew. Something like that might have worked. StuRat (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't they bomb the sh*t out of them before they landed? For once that might work. Or did they and the machine gun nests were that tough? Why is it only the Germans with the supervillain superguns? Those would've come in handy. Can go through a meter of concrete. Was saturation bombing with napalm to the point of conflagration not invented yet or too cruel? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They did, or at least they tried to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was a lack of precision in the bombing. Many of the German fortifications were built into the sides of cliffs, so safe from bombing from above, with only small openings to fire through. Thus, the only way to take them out, pre-invasion, would be to shoot shells directly through those openings, which were too small of a target for ship's guns. During the invasion, they could be taken out at short range, or from behind, but that put the attackers at extreme risk. German infantry on the beach was in foxholes, with camo, so hard to spot, much less hit. Had the invasion been delayed a couple years, and atomic bombs been available, I wonder if they would have been used to clear the beaches. The radiation might cause cancer in many of the landing forces, but they wouldn't have known this at the time, and even if they had, short-term danger may well have trumped the long-term threat. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just found that the allied forces did have DD tank and Landing craft tank. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough to make "shoot 3 rounds at Nazis and die" obsolete. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions are all good and military commanders at the time considered them all. As you can read at our articles and their child articles, leading with standard tanks was a no-go. The Nazis had planned for this, and the beaches were covered in tank obstacles - they would have been sitting ducks. In fact, one of the main objectives of the initial wave of infantry was for battlefield engineers to clear the obstacles off the beaches so ordinary tanks could land in numbers. As for "bombing the shit out of them", they tried. This actually worked very well at some of the beaches, which were taken with relative ease. Most of the dramatic problems occurred at Omaha, and to a lesser extent Utah beach. Mainly this was due to bad weather at these locations. The bombers, unaided in 1944 by GPS or other technology, could not spot their targets accurately through overcast skies, and many beachfront fortifications survived the bombings unscathed. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't they just skip the landing at Omaha Beach, where by far the highest number of casualties occurred? A real-life case of Murphy's law! Everything that could go wrong, did. Would scrapping that particular site, and reaching it by land from troops landed at the other beaches instead, have jeopardised the success of the operation as a whole? Eliyohub (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everything did go wrong! For the benefit of people unfamiliar with the battle of Normandy, Omaha was a disaster. After the previously mentioned failure of bombing to actually take out the fortifications, strong seas caused the landing craft to land in a disorganized manner. Many individual infantry units landed both in the wrong place (putting in terrain they did not have a plan for) and in a scattered fashion, separating troops from their commanders. The extreme disorganization prevented the battlefield engineers from clearing the beach in a timely manner, and also put a huge delay on firing coordinates being communicated to warships that were supposed to provide artillery support. Now, as to the question itself, I dunno! If you read about the aftermath at each beach, you get the impression that the landing of men and materiel was occurring at an impressive pace at every beach, and if anything, Omaha did succeed in forcing the Germans to keep their troops spread out. Furthermore, it could be argued that the Allies ultimately needed every inch of beach available to them, since their makeshift harbor was wrecked by high seas just a few days after the landings. I'm pretty sure I've read everything Wikipedia has about Normandy, but I don't recall any examination of whether all five beaches were actually needed, or if this was just an effort to avoid putting all of the eggs in one ~~beach~~ basket. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question makes certain implicit (and explicit) assumptions about the use, availability, and capability of tanks – not to mention about the German defences – that are not necessarily accurate. Among other factors, the Germans littered the beaches with Czech hedgehogs and other obstacles specifically to restrict the ability of armored vehicles to approach their fortifications. (The hedgehogs also extended into the water, with the intended purpose of stopping or tearing the hull of any deep-drafted, heavily-laden landing craft.) Fortifications and soldiers were armed with an assortment of antitank weapons (from the handheld Panzerfaust up to 88mm guns). The Nazis were evil, but they weren't necessarily stupid.

Moreover, tanks wouldn't survive without close, coordinated support by infantry. They weren't and aren't a magic bullet.

Of course, there were certainly tanks present at Normandy. Landing craft tank (LCT) certainly existed and were used to great effect. (And at certain hazard—26 LCTs were lost in the Normandy invasions.) Modified LCTs were also used as gun platforms for self-propelled guns to provide artillery support. A handful of LCTs with the designation LCT(CB) ("concrete buster") carried 3 Sherman Firefly tanks each, armed with 17-pounder guns and tasked with destruction of fortifications. And there's a whole bunch of specialized vehicles that were designed to overcome some of the challenges of amphibious attack by tracked vehicles, including the aforementioned DD tanks and the even-more-outlandish Hobart's Funnies. (Not to mention some of the weapons that were tested but didn't make the cut, like the Panjandrum.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TenOfAllTrades, very good, informative and logical answer. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary, Journeys to the Bottom of the Sea - D-Day: The Untold Story can be found online; this related BBC article may be of interest: "BBC NEWS | UK | The tanks that didn't land on D-Day". news.bbc.co.uk. 2002. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:5841:24B7:531B:71A (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The specialist armoured vehicles of Percy Hobart's 79th Division were offered to the US forces but were turned down by Omar Bradley on the grounds that “accepting the Churchills would require retraining our tank operators and maintenance men and a complicated separate supply chain for spare parts.” See Hobart and His Funnies: Gen. Omar Bradley and the D-Day Controversy. That, combined with the US DD tanks being launched too far out (see BBC link above), which meant that many of them were swamped and sank, led to the US landings having very little armoured support in comparison to the British and Canadian beaches. Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our 741st Tank Battalion (United States) article records the "loss of 27 of the 32 DD tanks before they reached shore". Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should mention some of the other downsides of standard tanks. In addition to being too heavy to cross water effectively:

1) They are less maneuverable than infantry. They can't climb steep hills, for example.

2) They are more exposed than infantry. They can't hide from frontal fire in a shallow ditch, for example.

3) They have less of a view of the battlefield. A few small "windows" doesn't give a total view of the situation, although in modern tanks I suppose they can put cameras all over them to provide the full view they need, without risking the crew with too many openings.

4) In some situations they are slower than infantry, such as turning around, or dealing with obstacles that infantry can just run around. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the difference between the US and UK landing beaches. Particularly the 79th Armoured Division and the failures of the US Duplex Drive Shermans, when they were launched too far off the coast. The UK landings were successful, as they were supported by armour, just as you describe. The US landings were poorly supported by armour, and suffered as a result. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partly, one suspects, because of the failure of the armour used in the 1942 Dieppe Raid, when the Canadian tanks had been unable to deploy off the beach and were all immobilised by either by mines or anti-tank guns. There was a considerable effort not to repeat the same mistakes. Alansplodge (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article says of the Omaha Beach landings: "The 743rd Tank Battalion actually reached the beach largely intact... 40 of the 48 tanks allocated to the western end of Omaha beach arrived safely. On the eastern flank the situation was far worse... only 18 of the 48 tanks allocated to the eastern beaches arrived intact". Alansplodge (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the comments already made above about the inefficiency of the bombardment, starting the bombardment sooner would have given the Germans more time to react. I don't have a reference, but I'm pretty sure there were serious measures of decoy and secrecy used to prevent the knowledge of a Normandy invasion, and thereby keep German reserve divisions away from the area. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They could disguise the bombardments by doing so at multiple locations, over multiple days. Eventually the Germans would stop sending reinforcements to wherever was being bombarded at the time, especially if they were hit by air strikes whenever they were on the roads. StuRat (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only to a point. France has a long coast, and your air force is limited. Defences around Calais were hit heavily as decoy, it being the logical invasion point, but across the rest of the coast, you can't even pretend to hit more than a very limited number of the anti-invasion defences. Also note that precision bombing technology was very much in its infancy. The British had almost none of it, from what I recall reading. "Carpet bombing" cities was standard British tactics. The Americans had something in that regard (precision bombing technology), but still extremely limited by modern standards. The American pilots were instructed to go to great lengths to make sure such bombs did not fall intact into German hands. Maybe others can source this? Eliyohub (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Americans had the Azon, a radio-guided bomb of about 500kg. It was highly experimental, had mixed success, and was never deployed in great numbers. Regarding making sure the bomb didn't fall into enemy hands, that was handled by the engineers. The original plan was for a time-delayed bomb, but all time-delay fuses have a non-trivial failure rate. Instantaneous contact fuses, however, had a nearly 100% success rate. These fuses were used at the expense of penetration to ensure the Germans would not recover the guidance package from a dud (indeed, construction workers are still finding unexploded ground-penetrating bombs across Europe). The British were largely slaved to carpet bombing due to their insistence on operating at night to minimize losses. The Americans operated during the day so they could better see their targets, and when they wanted to hit something specifically they usually opted for low-altitude level bombing. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This interview with military historian Antony Beevor says that the US bombing was innacurate because "...the Americans didn’t want their bombers to fly along the coast because they would be exposed to flak. Instead they came in over the invasion fleet and of course they were afraid of dropping their bombs on the landing craft so they held on a few seconds more, meaning their bombs fell on open countryside rather than hitting the beaches". The same article also asserts that "Even on Omaha beach, despite the great American myth, casualties were lower than expected and on the Gold, Juno and Sword beaches the Allies got away very lightly". Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precision bombing of that era was largely done by dive bombers. StuRat (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the pacific, yes. Allied dive bombers were rare in the European theater (see Dive_bomber#World_War_II), with the notable exception of British Naval actions and the American Apache dive bomber. The solution to hitting a specific target in that theater was more often to either lower the bomber's altitude, or send more bombers. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US Supreme Court

Why are there only eight justices depicted on the first photograph of the US Supreme Court?--Hubon (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The number of sitting justices fell to eight before an act of 1869 provided for nine justices, one for each of the judicial circuits established in 1866."[1] (photo taken in 1869) --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C03A:9D20:31EF:82F7 (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Because there were only eight justices at that time (1869). See Supreme Court of the United States#Size of the Court, Judiciary Act of 1869, and Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant#Judicial appointments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Helen Suzman quote

[2] Can anyone help me finding the Hansard reference to this quote which took place in the South African Parliament? Amisom (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South African Hansard can be searched here. You may need some patience to find your quote - "embarrass" brings up 25 hits. 184.147.116.166 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick go at finding a date for this from other sources, but it's only repeated anecdotally as "once in parliament" or "in a celebrated exchange". None of the sources even say who she was replying to, except that it was "a minister" [3] "a cabinet minister" [4] or "a certain minister" or even "an irritated minister". [5] I'm always a bit suspicious when there are no corroborating details. Alansplodge (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

Global Inequality and the Golden Billion

According to the Page 14 of the UN Human Development Report of 1998 (http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/259/hdr_1998_en_complete_nostats.pdf), the richest 20% of the human population on this planet consumed about 86% of its resources, measured as private consumption expenditure. How has this global inequality changed over the past two decades? and what is its measure today in 2017 in term of natural resources consumption instead of wealth or income? Any sourced statistic figures of resources and commodities will be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.21.130 (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Latest such report is for 2015 http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2015_human_development_report.pdf, you can read that. I am dubious of the usefulness of such buzz terms as Golden Billion. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By coincidence, there is an Oxfam report today suggesting the the 8 wealthiest people in the world (NB - eight people, not 8%) have as much as the poorest 50% (3.8 billion) of the worlds population. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38613488 Wymspen (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That report's kind of meaningless when most people are subsistence farmers without bank accounts. It's like comparing oaks and redwoods. Most oaks are doing just fine. A more narrowed and contextual comparison would make more sense. μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that, their wealth, small as it is, is entirely "off the books", being their possessions, land, and home. You might expect such things to be counted, but in subsistence farming communities there may not even be official records of who owns what, as they don't have any cash to pay taxes, so there would be little point in keeping track of it, and, since those government's are often dirt poor too, they couldn't afford the effort, in any case. StuRat (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than random speculation of what would be expected, the methodology Credit Suisse uses to estimate wealth distribution (which is then used by Oxfam to produce the above) is here [6] as a link from [7] which itself is linked from the BBC article. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did a general really believe that if the Cold War blocs had 2 survivors & 1 then the side with 2 wins?

That sounds too insane to believe. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like a quote from Dr. Strangelove. StuRat (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This mentality, if that's the word: "I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed. But I do say 10 to 20 million killed, tops - depending on the breaks." -- General Buck Turgidson

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier for us to figure this out if you provided some kind of context. Where'd you hear this? Do you have a name at all? Time frame? I assume you're actually looking for a quote - what they really believed is something we're unlikely to ever know. Matt Deres (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it. But the OP may be interested on what concepts the leaders did work under, thinks like Mutual assured destruction and Brinkmanship. --Jayron 32 15:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here it is: Thomas S. Power. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may also then be interested in the concept of hyperbole as a form of rhetorical device and the concept of War hawk as a political group. --Jayron 32 18:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renewable Heat Incentive scandal

Under the current law, if a new Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland took office without anything happening to Arlene Foster, would she automatically be back into office as First Minister (so essentially she's just unable to exercise the office until then), or is she totally out of office and she would have to be re-elected by the Assembly? The start of the scandal article makes it sound like she's just suspended until a new deputy comes in, but Renewable_Heat_Incentive_scandal#Resignation_of_Martin_McGuinness_and_collapse_of_Stormont makes it sound like she's completely out of office. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the BBC, "Martin McGuinness's resignation as deputy first minister automatically put Arlene Foster out of her job as first minister, because they hold a joint office. After the positions have been vacant for seven days, the administration is effectively dead and the law says the Northern Ireland secretary must call a new election after a "reasonable" time period." 184.147.116.166 (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The scheme offered to pay £1.60 for every £1 spent on heating." Wow, that's epic incompetence. Did they really not know that this would lead to people heating places that didn't need heating ? StuRat (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declarations of independence prior to July 4 1776

Which colonies declared independence before July 4, 1776? So far the list I have is:

Delaware, on June 15, 1776
Massachusetts Bay, on May 1, 1776
New Hampshire, on June 15, 1776
Rhode Island, on May 4, 1776

Am I missing any? And what of Massachusetts Bay, which supposedly declared on May 1, yet Rhode Island is often mentioned as the first state to declare independence? Is the Massachusetts Bay declaration not of independence? (text here: [8]) I mean, it seems like it is, but on the other hand it never uses the word 'independence' that I see. --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more are mentioned in United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#The_final_push. 184.147.116.166 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the ones I see there are authorizing delegates to vote for independence at the convention, rather than outright declarations themselves. --Golbez (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how one defines "declared independence", North Carolina may have declared before July 4, 1776. A series of "resolves" were undertaken by various local government groups which could be interpreted as such. See Mecklenburg Resolves (May 20, 1775) and Halifax Resolves (April 12, 1776), the two dates that appear on the flag of North Carolina. There were also the Liberty Point Resolves and Tryon Resolves. Also was Maryland's Bush Declaration of March 22, 1775. --Jayron 32 14:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mecklenburg Declaration isn't even real! And yeah, that's a definite issue. It's one thing to say the king is evil, etc etc, and another to say "we have no more ties with England". A lot of those earlier declarations were the former. --Golbez (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Halifax Resolves does say "resolved that the delegates for this Colony in the Continental Congress be impowered to concur with the delegates of the other Colonies in declaring Independency, and forming foreign Alliances, reserving to this Colony the Sole, and Exclusive right of forming a Constitution and Laws for this Colony, and of appointing delegates from time to time (under the direction of a general Representation thereof) to meet the delegates of the other Colonies for such purposes as shall be hereafter pointed out."[9]. Whether that is a declaration of independence or a declaration of the intent to declare independence is probably another matter for semantecists. --Jayron 32 15:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

Has anybody done anything except stand on the moon? Kneel, sit, lay?

Curious.2.102.186.137 (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several have driven on the Moon... †dismas†|^(talk) 00:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To better answer your question, since they took rock samples back from the Moon, I would think that they'd have to kneel at some point to get them. Though I can't find pics of it after a quick Google... †dismas†|^(talk) 00:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rocks and soil samples were picked up with tools. A couple of the astronauts jumped a little, and one famously hit a golf ball. Under no circumstances would the astronauts have sat (other than in the rover), knelt, or lain down on the lunar surface. (I assume you are referring to activity while on the EVA and not in the LM.) Even assuming that their space suits had enough flexibility in the joints to make it possible to do any of those things, unnecessary contact with the roughness of the surface would have risked ripping the suits, which could easily have been fatal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The pressure suits worn by the Apollo astronauts restricted their mobility, particularly their ability to bend over, while on the Moon. For this reason, special tools were designed to allow them to collect rocks and soil for return to Earth."

(edit conflict)Collecting Moon Rocks Lunar Planetray Institute. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep, eat, drive, golf, fall down, take communion. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, one astronaut tried moving by hopping, while saying "Hippity-hop," fell down and promptly got back up . Could have been Cernan. A fall at one fifth G is not all that dire if the space suit is not fragile. Edison (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone ever fall on their back? It seems inadvisable with all the life support equipment in the backpack. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It was easier to get up from there, as the body was raised by the PLSS and the PLSS was pretty robust. What was harder was falling forwards, as there was delicate equipment on the front of the suit, mostly the cameras, and this would have put the astronaut flat on the floor, with less leverage.

The wear portions of the suit (overboots, gloves and a patch under the PLSS) were made of Chromel-R wire mesh, so pretty tough. This is the only material where I've seen NASA quail at the price of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not on purpose, because the moon is quite dirty and the dirt is quite sticky. They had to work pretty hard to avoid getting that stuff all over everything. (Note: this is from memory. I did not look for a source.)-Arch dude (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever just "lays". It's a transitive verb, requiring an object. You lay an egg, lay the table, lay a blanket on a sleeping child, lay a person down in a bed, etc. It's also used to mean have sexual intercourse with, but you still need an object. You lay someone, you don't just "lay". But you can just "lie". In a bed, on a psychiatrist's couch, on the Moon. And that's no lie. Whether anyone has ever lain on the Moon, I do not know. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The death of Gene Cernan, the last person to have walked on the moon, was announced yesterday. 79.73.135.60 (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though widely reported in this way, I think it's a bit confusing. Of the 12 men who have walked on the moon, the last to get there was Harrison Schmitt. Gene Cernan was the last to leave, and it's in that sense that he was last. He wasn't the last living person to have walked on the moon, either; by my count there are now 6 living men who have walked on the moon. I'd have termed Cernan the latest person to leave the moon. - Nunh-huh 21:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can tankers really take off from aircraft carriers?

Can tankers really take off from aircraft carriers[10]? Wouldn't their wing spans be too big? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to design a tanker that can do this, but I think they just used buddy refueling (SeeLockheed S-3 Viking). During WWII, in one instance they launched long range B-25 bombers. See Doolittle Raid. -Arch dude (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B25 was a medium bomber of course (wingspan ~67 ft); heavy bombers had a wingspan of ~100 ft. For comparison a modern tanker (e.g. Stratocaster) , is around 130 ft. Interesting about the B25 taking off from the carrier though- they could take off, but couldn't land back on them. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 07:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C130s (wingspan 40 m/ 130 ft) have landed on carriers in trials. Fgf10 (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The largest/heaviest aircraft ever to regularly see carrier service was the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior; MGTOW was 82,000 pounds with a 72-foot wingspan. Several of them were modified to serve in the tanker role during the Vietnam War, before being replaced by a tanker modification of the Grumman A-6 Intruder. The A-3 remained in reconnaissance service until 1991. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Navy converted aircraft that they were already operating to act as tankers for their smaller carriers, in the 1960s, the Supermarine Scimitar and in the 1970s, Blackburn Buccaneers were used. Alansplodge (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we don't believe things on YouTube!

Also, and more to the point, carriers aren't particularly necessary in the Med as ranges are short and friendly airbases are available in other countries. A KC-135 tanker has plenty of range, even on its own fuel. There's just no need to operate them from carriers.

The US Navy (AFAIK at present) is only operating buddy tankers, on F-18s. This is a pod and some fuel tanks on an otherwise standard aircraft. I think the A-6 and S-3 tankers have gone from service now. Also note that the US operates two refuelling systems: the USAF uses booms, the Navy and Marines use probe and drogue, like the rest of NATO. It's not too hard to attach a hose reel pod to a large boom tanker, but it's harder to buddy refuel a USAF aircraft like an F-15. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why (at usa presidential election) you need 50%+1 electoral votes to win the election by usual means, but you dont need 50%+1 population votes to be the winner of some state?

Where this double standart came from/originated?177.92.128.26 (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No double standard... you do need 50%+1 to win each state. However, because some states have smaller populations than others you can win more states (thus winning in the Electoral college) and yet have fewer votes (overall) nationally. Blueboar (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50%+1/almost infinity, rounded up. You don't need 50%+1 of the total or even the top two to win the state. You merely need 50% of the top two plus a fraction of a vote if they sum to an odd number of votes (with 3 votes in a state you'd just need 50%+0.5 votes). If one more person voted for the winner it'd then be 50%+1 but half a vote was sufficient. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think his point is that you only need a plurality to win most states, e.g. Trump won Michigan with 47.3% of the vote. Dragons flight (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right, as some example, according to politico ( http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president ) clinton got "only" 47.9% of the maine votes, yet, she got all maine electoral college votes without any extra step needed to decide who would get those electoral votes, unlike what would happen if one candidate didn't got at least 50%+1 of all electoral votes of the country.177.92.128.26 (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The US constitution requires the 50%+1 electoral votes, but allows each state wide latitude to decide how those votes are assigned. Most states have chosen to give all their votes to whichever candidate gets the most votes regardless of whether they get 50% or not. Dragons flight (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were third-party candidates. E.g. Evan McMullin got 21.54% of the vote in Utah, according to United States presidential election in Utah, 2016, so Trump's 45.54% was more than enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did this issue arise at all when Ross Perot reared his head, becoming perhaps the most successful third-party candidate ever? Did he risk denying the "winner" 50%+1 electoral votes? If he had won enough electoral college seats to deny any candidate an absolute majority (which, I gather, was at one point deemed a realistic possibility?), what would the procedure be for deciding the Electoral college outcome? Did any problems risk arising that election? Eliyohub (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the last paragraph of the opening section of Electoral College (United States). —Tamfang (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did now read it. So there was a chance of this extraordinary situation developing that time, with the House of Representatives, rather than the Electoral Council, choosing the President, thanks to Perot? Also, has this provision ("no majority in the Electoral College") everbeen used in the history of the United States? Eliyohub (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral college, not council. And the House chose the president in United States presidential election, 1824. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street and Bay Street counterparts

New York City has Wall Street and Toronto has Bay Street. What are their counterparts in different nations of the world? Donmust90 (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The equivalent in London would be The City, or the Square Mile. --Golbez (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Hong Kong, it is Exchange Square (Hong Kong). DOR (HK) (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikipedia article titled Financial centre. --Jayron 32 17:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did doctors visit patients' houses?

Why did doctors visit patients' houses? Why don't they do it now? Why are today's doctors confined in hospitals? Do doctors need access to the medical laboratory to make tests and base a diagnosis on the test results, which may be why they need to work inside a hospital with fancy equipment? Why do pregnant women go to hospitals to give birth? Why can't they give birth at home with a trained midwife and call for an emergency where there is a medical emergency? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the last question, some women do indeed still choose to give birth at home with the assistance of a midwife or doula. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Home visits are for when patients are too ill to attend the surgery. Doctors still conduct home visits in some countries that have a state funded health care service, because it can prevent a condition escalating to the point of requiring admission to hospital and all the extra costs that that entails. However, in a purely private healthcare system, such an escalation means more profit for the health providers. Likewise, a trained midwife knows when a mother close to giving birth really needs a hospital confinement – but that denies those, that provide more expensive 'care', from being able to bill the family for all and every birth - so they denigrate midwifes and pontificate all the dangers, whilst disregarding the fact that hospitals are not the healthiest places in which to give birth.--Aspro (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles titled Home care and House call to start your research. The economics of health care changed dramatically in the 20th century. The article in particular on house calls covers some of this, and deals with the historical situation. The article titled home care deals more with the modern practice of providing medical care in the home. --Jayron 32 18:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although now a little dated, the seventh episode of James Burke's excellent science history series The Day the Universe Changed covers the changes in mindset regarding medical expertise. I believe most episodes are available on YouTube. The very short version is that the shift of medicine to a more scientifically-based discipline is a large portion of the reason, but it's complicated by several factors, including profiteering, and the simple shift to include surgery with other medical studies. Matt Deres (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and it can be yours for a mere six hundred notes...!!! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the Netherlands many (even most?) women choose to give birth at home, of course under supervision of a midwife. In emergencies, one will have to rely on an ambulance. I'm not sure why this is (perhaps one of our "new traditions"?), obviously it's not the safest option. I believe that we're an exception in the western world. Cost is not the problem, giving birth in a hospital is still an option and it's covered by the mandatory health insurance. Jahoe (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Safe options can be a two edged sword. One is more likely to pick up an antibiotic resistant infection in hospital. Next: Too much medical interference – administration of Oxytocin can ensure that the baby comes during the hospital's day shift. Saving time: Hospital practice is to sever the cord as soon as possible. Once baby pops out it takes a few minutes for the blood in the placenta to increase the babies blood volume – sever too soon and one ends up with minor anaemia. Then there is the stress of being in unfamiliar environment of a hospital, were those stress hormones cross the placenta and into the baby. During a home delivery these potentially harmful medical interventions are absent... Anyway: Was lead to believe that in the Netherlands babies were delivered by storks not midwives? Have I been reading the wrong books? --Aspro (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why just a midwife ? Why not the full set (forewife, midwife, and aftwife) ? :-) StuRat (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The word "midwife" literally means "with woman", i.e. assisting the woman who's giving birth.[11] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or literally in dutch "medewijf", but the actual word is "vroedvrouw" (or "vroedmeester" for the rare male doing the job; the word mostly survives in the "vroedmeesterpad" (common midwife toad), a frog of which the male carries the eggs around), although it has been largely replaced by the gender-neutral "verloskundige". PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "wife" part of "midwife" refers to the woman who's giving birth, not to the assistant. Unless the Dutch have figured out how to have husbands give birth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Midwife#Definition_and_etymology disagrees. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it agrees totally with what I said: "The word derives from Old English mid, "with" and wif, "woman", and thus originally meant "with-woman", that is, the woman who is with the mother at childbirth. As such, the word is used to refer to both male and female midwives." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is "The word...originally meant...the woman who is with the mother", i.e. the assistant, not the woman giving birth. Compare [12]. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That only works if you're taking "with" as an adjective. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Netherlands there's every few years debate in the newspapers whether the current practice should change. The hospital birth camp claims mothers should deliver their baby while in hospital. They support that by statistics showing that the neonatal mortality rate is high in the Netherlands when compared to other western countries. The home birth camp claims these statistics are biased. Dutch doctors are more likely to stop treatment and let a baby die, where doctors in other countries do everything they can to keep the baby alive with very little effect, letting him die a few weeks later so that according to statistics it's no longer a neonatal death, or that the baby lives but is severly handicapped (and probably dies before he's 5 years old). Furthermore, the home birth camp claims that the death rate amongst mothers while giving birth is exceptionally low in the Netherlands. The only thing everybody agrees on is that hospital births are far more expensive. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that going to the hospital was far more of an ordeal when it involved a horse and cart, and might cause more harm than the benefit of the doctor's visit. StuRat (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should a doctor need to attend a birth? Pregnancy is not a disease ! --Aspro (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check your family tree and see how many women died as a result of childbirth complications. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of a foreign body sounds like a medical procedure to me. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

As the parent of a teen-ager, I can reliably report that it will eventually turn malignant. Matt Deres (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The parent? —Tamfang (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Insanity is hereditary ... you get it from your kids." - Erma Bombeck - StuRat (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I do not have a source, but note that in old time Catholic theology, God's words to Eve that "in pain, you shall give birth", were seen as not just a curse, but a commandment. Any attempt to relieve the pain of a woman in labour was strictly forbidden. ("Was a man switching to an easier job also breaking a prohibition of 'by the sweat of your brow you shall eat your bread'"? was my father's puzzled response). Jewish tradition never saw it that way - it's merely a curse, as in a reality, anything we can do to mitigate the woman's pain, we may do. Eliyohub (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As others have pointed out, in many western countries, doctors still routinely do home visits for patients too sick to attend the surgery, or when a patient develops a problem out of hours, when the surgery is closed. In my country, Australia, the public health system definitely still funds such visits, paying the doctor more than if he or she saw the patient at the surgery, to compensate for travel costs and the crazy work hours involved. It'still a LOT cheaper and more efficient for the system to have a doctor pay a home visit, than to have the patient turn up at the emergency room - or even worse, need an ambulance to bring them there. Keeping clinics open all night would probably be more expensive, as the patients in need of urgent services may be all across the city. (Routine matters, obviously, will be seen at a clinic, we're only dealing with people acutely but not dangerously unwell). But if neither of these situations applies, it's simply a matter of convenience for either the doctor or the patient (and occasionally, this may be the case, if the doctor lives nearby the patient), the system will only pay the doctor the same rate as if they saw the patient at the surgery. That's my understanding, but I stand to be corrected, I am no expert.

Also, as the OP noted, a doctor paying a home visit may have much less access to medical equipment than he or she has at their surgery - they're basically limited to what they can carry in their briefcase and/or car. If need be, you go to the patient's home, but in other cases, the resources available at the surgery may be useful, if not downright necessary. Eliyohub (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some North American readers might appreciate this claritication: when Aspro and Eliyohub refer to "the surgery", they mean what we call the doctor's office. (In North America "surgery" only has this meaning.) --76.69.44.144 (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us who used to watch All Creatures Great and Small might be more familiar with the British used of that term, than might the average American. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While this was sort of implied but some of the above answers, I don't think it was directly stated yet. Even outside of home visits, doctors aren't confined to hospitals. In fact, in many countries the doctor people see most often will be a general practitioner who will often be working in a clinic of some sort with some equipment but depending on various factors, maybe not that much and definitely no where near that you'd find in a hospital. Potentially there may be no medical laboratory, and either the clinic will send samples away, or the patient will need to visit one. Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also "clinics on wheels", which generally deliver only a small set of services, such as vaccinations or cardiac exams. They don't go to every home, but may go within walking distance of every home. StuRat (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

Indian religions swastika mistake for Nazi

The Indian religions, example Hinduism and Buddhism, use swastika for peace and good luck for many hundred years. But many Western people hate swastika cause Nazis steal it to use for hate. Wikipedia Swastika article has a bit about Western misinterpretation of Asian use but want to know more. Like how Jewish people feel about Indian religions swastika and they angry at Indians? In the Western countrys any attack on Hindu and Buddhist temples or discrimation to the Hindus and Buddhists cause of swastika? How try to help Western people learn about Indian religions swastika? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses mention the swastika at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000531, paragraph 8.

—Wavelength (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC) and 10:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting essay and comments on the subject.[13] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your last question, "How to try to help": some key words are interfaith and outreach. For example, I searched google for /hindu interfaith outreach/, and I found this organization in the USA [14], who try to help "non-Hindus to understand and appreciate the seemingly unfamiliar religions of the East." So, if you search for Hindu or Buddhist "outreach" in your country or other specific location, you will probably find organizations who want to help people of different faiths and traditions understand each other and get along in harmony. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that's it's not the only thing that we now see in a bad light, as a result of the Nazis. The toothbrush mustache, the name Adolph, and eugenics all got a really bad name. Probably time is needed for them to return to their formal status, although by then eugenics may be moot, having been replaced by genetic engineering. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me you're joking about eugenics here, Poe's law being what it is... --Jayron 32 02:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope Stu recognizes the difference between 1920s "Let's kill or sterilize everyone who doesn't look like us, because we are clearly the superior race", and the modern era's "Let's help parents decide if they'd like to have biological children by giving them the best possible information about their likely health." There's a reason people aren't keen to bring back the term. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the genocidal version of eugenics made the sensible parts, like offering free sterilization to people who are carriers of severe genetic diseases, seem like it was genocide, too. But since we will soon be able to remove those genetic diseases through gene therapy, there's no longer the need. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, thanks for the essay and is the only good answer. SemanticMantis, very important for outreach to help people with all religions get along, but is like too big for my question about Indian swastika mistake for Nazi swastika. Wavelength and StuRat, what is the link to my question? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curious Cat, I can't provide references, but as an elderly (UK) Westerner (with some Jewish connections and an interest in World religions) I do not recall ever seeing a news report in the UK about an eastern good luck swastika being mistaken for Nazi support, so it can't be very common (or my memory is worse that I thought). It does sometimes happen that swastikas are daubed on temples (as well as synagogues or other buildings) by racist neo-nazis or displayed by immature people wanting to shock and offend. Most Western people, in my experience, know about the swastika's more ancient meaning and of the Nazis' misappropriation of it, and Jews are especially well aware of this.

Incidentally, the very similar fylfot was historically used in the West long before the Nazis, and while it is now sometimes discreetly removed to avoid unpleasant associations (for example, from the sign on the pub near my house called The Chamberlayne Arms, whose heraldic coat of arms contained several), few if any would confuse its appearance with support for the Nazis. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

quote is bugging me

Tried Googling it, this opening line is stuck in my head "The Duchess of Kent shot a lion across the river there, just this side of the kop." Anyone know the book?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you google "The Duchess of Kent shot alionacrossthe riverthere" (with those four missing spaces) you'll find a link to Ten Minutes to Turn the Devil by Douglas Hurd, but I can't read the actual text. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plank roads

In both the articles Plank Road and Plank Road Boom, this text appears "Three plank roads, the Hackensack, the Paterson, and the Newark, were major arteries in northern New Jersey. The roads travelled over the New Jersey Meadowlands, connecting the cities for which they were named to the Hudson River waterfront," yet in both, there is no citation that mentions that. Can anyone find a source for this? Eddie891 (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles titled Paterson Plank Road, Hackensack Plank Road, and Newark Plank Road that have probably enough sourcing to support such a statement. That is, the statement is likely reliable, though there is not a specific cite in those two articles. If you were looking to improve those two article, the best thing would be to review the source text from the road articles, and find sources to support the statement. --Jayron 32 23:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 19

Anti Muslim hate crimes that have turned out to be fake

Is there a list of antimuslim hate crimes that have turned out to be fake?99.119.9.245 (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is this video of a Palestinian funeral procession (with the "victim" allegedly killed by Israelis), where they drop the body, and he gets up and back into the funeral wrap. They didn't think they were on camera at that point, but an Israeli drone captured it: [15]. StuRat (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only people who would have an interest in collating such reports (as in, publishing lists, as opposed to individual incidents - the latter may well be reported in the media) would be anti-Muslims themselves, so make sure to verify accuracy of any given supposed incident from other sources. That's not to say that such incidents do not in fact happen. Eliyohub (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth remembering there's a big gulf between "wasn't actually an anti-Muslim hate crime" and fake. I recall a case (unfortunately I looked but couldn't find sources) where there an attack of some sort on a mosque. There was no definite indication it was a hate crime although as is common with attacks on places of worship it was investigated as a possible hate crime. However it was later discovered the attack was due to some dispute between members (and not because of sectarian reasons). There was as mentioned, no attempt to make it seem like a hate crime (it's not like they wrote 'this is for 9/11'" or something on it) so it would be inaccurate to call it fake, but it wasn't an anti-Muslim hate crime. Even if the perpetrators were one of the ones calling it a hate crime later, it's questionable if this would make it a "fake" and I don't think this happened anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More of an "individual hate" crime, i.e. personal not religious. When the OP raised the question, I first thought of that attack on a Sikh congregation in Wisconsin a few years ago, where the perp was so stupid he thought he was shooting Muslims. But that doesn't quite fit the bill either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risshū (Buddhism)

As far as I know, 律宗 is a Chinese Buddhist sect, at least originally. Baidu Baike says: 律宗，中国佛教宗派之一，发源地是陕西西安净业寺。 This page as it stands does not reflect this. Tooironic (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Household Law

Who has the authority to amend or change the Imperial Household Law? The Emperor or the elected government? Aside from the talks, nothing has been changed since 1947, correct?--96.41.155.253 (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Emperor of Japan is bossed around by his household staff, (a bizarre situation to my "western" mind!) he himself would presumably have near-zero power here. He can veto an appointment to the "Grand Stewardship" of the agency, but that's pretty much it. He doesn't even have any Reserve powers, unlike most constitutional monarchs, I believe. Convention, as I understand it, is that he's not even allowed to have an opinion, even on Imperial Household matters, at least publicly. So it would fall upon the Government to change things, though some things are "executive" rather than "legislative". The aforementioned Imperial Household Agency falls under the jurisdiction of the Cabinet Office (Japan), and they could presumably change its operations without any need for legislation. The Imperial Household Law that you mention, on the other hand, is presumably legislation, and only parliament could change it. Eliyohub (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More than one President

Does any person have a job title of "Second/Third/etc President"?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 10:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc. If you mean "anyone anywhere", Google might turn up some examples. But the prefix "vice" means "substitute",[16] like if the president is incapacitated. That doesn't preclude some organization somewhere using a term like "second president" rather than "vice president", of course. Many large organizations have multiple vice-presidents, who aren't necessarily "substitutes" but are merely second in command to the president for their specific departments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inauguration Day

We all know the president places his hand on a bible and takes the oath of office, but what other details need to be satisfied? Does he sign anything declaring he understands or accepts the responsibility? Is there an official recording to 'prove' he accepted the oath? Who picks the bible? I have some Baptist friends who only recognize the King James Version and some Catholic friends who only recognize the Catholic version. What if he were Jewish, Muslim, or atheist? Does the outgoing president do anything to relinquish his position or does he just move out?68.191.203.98 (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 361: / Line 361: @@
 Does any person have a job title of "Second/Third/etc President"?—[[User:Eat me, I'm an azuki|azuki]] ([[User talk:Eat me, I'm an azuki|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Eat me, I'm an azuki|contribs]] '''·''' [[Special:EmailUser/Eat me, I'm an azuki|email]]) 10:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 :{{small|John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc.}} If you mean "anyone anywhere", Google might turn up some examples. But the prefix "vice" means "substitute",[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=vice] like if the president is incapacitated. That doesn't preclude some organization somewhere using a term like "second president" rather than "[[vice president]]", of course. Many large organizations have multiple vice-presidents, who aren't necessarily "substitutes" but are merely second in command to the president for their specific departments. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 10:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
+== Inauguration Day ==
+We all know the president places his hand on a bible and takes the oath of office, but what other details need to be satisfied?  Does he sign anything declaring he understands or accepts the responsibility? Is there an official recording to 'prove' he accepted the oath? Who picks the bible?  I have some Baptist friends who only recognize the King James Version and some Catholic friends who only recognize the Catholic version.  What if he were Jewish, Muslim, or atheist?  Does the outgoing president do anything to relinquish his position or does he just move out?[[Special:Contributions/68.191.203.98|68.191.203.98]] ([[User talk:68.191.203.98|talk]]) 13:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)