Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 25

Minimum requirements of Anglicanism?

What are the minimum requirements of a church to be recognized as part of Anglicanism? I am trying to distinguish Anglicanism from Non-Conformist religions in the 19th century. What makes the Non-Conformist religions non-conforming? How does the Anglican church deal with heretics and religious dissenters? Are religious dissenters sent to the United States of America? Queen Mary I was Catholic who persecuted Protestants. Queen Elizabeth I was a Protestant who persecuted Catholics. Is the only difference between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism that Anglicanism allows divorce (King Henry VIII) while Roman Catholicism does not? Or are there more Anglican things that makes Anglicanism Anglican? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Our articles Anglicanism and Anglican doctrine would be good places to start. DuncanHill (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The classic statement is the Thirty-nine Articles. You may also want to look at Via media... AnonMoos (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• There are two aspects to this, sharing the theological views of the Anglican church and also being "in communion with" the Church of England.

Henry VIII's Reformation was much more complex than it is ever taught in schools. He did not divorce his first wife, Catherine, he had the wedding annulled, which is different - rather than ending a marriage, annulment effectively declares that it had never taken place in the first, because it had always been an invalid marriage. The Roman Catholic church recognised this process, but Pope Clement had refused to grant or recognise an annulment for Henry and Catherine. Clement had already suffered through the Sack of Rome and either had no wish to antagonise the European dynasties any further or simply for theological reasons he refused this (Henry's marriage would firstly have been seen as invalid, as Catherine was his brother's widow, but he'd already been granted a dispensation to marry despite, and so Clement saw this as making the marriage valid and thus indissoluble). Henry wanted that annulment, so he split from Rome. Yet the new Anglican church was still (and remains) a catholic church, just no longer a Roman Catholic church, under the authority of the Pope. Henry had no great interest in Lutheran or Calvinist reforms in that theological Protestant sense, he just wanted that annulment and would change the authority of the Anglican church to get it, without necessarily anything more than changing its loyalties.

Then Tudor politics kicks in, and the theological basis of the Anglican church swings around in a complicated fashion, involving various persecutions of and by Roman Catholics, and the lighting of candles in Oxford. Then Stuart politics happens, and the English Civil War.

The Civil War period and the 17th century sees the appearance of liberation theology and is a time of a great many nonconformist [sic] religious and political groups: Diggers, Levellers, Grindletonians, Muggletonians, right through to the early albums of Billy Bragg. After the Restoration of the monarchy we see the Clarendon Code trying to restore the previous order, part of which was the 1662 Act of Uniformity and the resultant Great Ejection.

A Nonconformist is someone who is recognised as broadly a Protestant but outside the Act of Uniformity; hence the name, and the concept as a single group really dating from this point. But at least they were ejected, rather than burned, as they would have been a hundred years earlier, as were those Catholics under the 1559 Act of Uniformity.

Nonconformists were tolerated in Britain, but constrained. They had freedom of worship (particularly after the Toleration Act 1689), but were excluded from many roles in society, such as the church, public offices, university degrees and may still be required to pay taxes to a local Anglican church.

An important new group of Nonconformists appeared in the 18th century, including the Methodists. By the middle of the 19th century, Nonconformists began to outnumber Anglicans. From 1828 the Sacramental Test Act allowed non-Anglicans to enter politics. Nonconformists were an important group in Victorian politics, as the "Nonconformist conscience" was tied strongly first to the Whigs or their successors the Liberals, especially under Gladstone.

Back to your question - I note you're asking from the US. So is the "Nonconformism" you're looking at here meaning a theological difference, a hierarchical difference (there are US churches who follow broadly Anglican theology without being in communion with Canterbury) or the political groups in UK Liberalism who had their roots in religious Nonconformism? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If he is in the U.S., the largest Anglican denomination in the U.S. is the Episcopal Church (United States). American Presbyterianism is the largest mainline group in the U.S. to have come down from English dissenters, while the United Methodist Church us the largest Wesleyan group, and the Baptists in the United States are also a large presence, those also decend from English protestant traditions from the time period Andy Dingley is discussing. --Jayron32 12:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Presbyterianism is and was almost unknown in England. It developed on the West coast of Scotland, with roots in French Calvinism (the Auld Alliance), spreading to Northern Ireland with the Plantation, and thence to the US. English Presbyterianism did exist, but it was far, far smaller than in Scotland, secretive and little known, and had far less influence. Even today it's barely visible outside its churches, and most of these were 19th century foundations by Scots Presbyterians, rather than 17th century English. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that correction. --Jayron32 12:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Presbyterians had a long history in Wiltshire, particularly around the Trowbridge, Warminster, Bradford area, going back to the 17th century. They did rather overlap with various strains of Baptists, Congregationalists, and even Methodists, and now form part of the United Reformed Church. DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. But it may be a bit more complicated than that. Our article English Presbyterianism equates the Congregational church with ’Independents’, and says:

Aside from Quaker meetings, the English Dissenters styled themselves as either ‘Independent’ or ‘Presbyterian’. <snip> [The latter] regarded each chapel as just another parish church. It was this attitude which, at first, caused particular animosity towards Presbyterians from some Anglicans, who regarded them as schismatics, actively seeking to divide the Church in England. <snip> The more open attitude of Presbyterian congregations led them to appoint ministers with a more liberal viewpoint, which, amongst other factors such as their ministers being trained in the Dissenting Academies, led to a growing heterodoxy into Arminianism, Arianism, and eventually Christian Unitarianism.

This is further discussed in the history of British Unitarianism. Not all Presbyterian chapels were folded into the United Reformed Church. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• At this point it starts to become important to distinguish the issues of nonconformity as being either Presbyterianism (an issue of how congregations are governed) distinct from Unitarianism vs. Anglican Trinitarianism (a theological issue), or other reasons. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

How uk government works

So policy advisors and analysts research and put up options to politicians who make laws, with the support of legal experts. But who actually delivers or implements politicians decisions? Also, what do policy advisors not employed by government do? Do they all advise government in their area of expertise or do they advise leaders of their field/organisation? 194.81.217.65 (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

For the answer to your first question, see Civil Service (United Kingdom). --Viennese Waltz 14:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Also what role do diplomats play? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.217.65 (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by diplomats? A diplomat is a high level civil servant who works for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. --Viennese Waltz 14:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

What's the minimum amount of paper $ or £ redeemable for gov't gold right before the 1929 Crash?

Would 3 singles do it or did they only exchange multiple gold coins at once? A pound note? Did you have to go to a Federal Reserve Branch or whatever they called the US bank back then or would a small town bank do it? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

According to Series of 1928 (United States Currency), the smallest Gold certificate was $10.00 --Jayron32 15:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

According to Bank of England 10s note, the smallest paper currency issued by the UK was the 10 shilling note (under the old £sd system) issued in 1928, however that same article notes that banks did not redeem notes for gold weighing less than 400 ounces; according to this Britain pegged their currency to the Gold standard at a rate of £4.25 per ounce. Doing some math, that means the smallest amount of money you could get in gold was £1700. --Jayron32 15:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

400 troy ounces being the standard weight of a gold bar: they wouldn't cut them up for you! Wymspen (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

They could give you bullion coins of smaller weights. --Jayron32 19:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

A 0.17 gallon gold brick: something every East Ender seamstress will want to drag home! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

International Building Code

Is the International Building Code adopted as standard by any country other than the US? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Read this. --Jayron32 19:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Late medieval pattern books for art

This is a topic which Wikipedia seems to lack an article on, and I can't get much information from the internet in general either. Here's a relevant post on a blog, with this quote:

"In Medieval times, book illustrators aimed to produce very rich illustrations to decorate their books. For inspiration they kept pattern or model books. These books contained jottings of anything that caught the illustrator's eye: figures, animals, monsters, decorative capital letters, borders, motifs. But these weren't drawn firsthand - they were all borrowed from earlier books, paintings or glass windows. [..] Pattern books were practical tools and also helped to circulate artistic traditions and ideas around the manuscript making community. Because they were working documents, passing between many different people, few medieval pattern books have survived."

The quote apparently comes from a now-deleted page on the British Library's site.

Here's some pages on Commons from the 1504 manuscript, and here's the Helmingham Herbal which contains a lot of the same drawings in a different order. What I want to know is, are there any other examples of pattern books? We have an article for bestiary, but that's not quite the same thing, and it doesn't mention this use. I'm interested in specifically art-oriented books that might have belonged to artisans. In particular I have a very old memory of watching a documentary which talked about pattern books for parts of animals, such as a lion's feet, dragon wings, or an elephant's trunk, which would be copied repeatedly, leading to a parallel natural history with its own evolution of stylised animal parts. I'd like to find examples such books.

The blog post has this link at the end, which goes to the Web Gallery of Art. The links on that page rapidly advance into naturalistic renaissance art, though the 15th century Bohemian example seems to fit the bill. But that's only a glimpse of one book, where can I find other sources? There could be potential to create a Wikipedia article.

 Card Zero  (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a great article idea!

Medieval Illuminators and Their Methods of Work By Jonathan J. G. Alexander, Yale University Press 1992. Might need trip to print library or WP:RX to access.

This source suggests "model books" as another search term.

Materials, Methods, and Masterpieces of Medieval Art By Janetta Rebold Benton, Greenwood Publishing 2009 also uses the "model books" term.

Interesting reference to pattern books containing images in Ancient Egyptian style.

Exemplum: Model-book Drawings and the Practice of Artistic Transmission in the Middle Ages By Robert W. Scheller, Amsterdam University Press, 1995 (see also its bibliography).

The Grove Encyclopedia of Materials and Techniques in Art may itself provide enough material to begin an article. It refers to "The notebooks of the 13th-century French architext Villard de Honnecourt (fl c. 1220-40) occupy a unique position within the medieval graphic tradition, combining an instructional manual with theoretical precepts." (Goes on to describe him showing how to build animals from geometric shapes.) There's also a paragraph on pattern books with a few other names. Our article on de Honnecourt looks well sourced too.

P.S. Just for fun, you might enjoy the charming "Two Monks" series at the Toast. Start here... 174.88.10.107 (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Marquis of Bath

My Trollope ancestors come from Horningsham, a village owned by the Marquesses of Bath. In researching my family history I have noticed that in the 19th century and into the early 20th century the spelling "Marquis" was used instead of "Marquess". Was this a preference of the Thynne family, a local spelling, or what? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

See Marquess: In Great Britain and Ireland, the correct spelling of the aristocratic title of this rank is marquess (although for aristocratic titles on the European mainland, the French spelling of marquis is often used in English). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Which doesn't say anything about the Baths, which is the specific case I am interested in. DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Neither a preference of the Thynne family nor a local spelling: it just reflects a national change of fashion. The OED's citations for the British title, as opposed to the continental one, show marques, marquess or marquesse was usual in the 16th and 17th centuries, marquis or marquiss in the 18th and 19th centuries, with marquess taking over again sometime during the 20th. Here are the later cites, showing the final change:

1808 J. Austen Let. 2 Oct. (1995) 142 The Marquis has put off being cured for another year.
1845 H. H. Wilson Hist. Brit. India 1805–35 I. iii. 147 Information of the death of Marquis Cornwallis arrived in England at the end of January, 1806.
1901 Empire Rev. 1 466 First in rank come the dukes,..then follow in order of precedence, marquises, first created by Richard II.
1951 V. Heywood Brit. Titles 32 There are five ranks in the Peerage—barons, viscounts, earls, marquesses and dukes.
1987 S. Weintraub Victoria (1988) iv. 78 Lord Grosvenor had been made Marquess of Westminster.

--Antiquary (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Antiquary, I have to say I prefer "marquis" myself. One thing did come to mind - in Simon Raven's Alms for Oblivion and First Born of Egypt series he (or some of his characters) deride the Marquesss Canteloupe for changing from Marquis to Marquess, and Canteloupe is to some extent based on one of the Baths. DuncanHill (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Muffetiere

What is a muffetiere? George III gave a silver one to John Richards Lapenotière after he brought the news of Trafalgar. DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

A sugar shaker.--TMCk (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - the only ghits I can find for this word are the Wikipedia Lapenotière article and articles obviously adapted from it. Earlier versions of the article said "Silver spice sprinkler" which seems more likely. The "Muffetiere" was insewrted by an anon. I'm going to change it back to spice sprinkler. DuncanHill (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm that the OED knows nothing of "muffetiere". Anon was perhaps misremembering "muffineer": "A small castor with a perforated top for sprinkling salt, sugar, etc., on muffins." (A castor in this sense is not a beaver nor a furniture wheel but "A small vessel with a perforated top, from which to cast or sprinkle pepper, sugar, or the like, in the form of powder; extended to other vessels used to contain condiments at table, as in ‘a set of castors’, i.e. the castors and cruets usual in a cruet-stand.") There are other muffin-related meanings for "muffineer". I am also charmed to discover the "muffetee", a sort of mitten, wristlet, or neck-muffler. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Liskeard and District Museum confirms that it's a muffineer:

The King’s breakfast table was used to show him the disposition of the ships and to recount the events of the battle and a muffineer was used to represent HMS Victory.
The King thanked Lt. Lapenotiere for the efficient and sympathetic manner in which he had discharged his duties and presented him with the silver muffineer. Some years ago descendants of Lt Lapenotiere presented this to Liskeard Town Council where it is now part of the town’s silver.

--Antiquary (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both, Antiquary and Carbon Caryatid, you've cleared that up in a highly satisfactory manner. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

One of Sir Walter Ralegh's judges

One of the judges at Sir Walter Ralegh's trial is reported to have later said "The justice of England has never been so degraded and injured as by the condemnation of the honourable Sir Walter Raleigh". Do we know which judge and when and in what circumstances he said it? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Entering the quote into Google Books suggests Francis Gawdy, although it is possibly apocryphal. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

References

April 26

Maps of the Spring and Autumn Period

Are there any maps depicting the mosaic states found during the start of the Spring and Autumn Period, i.e. when hundreds of states were coexisting before the consolidations during 7th and 6th century BC?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This one is dated 827-782 BC. --Jayron32 10:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

On what charges was she executed?

The article of Clara Petacci state that she was executed rather than murdered (it also has the execution-category), but it does not state on what charges she was executed. For which crime was she executed? Thank you!--Aciram (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

In the midst of a revolution, the difference between an execution and a murder isn't so clear. These were what is often called summary executions. That is, while there was a consensus that they should be killed among whatever provisional government was in place on that day, there was no formal trial. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If you haven't already seen it there is some info here Death of Benito Mussolini. I couldn't find the specific answer to your question though so hopefully another editor will be able to post them here. MarnetteD|Talk 20:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

From a brief glance at that article, it doesn't appear there were any formal charges for anyone, including Mussolini. Someone tell me if I misread it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Our article on Petacci is pretty bare-bones. There's a much more extensive article on her in Italian, it:Clara Petacci. It reports that she and Mussolini were "assassinated" by partisans, "in spite of the fact that there was no pending sentence for Petacci" (what, was Mussolini sentenced in absentia or something? I had never heard that). Apparently some claim that she tried to protect Mussolini from the partisans with her body and was shot for that. That sounds a little bit "opera" but who knows.

It sounds like she wasn't purely a love-stricken innocent extraneous to all the proceedings, though: She apparently wrote a letter to Mussolini urging him to execute Galeazzo Ciano. But I doubt the partisans knew about that, or cared if they did; Ciano was probably not high on their list of concerns. --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

An interesting contrast is that Mussolini's wife, Rachele Mussolini, was also captured by Italian partisans during the same time frame, in about the same place, yet was not executed, and lived to be 89, despite having fully supported her husband's actions. Was this because wives were treated differently than mistresses, in that time frame, in Italy ? StuRat (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

WAG alert: It's more likely that the reason is that she was caught separately and away from her husband. Petacci was probably just the victim of spillover rage against Il Duce. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wives and girlfriends alert? Nice double entendre! --Trovatore (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The Italian article seems to treat the partisans quite harshly. The relevant paragraph says

Il giorno seguente, 28 aprile, dopo il trasferimento a Bonzanigo di Mezzegra, sul lago di Como, Mussolini e la Petacci furono assassinati dai partigiani tramite fucilazione, secondo la versione diffusa a Giulino di Mezzegra, sebbene su Clara non pendesse alcuna condanna. La versione ufficiale, e anche alcune versioni alternative, affermano che venne uccisa perché si oppose all'esecuzione di Mussolini, frapponendosi tra il Duce e gli assassini , ma soprattutto per sadismo (come testimoniano le sevizie sessuali commesse dai partigiani sul suo corpo dopo l'assassinio) e per eliminare una testimone scomoda.

Basically it's saying that she tried to keep Mussolini from being shot, and they shot her for that, but also for sadistic sexual motives, and to eliminate a witness. And that they did sexual things to her body after she as dead. There is a reference, to a Professor Pierluigi Baima Bollone, about whom I have no other information beyond a Google search. I would be interested to know how well-established these claims are. --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the sexual stuff may be nonsense. It was added in this diff last October, without changing the cite. There is a complaint on the talk page about how the book doesn't say that. Google Books won't let me see the key paragraph, so I can't quite tell, but in any case the claim is suspect. I'm going to remove it from the Italian article. --Trovatore (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Despots sometimes get back what they gave, as it were. The Romanian guy and his wife are another example. Qadaffi is another one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, Elena Ceaușescu can hardly have been surprised that she would share her husband's fate. She certainly shared all his fame. Per our article, she was deputy prime minister, had a personality cult, got a PhD in chemistry based on work that was almost certainly done by others and which she probably didn't understand. Petacci doesn't seem quite comparable (even if one historian described her as having "Nazi rigor", she doesn't seem to have been publicly involved the way that EC was). --Trovatore (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yea, that whole family was a nasty bit of work. StuRat (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I read in one book that Clara wanted to die with Mussolini and that when encouraged to back off during his shooting, she instead chose to stand alongside him and was ultimately shot too. This says that "according to Mario Cervi, a revolutionary committee, made up of Leo Valiani, Luigi Longo..., Sandro Pertini and Emilio Sereni" ordered only Mussolini's execution, not Clara's. Brandmeister^talk 11:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Passing a bill vs. implementing a bill (US)

While trying to wrap my head around the US healthcare bill, MACRA, I noticed that it passed in 2015, but that the details on its implementation (how doctors would actually be reimbursed) weren't released until well over a year later – after much deliberation. Now I'm trying to wrap my head around THAT, (little embarrassed I didn't know how this is how things worked).

I'm not even sure about the basic terminology for this process. Is it a common political tactic in the US to push a vague bill through, and then fill in more polarizing details later? Are there any good articles on this? Any help would be great – thanks!

AlfonseStompanato (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it a common political tactic in the US to push a vague bill through, and then fill in more polarizing details later? Yup, except the "filling in" is done not by Congress, but by agencies of the executive branch. Congress basically passes a law saying, "We want X. Agencies A, B, and C are hereby tasked with implementing and overseeing the effort to do X." Here's a good summary from CrashCourse U.S. Government and Politics. Some relevant articles: Primary and secondary legislation, Rulemaking, Administrative law, United States administrative law. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

See also enabling legislation. 86.168.123.128 (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It also happens with with laws requiring states to do work. For example (staying in the health care field), each state implements Medicare. Federal Congress passes a law stating that all Medicare programs must do X. They don't tell the states how to do X or how to pay for X. They just say that every state must do it. MACRA is a Medicare reimbursement law aimed at shrinking the number of organizations providing health care for Medicare patients. Every year, they will take a very substantial amount of money away from the worst organizations and give it to the best organizations (they get to define what "worst" and "best" means). The worst ones suffer financially and get bought out by the best ones until there are just a couple very large health organizations left in the nation. Of course, this is all centered on Medicare and only Medicare. Only about 15% of patients are on Medicare (but most of fraudulent claims are through Medicare - so those criminals will likely suffer). 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

celebrity endorsements on politicians

I notice that in US, celebrities regardless they are actors, actresses, singers, and musicians endorses any candidates who is running for the presidential nomination of a political party like Danny DeVito endorsed Bernie Sanders to be the Democratic nominee but in France, I see that the candidates of the presidential election don't get endorsements from celebrities. Why? Is it against the law of election that a celebrity endorsing a politician running for presidency? Donmust90 (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

There were all kinds of celebrity endorsements of presidential candidates in 2016. For example, Scott Baio and Ted Nugent supported Trump. And they go way back. Sammy Davis Jr. supported Nixon (don't ask why). Babe Ruth supported Al Smith. It's very common. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you misread the Q. It's why celebrities don't endorse politicians in other nations. One possibility is that they fear government retribution. Not sure about France, but in Russia if you fall afoul of the ruling elite, you may be arrested on trumped up charges, or even killed. Auditing taxes might be a less drastic way to harass anyone the government doesn't like. StuRat (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. In any case, here's an article about some celebrity endorsements in the French campaign.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

We have a law against it in Canada, which doesn't exactly work. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:28, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

Hypothesis: For each country, celebrity endorsements reflect the nature and relative significance of such celebrities (e.g. performance arts) in a nation's culture. Compare the media coverage before vs during presidential election campaigns. Consider that this might indicate USA interest in celebrities per se and the political content is secondary. For a European example, prior to the Dec. 4, 2016 Austrian presidential elections, Conchita Wurst encouraged voters to support inclusive and liberal values, with the candidate's name mentioned only at the end. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they do, but you don't know enough French celebrities or read the French-speaking media to identify any. This is just an assumption on my part. No offence intended regarding your level of knowledge on French celebrities or language! Bear in mind though that both U.S. politics and celebrities are followed by the whole world, which explains why so many people worldwide may know, for example, that Ellen DeGeneres is a big Obama fan, that Kelsey Grammer is a Republican, just by being a fan of these celebrities, whether or not they follow U.S. politics. In the UK, celebrities can and do support various politicians. Here are some I recall (which may have changed!): Sean Connery supports the SNP, Carol Vorderman supports the Conservatives, Daniel Radcliffe supports the Liberal Democrats, Patrick Stewart is a Labour supporter, and so is Lily Allen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.23.25.64 (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

From a Greek perspective, it is more likely for the celebrity himself/herself to get directly involved in politics.

• Mikis Theodorakis, the famous composer, was a symbol of persecuted leftists for several decades and many of his musical works were political in nature. He was elected MP several times (1981-1986, 1989-1993), and served as a government minister from 1990-1992. He is considered rather controversial for switching parties. In the 1980s, he was an MP for the Communist Party of Greece, while in the 1990s he became an MP and minister for New Democracy (a liberal-conservative party that has served as the major force of the right-wing since the 1970s).
• Melina Mercouri, the famous actress, was known during the Greek junta for her political activism. She then became a politician for PASOK (the Socialist party, representing the center-left), got elected MP several times, and served as a government minister from 1981 to 1989, and from 1993 to her death in 1994.
• Thanos Mikroutsikos, the famous composer and song-writer, was known for his political activism and his support of Maoism in the 1970s. He joined PASOK in the 1990s, served as a deputy government minister from 1993 to 1994, and as government minister from 1994 to 1996.
• Liana Kanelli, a famous TV journalist known for her polemic style while speaking, became a politician for the Communist Party of Greece in the 2000s. She keeps getting elected MP non-stop since 2000. She is considered something of a public face for the party, though she is the only openly religious MP in a party mostly composed of atheists.
• Kostas Karras, a famous actor who was in the spotlight from the 1960s to the 1990s, became a politician for New Democracy in the 2000s. He was elected MP from 2000 to 2007.

There are several other actors, musicians, sportspeople, journalists, and writers who got elected or were political candidates, but these are the most notable I could remember. I am not certain whether former MP Georgios Karatzaferis counts as a celebrity. He is a former advertising executive, who has served as a journalist, media owner, and book writer. But he is much more famous as a politician. (Though to be honest, his ideas are not all that original. Jews/Israel are behind every major disaster (including 9/11), there was no Holocaust, Auschwitz and Dachau are myths, etc. Just the kind of crap your average right-winger keeps parroting. ) Dimadick (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Just for the record, MANY American celebrities also run for office, i.e. Ronald Reagan, Bill Bradley, Al Franken, Jack Kemp, Jesse Ventura, etc. --Jayron32 11:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Before Tony Halme was a Finnish MP, he was part of "The Foreign Fanatics", who battled "The All Americans". In that spirit, I'll namedrop Antonio Inoki, The Great Sasuke, Ken Dryden and Nikolai Volkoff (he ran in a Maryland district, and lost, but still counts). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:28, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

In Canada there was also Lionel Conacher and Red Kelly for hockey player politicians. And I suppose Kevin O'Leary counts as a celebrity if not a politician... Adam Bishop (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding France, the OP's premise is wrong. A number of celebrities endorse candidates. See here [2], although it's fewer than elsewhere. [3]. The second article claims that a growing cynicism regarding political practices in France is likely to blame. --Xuxl (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

April 27

Are there cultures/countries where people don't sniff flowers?

This is the time of year (Northern hemisphere) where I indulge myself in the pleasure of sniffing flowers. While my appreciation for many is the same as anyone's, I additionally make a point to sniff less-popular flowers such as those on common trees that occasionally seem to evoke sneezes or a sense of irritation; this is because it is my personal suspicion that flower sniffing is not a cultural practice or merely an idle, spontaneous pleasure, but a true instinct meant to induce immunological tolerance to pollen, and that the perception of floral scents as pleasant might be an adaptation to further it. Now while I haven't been in a good position to study the matter biologically, it occurs to me that a counter-example is possible based simply on known cultures: if the practice is a true instinct, there should not be any culture where it is unknown, though it is possible (like nose-picking) that there are many where it is intentionally suppressed. So... can you think of any such cultures? Wnt (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I find most flowers to smell like cheap perfume. That is, not at all subtle. So, I don't generally sniff them. I find food-related herbal scents more pleasant, like vanilla and mint. I am male, and somewhat suspect that the perception of flowers is gender-specific, and many men also find most flowers unpleasant smelling. This might explain why men don't like smelling like them, but women do. Interestingly, dogs seem to share this contempt for floral scents, and will roll in anything to get rid of it. StuRat (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

". . . many men also find most flowers unpleasant smelling. This might explain why men don't like smelling like [sic] them, . . ." News to this 60-y-o male – I've never encountered this proposition before now, though of course some individuals may dislike particular flower scents. If true this would be an interesting sex-based phenomenon, so could you direct us to some citations? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that, in the US at least, different scents are sold for men than women, containing things like musk rather than floral scents. This is why scented products, like perfume and deodorant, are rarely unisex. StuRat (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course, because men and women have different preferences for what their opposite sex should smell like, and scent themselves accordingly, but that has nothing to do with whether or not men enjoy the scent of flowers. Indeed, if female perfumes are "floral", it suggests that men do like floral scents. I'm still waiting for your Reliable Sources demonstrating that "many men . . . find most flowers unpleasant smelling."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.249.244 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Women don't just like floral scents in perfume, but also in cleaning products, etc., that the men don't smell: [4]. That site says that women prefer a variety of single-note fragrances, while men prefer spicy or complex scents. I wonder if the food-related scents I mentioned, like mint and vanilla, fit in the latter category. StuRat (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting your own source which is actually not only not supporting your claim but debunking it:
"...men are typically attracted to complex floral and spicy fragrances, women to simple, single-note fragrances."
--TMCk (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't misrepresent it at all. Read down further to where it talks about scented products being preferred by women: "By nature, women are a more interested, hence larger and more renewable segment of the market for scented items of all kinds. It is easier and more profitable to sell scents to women than men." Note that "of all kinds" includes floral scents. StuRat (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to your personal believe that you presented as fact, men do like floral scents and your own source that you've now provided confirms your mistake. It's as simple as that.--TMCk (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Floral scents bear a relation to the state of the natural world, and not only the state of the flower producing the scent, but to the overall biological environment. I think we should not be so narrowly focussed on whether or not we like a given scent but rather we should be focussed on the amount of information that all scents of biological origin provide for us, potentially at least. A person living close to nature could potentially find clues in prevailing scents to other biological phenomena that may be taking place in other areas of the environment. Bus stop (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and smelling fruit to see if it's ripe makes sense, but what valuable info do we gain from smelling flowers ? StuRat (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You or I might not be able to determine anything from smelling flowers, but a person attuned to the signals and cues of the natural world would be able to deduce the status of various other biological processes in other organisms as well as the state of or the past history of the non-biological natural world. I can't give you examples but we know that in an ecosystem there are interrelationships between organisms as well as effects of for instance recent weather conditions. Flowering may take place earlier or later in the season depending on temperature and water availability or scarcity. Obviously temperature and water availability would have impact on other organisms as well. Modern humans may have little awareness of and sensibilities to the natural world. But people more integrated into the natural world would understand aspects of the ecosystem from the olfactory signals from for instance flowers. Bus stop (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Never noticed Inuit smelling flowers in this part of the country. That is not because we don't have flowers there, are plenty and here and some are edible. Of course this area Victoria Island (Canada) is just a small part of where Inuit/Eskimos live so elsewhere in Nunavut, Greenland, Northwest Territories, Alaska and Russia people may well smell them. Now I'm curious for spring/summer to arrive so I can actually find out if they do smell. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Aside from cultures living in climate inhospitable to flowers (Far North), I found this, p. 336-337: "The Dhammapada makes it clear that flowers, like other beautiful objects, are potential temptations or distractions. Mara the tempter lets fly a flower-pointed arrow, a notion borrowed from Kama... More explicitly, it is written, 'Death carries off a man who is gathering flowers and whose mind is distracted, as a flood carries off a sleeping village". Brandmeister^talk 11:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The reference is to "gathering flowers" while the question posed concerns the olfactory relationship to flowers. Or at least that is my interpretation of the question. It should be noted that some flowers can be edible, therefore the cautionary note concerning gathering flowers seems questionable. The reference is to idly enjoying flowers. But I think that knowledge of the environment is anything but frivolous to people who live immersed in nature. Flowering plants provide such human inhabitants with important information that can increase the possibility of survival in an ecological niche. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Someone has actually written a Cultural History of Smell (apparently also at [5]). You will have to read it, though, to find out if they mention a culture that avoids flowers. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Flowers evolved pleasant scents to attract pollinators (citation needed). I expect it's a happy coincidence that bees and people both enjoy sweet foods, so what smells good to bees also smells good to humans. At high elevations (I think above 10,000 feet, it's been a few years since I heard the ranger talk at Rocky Mountain National Park), there aren't many bees, the main pollinators are flies, and the flowers smell like rotten meat. So you might look at regions of high elevation for cultures that don't enjoy sniffing flowers.--Wikimedes (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a coincidence that bees and people both like sugar. Sugar is quick source of energy, so any animal that can digest it is likely to seek it out. Too much sugar is bad, of course, but it's difficult to get too much in the conditions in which we evolved. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course. The coincidence is that the scent that was evolved to attract bees also attracts other organisms, in this case humans. Was that not clear? Or perhaps you think that the underlying reasons for this coincidence are relevant to OP's question?--Wikimedes (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I took "I expect it's a happy coincidence that bees and people both enjoy sweet foods" to mean exactly that. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Wikimedes (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

WWII maps

I'm looking for maps produced in 1941-1943 that's similar to this one[6]. Specially I'm looking from ones from the allied countries and ones from Nazi Germany. I want to compare and contrast how the different countries and territories are labeled.

Presumably all the allied countries would still use the original country name and original borders since they don't recognize the Axis power's illegal occupation. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe the Nazis did keep most of their conquered nations intact, so the names would be the same, except in German. Exceptions were for regions they annexed, like Czechoslovakia, part of Poland, and part of France. See Areas annexed by Nazi Germany. You might also be interested in Generalplan Ost, their eventual plan for Eastern Europe. StuRat (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Nazi side is of great interest to me as well. Did they 1. label the original country names, 2. label it by the administrations like in [7] (Reichskommissariat Ukraine, Reichskommissariat Ostland, etc), or 3. label the entire thing "Deutsches Reich"?

I see lots of reproduction maps both on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet, but I have not found a single clearly labeled map from 1941-1943 so far. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The Category:German exonyms and its included lists will be useful to you. I'd suggest reviewing and familiarizing yourself with the names in regions of interest even before you study the related map. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"I believe the Nazis did keep most of their conquered nations intact"

With the Axis occupation of Greece, the intentions of the three occupying powers (Germany, Italy, Bulgaria) were different.

• The German occupation zone was supposed to be occupied for the duration of the war, and then controlled through puppet governments. No plans for annexation. The puppet government was called the Hellenic State.
• Italian leadership disagreed about what to do with the Italian occupation zone, though there were plans for the post-war annexation of at least part of the area. Epirus was supposed to be annexed by the Italian-controlled Albania.
• Bulgaria pretty much declared the Bulgarian occupation zone to be fully annexed, using as a pretext its territorial claims in the area from the Balkan Wars. It led a campaign of Bulgarization of the local population, banned the use of the Greek language, and deported the supposed representatives of Greek authority (mayors, landowners, industrialists, school-teachers, judges, lawyers, priests, Hellenic Gendarmerie officers). Much of the property of the Greek population was confiscated and granted to Bulgarian peasants, and settlers from Bulgaria were brought in the area. Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's one of Central/Eastern Europe: [8]. According to the website I found it on it's from a 1941 book called "Landvolk im Werden" (‘The people's country in the process of formation’). The arrows represent (proposed) plans to resettle Germans to annexed Poland. Interestingly occupied Western Europe is marked as if they were fully independent countries. Alcherin (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That's because Germany's aims were not necessarily to take over all of Europe, but rather to re-establish what they saw as Germany's natural borders (see German Question for some historical background). In the west, this only really included Alsace-Lorraine, while in central and eastern Europe it included places like Austria, the Sudetenland, Baltic lands (formerly Teutonic States and Prussian lands), etc. At best, Germany intended friendly or puppet regimes in other countries, but intended them to be at least nominally independent. --Jayron32 11:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a few contemporary maps linked on this site, such as [9]. Alcherin (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

See also Greater Germanic Reich. Alansplodge (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Has a fight stopped IRL for everyone to look at a rolling explosive or NCBR weapon then started the instant the danger passed?

That happened in a James Bond movie or Operation Condor or something. A chemical weapons container or bomb is dislodged by the kung fu and everyone stops what they're hitting to watch it roll. The instant it hits the wall intact everyone starts fighting again. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it's been more than a TV Trope. Either with an NCBR, CBRN, NBC, ABC or NRBQ. In a serious fight between trained badasses, the first one to stop and look away generally dies. Chins should stay down, hands up and eyes forward. Less serious fights between average Joes are more likely to allow timeouts, but typically don't take place around Bond-level weapons. More usually letting mundane common threats like cars, cops or teachers pass. Sometimes just a moment to catch a breath. There are systems in place to ensure normal goons don't guard very important things. These systems would make for terribly boring action movies. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

Jane Eyre and missionaries to India

In Jane Eyre, there was that guy -- St. John Eyre Rivers. I know India has a lot of Hindus, but there are the St. Thomas Christians in India. The St. Thomas Christians claim to be descended spiritually from Thomas the Apostle. So, did British people know about the St. Thomas Christians or the fact that Christianity had already spread to India by one of the original followers of Jesus? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The Portuguese already knew about them in the 16th century, but had an ambiguous attitude towards them (as "Latin rite" Catholics generally did towards non-Catholic Christians from other traditions). AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Christianity in India mentions some British missionaries to India, but they all seemed to be working in areas far removed from Kerala, which is where the St. Thomas Christians are mostly from. Which is not to say they didn't know of them. --Jayron32 14:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christians#British period has some good information. --Jayron32 14:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the British knew. For example, here is a published description from 1845, two years before the publication of Jane Eyre. The author refers to the Kerala Christians as the Syrian Church, and condescendingly (missionarysplaining?) describes them as "corrupt" and "having many errors in doctrine and superstitions in practice". Anyway, have a read; the text reveals the missionary attitudes, and by this account Anglican/Protestant missionaries had been aware of this group since at least 1806. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There was a significant difference in the missionary approach to the St Thomas Christians: while the aim was to convert Hindus and Muslims to the Christian faith, they sought to reform the ancient Syriac church to bring it into agreement with (in particular) the Church of England. This resulted in the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, which separated in the 19th century. There are other groups which moved closer to the Roman Catholic Church, while some retained their ancient traditions. There are now eight different churches within the family - Saint Thomas Christian denominations Wymspen (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Biography of the Black Duke

I'm looking for an English language biography of Frederick William, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, known as the "Black Duke", a remarkable character who was an ally of the British during the Napoleonic War and was killed in action on the day before Waterloo. I found one for his father, Charles William Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick: An Historical Study, 1735-1806 and one about the man himself Der Schwarze Herzog: Friedrich Wilhelm von Braunschweig-Oels, but it's in German, my knowledge of which is derived solely from the pages of The Victor. Alansplodge (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a good bit about him in Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, but hardly what you are looking for. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Got it: "Within a window'd niche of that high hall / Sate Brunswick's fated chieftain; he did hear / That sound the first amidst the festival, / And caught its tone with Death's prophetic ear; / And when they smiled because he deem'd it near, / His heart more truly knew that peal too well / Which stretch'd his father on a bloody bier, / And roused the vengeance blood alone could quell: / He rush'd into the field, and, foremost fighting, fell". Alansplodge (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

April 28

Are people supposed to order several things at a restaurant at different times or at one time?

In a restaurant, there is a list of courses - appetizer, main course, side course, dessert, and drinks. Are people really supposed to order the appetizer before the main course and then order the dessert at the end? Or are people supposed to order one from each category in the beginning and the plates will be delivered from appetizer to dessert? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This video goes through the process step by step. If there is an event there that doesn't make sense to you, we can try to provide you additional resources. --Jayron32 14:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Just in case you can't be bothered to watch an eight-minute video to get the answer to your question, here it is. You order the appetizer (I normally prefer to call it starter) and the main course at the same time. Unless you tell the waiter differently, you'll be brought the starter(s) first. When everyone at the table has finished their starter, those plates will be cleared and the waiter will bring the main courses. If you want dessert, you will be given the menu again once you've finished your main course. --Viennese Waltz 14:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule. VW's post is correct for most restaurants but I have eaten at some that have separate menus for apps, entrees/sides and desserts with each being brought to the table at the appropriate time. MarnetteD|Talk 14:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Etiquette will vary somewhat depending on local culture as well. For Cantonese restaurants (not the best of Wiki articles), you'd order what type of tea you'd like, and then everything else at once. Alcherin (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You could order drinks, appetizer, main course, and dessert all at once from a prix fixe menu. It seems like we always did that in France, although it was confusing at first because I've never ordered like that in Canada (or the US). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

(US) It's common to order drinks first, while you read the menu and decide on the rest (or while at the bar waiting to be seated). Those drinks can just be water, possibly with lemon. Of course, if everyone knows what they want, they can order right away. However, I've noticed a problem that the person who seats you sometimes asks what drinks you want, even though they are not your regular waiter or waitress. They would then pass that info on to them. However, if you try to give them your full order they will stop you and say they will get the waiter/waitress, instead.

The reason to wait until the end to order dessert or anything to go is that otherwise they may prepare it too soon, so the desert will have melted and the to go order will be cold, by the time you are ready for it. You can order these in advance, but tell them to wait to prepare them until the end, but they may well ignore you. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

In France it's exactly as follows (I do this a lot). First they ask you if you'd like a drink. You can have the drink at the bar or at your table. Amuse-bouches may be served with the drinks. When they bring the drinks they ask if you're ready to order the food. You order the starter and main course. Sometimes you are also asked to order the dessert at that point if it has to be cooked to order. After the main course you are asked if you want cheese, which may be included in the menu. Then you are asked about dessert. After dessert you are asked if you want coffees, which may be served with petits-fours. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

(ex)"The reason", if there is one, is that you may actually be full after the entree ;-). And as a matter of etiquette, if you are invited, you should let the host order first and scale your order accordingly - if the host orders a just a Hamburger and a coke, it might be inappropriate to have bruschetta, salmon carpaccio, lobster, a lemon sorbet, and the filet mignon... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The host should see to his guests before himself. (UK) DuncanHill (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"I'll just have a small side of spaghetti ... but instead of meatballs, put a couple lobsters on top." StuRat (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The dessert can also be ordered to go, if you are full. And I find that if I have certain tastes in my mouth after the meal, like garlic, then something with fat, like ice cream, can help to reduce it. StuRat (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I've never seen pudding ordered to take away in a British restaurant. DuncanHill (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only one that does not order dessert at the same time so that I can go to another restaurant with a better selection? A restaurant in Yellowknife has an excellent Chinese buffet (and the only place that servers liver (food)). However, their desserts are only OK and come directly from the supermarket. I can buy President's Choice myself if that is what I want. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Dang, now I'm hungry!  --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3CF4:5668:5FB:EC43 (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

When does time fly or drag??

I always thought that time goes by slowly when you're waiting for something exciting, but quickly when you're dreaded about an unwanted event. The following URL, however, says that time goes by slowly in both of these cases:

https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/5941/why-do-some-days-feel-fast-and-others-feel-slow

Any opinions anyone has about these?? If possible, please include links to the appropriate Wikipedia articles. Georgia guy (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Time perception#Effects of emotional states may be helpful. Loraof (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd also note that sometimes I myself have different time perception for no apparent reason. On one day, for example, I feel that minutes pass faster than "normally", and on another day slower. This in turn forces me to do something faster or slower than I used to to be on time. Brandmeister^talk 18:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

“Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.” --Albert Einstein^[10] ...2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3CF4:5668:5FB:EC43 (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Citation requested for this unattributed quote. Blooteuth (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

An explanation of relativity which he gave to his secretary Helen Dukas to convey to non-scientists and reporters, as quoted in Best Quotes of '54, '55, '56 (1957) by James B. Simpson; also in Expandable Quotable Einstein (2005) edited by Alice Calaprice

— "Albert Einstein - Wikiquote". en.wikiquote.org.

--2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3CF4:5668:5FB:EC43 (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Modified:21:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• See also:

To simplify the concept of relativity, I always use the following example: if you sit with a girl on a garden bench and the moon is shining, then for you the hour will be a minute. However, if you sit on a hot stove, the minute will be an hour.

— Albert Einstein, Hermanns, William (1983). Einstein and the poet : in search of the cosmic man. Brookline Village, MA: Branden. p. 87. ISBN 9780828318730.

--2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3CF4:5668:5FB:EC43 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Notes

References

Thank you for the citations. Wikiquote notes multiple sources that differ in wording and time, which is a strong indication of the Chinese whispers distortion effect in oral tradition. Blooteuth (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It is also possible that the original was in German, with varying translations; or, he frequently used this example and simply worded it differently. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3CF4:5668:5FB:EC43 (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Is owning a human automatically slavery?

Humans already own dogs and cats. But they treat their beloved pooches and kitties with affection. The pets are fed, watered, sheltered, and played with. In return, the pets offer protection and companionship. But they are still owned. Humans also pay a fee for the adoption of human children, which goes to pay for the adoption agency's services and to show that they are sincere parents who will provide a loving home for the child. If Human 1 wants Human 2, but Human 2 belongs to Human 3, then Human 1 can ask Human 3 if Human 3 is willing to transact Human 2 in exchange for materials. If Human 3 is willing, then the transaction is made, but Human 1 must keep a promise to Human 3 to treat Human 2 with kindness, because Human 2 is biologically related to Human 3. There is money involved in all these cases. Can one human "own" another in an arrangement that is not slavery? Or is the concept of owning a human life automatically slavery? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Owning a human is slavery, by definition.

However, you may be interested in reading about the concept of "benevolent slavery". Here's a good article that covers this strange but pragmatic practice as it occurred in pre-civil war USA. Needless to say it was an artifact of the oppression that existed at that time. In a just society there wouldn't normally be a motivation to have such an arraignment. ApLundell (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be equating adoption, or parenting, with "ownership." That is not the case. --Golbez (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

That depends on the culture and time period. In some places and times the parents (usually just the father) did literally own the children, and could do whatever they wanted with them. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between slavery, parenting, and contracts, and you seem to be conflating most of these. While all three can confer obligations and rights by one person over another, they are sufficiently distinct that you should not consider them even remotely equivalent. --Jayron32 15:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

How are they different? A slave master can abuse the slave. A parent can abuse the child. And a pet owner can abuse the pet. If the pet or child or slave is abused, then the owner can be deprived of property by government action. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You're allowed to read those articles. No one here is preventing you from doing so and learning about those concepts yourself. If there is a statement made in one of those articles that you do not understand, we can provide you with additional references that may clarify it. --Jayron32 16:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

But the first sentence says that "any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property". Then, you see "Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour, to refer to such situations." So, a slave is a human that is bought and sold to do work. If there is no forced work involved, then a human can be bought and sold for another human's pleasure like a pet? A non-human animal that is forced to do work is called a draft animal. So, a draft animal is essentially a non-human "slave", but it's not a "slave", because in order to be a slave, you have to be a member of the Homo sapiens species. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have missed, misunderstood, or ignored the word "also" in the sentence you just quoted.

In any case, If you'd read the article I linked above, you'd know that slavery does not necessarily involve forced labor. ApLundell (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

But I still don't get why so many humans nowadays think that the idea of owning a human is a horrible idea, when non-human animals are already owned. If non-human animals are not forced to do labor, then they are considered a pet or companion animal. Keeping a companion animal is regarded as a sign of compassion, because leaving it on the streets is careless. Apparently, the reverse is true for human ownership. Buying a human and taking care of it is slavery. It is not interpreted as a sign of compassion at all. What if the human just wants to be fed and clothed and doesn't mind living in a prison cell? In that case, is slavery only wrong because the slaves themselves are actively resisting the power? If the slaves or draft animals don't resist, then does that mean that they are not enslaved? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps your misconception is due to the fact that you've never been introduced to the concept of human rights. That should provide you with additional reading. If there are sentences or passages or words (like "also", which you misunderstood above) that we can help you with, let us know. --Jayron32 18:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I was reading the article you linked me on the history of human rights. I have another question. Here it is: "17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract." Yeah, I know it says the fundamental rights "could not be surrendered". But will anything bad happen if those "fundamental rights" are surrendered or taken away? Humans already assume that non-human animals are property, but they take care of them and get them to do work. And humans are benefitting from controlling the lives and genes of plants and animals. Plants and non-human animals apparently have no rights. But somehow, for some reason, certain individuals that are close to humans in the phylogenetic tree have "rights". 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

One of the most fervent animal-rights groups (and even plant-rights) is the Jains, so you might read up on them. StuRat (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Apparently, some humans take the side that animals and plants have "rights", instead of taking the side that some individuals just hold relative dominance over others, and the dominance is justified, because being the winner is better than being the loser. The loser has to submit, die, or move elsewhere. If the loser can't move elsewhere, then the loser will perish. In the case of slavery, if all the slaves just kill themselves, then the slave masters will not be slave masters anymore. How can you be a master when there is no slave? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

50.4.236.254, these reference desks are intended for referenced fact finding and referral to appropriate further references and resources, not as forums for philosophical debate, exercises in logic-chopping, and explorations of unrealistic hypotheticals. It is perfectly obvious from your many queries in recent weeks on a wide variety of topics that you are intelligent and educated, though perhaps relatively inexperienced in some aspects of the world (youth is a self-correcting defect), and cannot be really misunderstanding what the other responders have already said above. Please stop yanking our chains. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I searched for "logic chopping". And I found this. I have to admit, I can totally relate to Paul and Bart. But I also admit that sometimes I fail to distinguish "logic chopping" and "critical thought". I thank you for providing me with that term. At least I am aware of this behavior. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have to second this. 50.4.236.254 has posted a large number of very bizarre and/or naive questions, which no one who has lived on this planet for any length of time could actually need answers to, or expect to get reliable references for. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] I would like to assume good faith, but it certainly seems like most of these questions are just intended to stir up debate rather than to get factual answers. CodeTalker (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you are cherry-picking some of my contributions to support your views. [18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Here are 7 examples that do not support your views. I usually keep a stockpile of questions in my head, because I tend to ask questions about the things around me in much greater frequency than other people. I think other people take this habit of mine as "debating", as if I am supporting some kind of alternative view passionately. No, I have no passion to advocate any view. Actually, I also tend to question my own views all too often. I think other people take this habit of mine as a bit asinine. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Talking about providing references: There are pretty good lectures on these kind of questions online. I really like OpenYale, in particular PHIL 181, PLSC 114, PLSC 118 and SOCY 151, all accessible from this page. Also, Michael J. Sandels Justice is available from Harvard (in theory) and On YouTube in reality. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln - August 1, 1858: "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is not democracy." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Childe Harold

Is there any connection between Byron's Childe Harold and the Childe Harold who disembowelled his horse and hid inside the carcass to escape a Dartmoor blizzard (he died anyway - full story here)? Alansplodge (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, I've not heard him called Harold before, I'm familiar with Childe's Tomb. DuncanHill (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DuncanHill, it seems that the story-teller was getting in a confusion. It was indeed just "Childe", see Devonshire Folk Tales. Alansplodge (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I just looked it up in William Crossing's Guide to Dartmoor - he says of Childe the Hunter "Childe does not seem to have been a proper name, though some writers not only apparently think it was, but have gone so far as to furnish the supposed hunter with another - indeed, he has had no less than three Christian names given to him, Amyas, John, and Oswald. In all probability it was the Saxon Cild, a common appellation". Cild we have an article on at Childe, and this is the Childe part of Childe Harold. Crossing gives a fuller account of the tomb and the legend in his Ancient Stone Crosses of Dartmoor, but alas I do not yet have a copy. DuncanHill (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

April 29

Taxes and Tax Return

I have read the article unreported employment. But I still want to know how the government finds out that I owe the government money. For most of my life, I earned pocket change through unreported employment or under-the-table employment. Only recently, I became formally employed. Does the government only care about my formally employment history? If I fill out one of those tax return forms and drop it in the mailbox at the post office, then how does the government examine the tax information from millions of citizens? Between the day of sending in the tax return form and the day of receiving the tax return, how many days are there? Are tax returns sent into my mailbox? What if someone looks into my mail and steals my tax return? Is it safer to overestimate my taxes than underestimate? If I dig into a landfill or dumpster and find valuable items like unspoiled food or discarded clothes, then do I have to count them as "taxable income", or am I allowed to keep them for my personal living? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

A few of your questions are possibly answerable here, but some appear to be requests for financial and/or legal advice and/or opinion. My advice to you is to not listen to the advice of random strangers on the internet. Consult an accountant or someone else qualified to answer you, such as someone who prepares tax returns professionally. Matt Deres (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Do they charge a fee for dispensing advice? If so, then it may be best to acquire information myself than ask someone else. I mean, tax lawyers probably went to law school to study tax law. If I become educated enough in tax law, then I may be able to understand how tax works in my own society, which means finding the academic database resources through my local library. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The tax authorities are not interested in food or clothing that you find, regardless of whether you acquired them with permission or without. Casual employment should always be reported to tax authorities on your tax return (though I cannot advise on whether or not the authorities have any way to find out if you fail to report). As Matt says above, if you are talking about significant amounts then you need to consult a professional. Dbfirs 07:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

One way they could find out: you could mention that you have earned unreported income on a public venue such as Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The unreported employment article says that the government may only be interested in large-scale operations, like a big business that hires many employees. They may not be interested in a few dollars made by one person who earned that money through participating in research studies or driving someone home. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you've misread the article. It clearly says the government is interested in small scale fraud when they find out about it via some other means. One such manner may be if people report said person to the government, after said person annoyed everyone by unbelievable questions and comments then told everyone they had annoyed that were involved in tax evasion. (I'd note in any case it seems to be concentrating on other aspects of enforcement rather than simply tax evasion, and most govermental tax departments do take an interest when someone's apparent income seems a lot higher than their reported income no matter if it's only one person.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not misread the article. The article clearly says that there is beneficial unreported employment. It writes of lemonade stands that have been shut down by law enforcement, which may suggest that even if it's illegal, the illegality will be badly received by the public. After all, they are only kids who make pocket change. So, even if I get charged with tax evasion, I doubt anyone will take the charges seriously, and the case may even be dismissed. For income tax threshold, the income must be $9,750 in 2012 for a single person. As you can see, by this fact alone, I have not committed tax evasion, as my unreported income is extremely low to be negligible. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't know why you bring up "beneficial unreported income" as it wasn't something I was commenting on. I only said that your initial claim that the government has no interest in small scale unreported income ("They may not be interested in a few dollars made by one person who earned that money through participating in research studies or driving someone home") is not supported by the article you refer to. The article specifically says "Discovery and enforcement of smaller-scaled unreported employment is typically through a secondary indiscretion like fraud, tax irregularities, and unrelated or partially related civil/criminal violations of the employer or employee."

Also you seem to be contradicting yourself since although you first said the government isn't interested, you're now saying that the government is interested, but it's just badly received by the public (and so perhaps not as enforced as regularly) which is a different point. And you're now even going as far as to suggest that you will be charged (which clearly means the government is interested) but the charges will be dismissed. Something incidentally in no way mentioned by our article, and which makes no sense. (This isn't legal advice but while jury nullification is a thing, it doesn't generally result in the charges being dismissed. That often requires the judge to be involved. And this is a big deal since jury nullification means you at least have to go through the whole trial process and run the risk that your belief the jury is going to do that turns out to be wrong.)

Also no one ever said anything about being charged with tax evasion as an offence anyway. The point is that when you are involved in tax evasion, and I have no idea or comment on whether you are (so your figures are irrelevant), the government tends to have multiple ways they can pursue you including often simply forcing you to pay tax and very stiff penalties on the unreported income. This may not go to court, unless someone decides to massively disrupt their life by challenging it. Of course their life may already be massively disrupted when the government involves them in a tax audit. Note that income thresholds are nearly always combined. If someone is earning money from a formal job, and this pushes them over the threshold this generally means any unreported income is above the threshold. Any yes, whatever happens with lemonade stands and youth odd-jobs, the government does tend to take an interest in any income someone reasons for driving for Uber or whatever in addition to their full time job, even if it's not something they have the resources to often actively pursue themselves. (In other words, even if it's correct that the government isn't going to or can't do anything about lemonade stands or teen odd jobs; there's a wide gulf between lemonade stands or even teens taking odd jobs, and large-scale operations. Precisely where you fit on this scale is something we're not interested and can't tell you. However your opinion of where you fit on the scale could easily be wrong, hence the suggestion you seek legal advice if necessary.)

Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Since we seem to be focused on the US... I would suggest checking out the irs.gov website as a reference. There, you will find answers to most of the questions about taxes that you have been asking. You should also look to see if your State government has a similar website. Blueboar (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Denying the holocaust

In England, the burden in a libel case is on the defendant to prove "justification", i.e. that what the plaintiff said was not true and therefore there is no case to answer. In America, it's the other way round - the plaintiff is required to prove that what he said is true. As these are both common law jurisdictions, why the discrepancy? This is the civil law - in the case of a prosecution for criminal libel the maxim is "the greater the truth, the greater the libel". 81.147.143.222 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

These definitions should reduce confusion.

libel n. Defamation, the illegal act of writing things about someone that are not true

plaintiff n. someone who brings a legal case (claiming libel) against someone else in a court of law

defendant n. someone who has been accused (of committing libel) and is on trial

Laws against holocaust denial exist as specific bans that vary with country, excluding UK and USA, that do not involve prosecution or defense of libel. Blooteuth (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

In terms of the discrepancy, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was the key point of departure, and the judgement was based on interpretation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Warofdreams talk 01:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Benoit Hamon communes PS primaries

Is there a website that shows which communes were won by Benoit Hamon during the second round of the Parti Socialiste primaries? Please and thanks. Donmust90 (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

If this article doesn't have the answer, then the sources therein might: French Socialist Party presidential primary, 2017 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3CF4:5668:5FB:EC43 (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

April 30

Modern Enid Blyton reprints

It's often said by (usually left-leaning) people that the editing of the reprints "doesn't change any of the plots".

Is that statement true?

For example, removing statements from The Famous Five that girls with short hair look like boys or that boys cannot wear pretty dresses are not neutral decisions. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You're asking for a judgement call, but it sounds like you've already made up your mind. ApLundell (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

you may be interested in Are the days of Enid Blyton bashing over? which attempts a balanced overview. Alansplodge (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Confederacy at the end of the war: Southern independence vs the preservation of slavery

The Civil War was fought over slavery, this is an undeniable fact. It was direct and indirect cause to the war. The South began a war of independence/secession over the issue (state rights, tariffs, enter every Confederate apologist's excuse to skirt around slavery) of slavery. Let's establish that as the starting ground...My question is that how did the rationale for the war evolve over the course of the war in response to emancipation and the Union commandeering of slaves and the destruction of plantations? Did the anyone in the Confederacy ever considered emancipation for the sake of continuing the war with the North? Who were the notable Confederate dissidents against slavery/were there any abolitionist in the army or government of the Confederacy who were more in favor of Southern independence than the preservation of slavery. --96.41.155.253 (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No, there was no consideration of abolition by the Confederate ruling class. Any who considered it were wise to keep quiet. Toward the end the South did grudgingly and half-heartedly consider arming slaves out of desperation (and even did organize a small unit or so, but too late for them to see combat), and I think the presumption -- or anyway, a presumption -- was these soldiers would be given freedom after the victory. Just those soldiers though; not a general emancipation. And I'm not even sure it was ever decided that they would indeed be freed.

Yeah there were a lot of southerners who had no use for slavery. Particularly hill country folk in the uplands and mountains of the Appalachians -- eastern Tennessee and so forth. But there wasn't any organized opposition to slavery among the lowland ruling classes. It was, essentially, illegal to advocate abolition in the South. And if not illegal, dangerous. Herostratus (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

96.41.155.253 -- Even before the fighting started, a few people pointed out that starting a war might not be the best way to preserve slavery, since it would probably change the line which fugitive slaves had to cross to attain freedom, from the Canadian border to the Ohio River -- and unless there was a quick or bloodless southern victory, there might be instability and turmoil which would shake up the status quo.

I doubt that there were prominent public abolitionists in the Confederacy, but towards the end of the war, some were in favor of drafting blacks as soldiers, which raised the possibility that it might be practically necessary to promise such soldiers their future freedom (as Herostratus has said)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Cookbooks

Are cookbooks made by mostly female authors or people of both sexes who choose female names? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Cookbooks are written by both male and female authors... but the male chefs usually author cookbooks in their own (male) names. Search "cookbooks" on Amazon and you quickly find hits for best selling cookbooks by male celebrity chefs like Gordon Ramsey, Bobby Flay, Geoffrey Zakarian and Alton Brown. They all want to capitalize on the name recognition that comes with their fame as chefs by selling cookbooks, and using a pseudonym (male or female) would defeat that goal. The same is true for female chefs. So.. I would say that if you see a female name as the author, it is probably written by a woman. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Schengen rules and refugees in Germany

When Germany allowed several hundred thousand refugees to enter their country, haven't they infringed common Schengen immigration rules?