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 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: [1]. 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 [2]). 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[3]. 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 [4] (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: [5]. 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 [6]. 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^[7] ...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. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14] 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. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21] 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)

Not just for the OP, but for everyone who doesn't want to read 14 papers about this philosophical debate: google Crash course philosophy #42 (cannot be linked here). By the way, I highly recommend this crash course philosophy series for anyone who wants an introduction to all the big philosophical questions. Doesn't mean to you have to agree with Hank Green of course. --Lgriot (talk) 14:29, 1 May 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)

The first amendment gives wide tolerance for ignorance. That's the price of freedom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Your mention of Holocaust denial suggests you're talking about the libel case Irving v Penguin Books Ltd (when the Holocaust denier David Irving sued historian Deborah Lipstadt and her publishers for libel after she called him a Holocaust denier). Our article on that case is extensive and talks a bit about the legal background and English libel law. Smurrayinchester 08:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • A perfect example of the old adage: Never sue - they might prove it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 1 May 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)

To me, unfamiliar with the books, after looking at Alan's link, it looks like there is a sort of bowdlerization going on here, to be sure one with different concerns than Bowdler's, but still a similar process.

However I don't see any obvious way in which it affects the plot. That's not saying the changes are neutral, just that I don't see how they change the basic structure of the story. Unless boys not being able to wear pretty dresses is somehow a causal aspect of the narrative? I haven't read the books, so I suppose I can't rule that out, but intuitively it sounds unlikely. --Trovatore (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about it, and it seems to me that "doesn't change the plot" is remarkably narrow grounds on which to defend changes to a work, even one for children. Robert A. Heinlein is called the "master plotter", and he was great at it, but if his stories had only plot, I wouldn't have been interested in them.

So I was idly wondering whether any writer ever took on the challenge of writing two stories, with identical plots, that make directly opposite philosophical points. Probably too easy, stated that way. How about this: The plots should be exactly the same; character development and characterization can differ, but only subtly. And they should both be good stories that competently support their opposite theses, which should be interesting in themselves.

Anyone know of such an attempt? I can imagine Italo Calvino trying something like this; you might point to two chapters of If on a winter's night a traveler and claim they satisfy the conditions, but that's maybe a little too abstract. --Trovatore (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You might like The Last Ringbearer. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The Mousetrap murder mystery play by Agatha Christie reputedly changes its ending to keep audiences guessing throughout its run of 64 years (still counting). Blooteuth (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, these are interesting. I might be interested in reading the LOTR parody except first I'd have to read LOTR, and I've always found Tolkien a bit of a snooze.

Neither really sounds like quite what I had in mind. Changing the ending counts as changing the plot, so that one's out. Telling the story from a different character's perspective, a la Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, is also more of a change than I wanted to allow.

I meant, the same characters do the same things, except I suppose they can do different things that don't have a causal influence on later developments, but that should be kept to a minimum. Different information might be given about their background, though it shouldn't be contradictory between the two stories, just a different selection of facts. Different language can be chosen to explain why they do things. All of these differences should be kept as subtle as possible.

But in the end, it turns out that one of the stories is a defense of emotion as the source of value, and the other is an argument that there are no values but survival, which end reason should rigorously serve. Or something like that. --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Parallel literature would probably be a place to look, but I don't know that anyone has actually created exactly that kind of experimental novel.

It nearly happens by accident. A lot of old sci-fi has very similar plot lines, but somehow it still manages to exactly illustrate whatever political point the author wanted to make. ApLundell (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The Last Ringbearer isn't exactly parody, it's more like unusually good fanfic. It got crappy reviews from critics who took it in the wrong spirit, but I liked it a lot. The movie Rashomon might be closer to what you want, though. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, parody would be what to call it for copyright purposes — see The Wind Done Gone. I don't think Rashomon captures it either; again, the stories are supposed to be from the point of view of the same character(s). Everything happens the same, but little background details, choices of wording, stuff like that, when you add it all up, you find you have a completely opposite story. --Trovatore (talk) 04:37, 2 May 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)

Maybe unless it was written by Betty Crocker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

My siblings and I learned to cook - as so quite probably many little boys and girls in Australia did with mum - from our mum's copy of The Margaret Fulton Cookbook. My mum's granddaughters and grandsons are learning to cook from the very same 1978 copy of that book.

--Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

And the mother of all cookbooks, Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management of 1861. Alansplodge (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Our Category:English food writers shows a small majority of females, also Category:American cookbook writers. Alansplodge (talk) 13:39, 1 May 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpierrepit (talk • contribs) 14:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Which Schengen are you talking about, and why do you think immigration violates the rules? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Schengen Agreement would be the logical deduction Bugs. AFAIK, all the nations of the Schengen Area have admitted significant numbers of migrants during the European refugee crisis. Alansplodge (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

An OP should explain what he's talking about. The reader shouldn't have to "deduce" it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

For European users, the question is quite clear. You shouldn't feel obliged to respond to every single question on these desks. --62.178.231.82 (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't, Mr. Drive-By, and the audience is not just Europe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't, Mr Baseball Bugs. But I frequently suppress my urge to make a snarky comment when a question makes no sense to me because I'm not American. Go thou and do likewise. --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You should direct your complaint to the drive-by. There's no reason for any OP to just assume that everyone in the English-speaking world knows what he's referring to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

_{WP:CIR here. Blooteuth (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)}

I don't believe this is the case. Germany got the biggest share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpierrepit (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The Schengen agreement does not imply freedom of travelling for refugees registered by one of the member States. The politics regarding of Germany remains within such boundaries. An external view and comments as published by the Congress in the USA. --Askedonty (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

(EC) I feel you might be thinking about the Dublin Regulation, not the Schengen Agreement. If you speak German, here’s some Information regarding legal issues. In particular, according to Article 17 of the Dublin (III) Regulation, all member states are free to "derogate from the responsibility criteria, in particular on humanitarian and compassionate grounds."

Alansplodge: Many Germans felt that the other EU member states didn’t contribute their share, particularly the large ones like France and the UK. The border states (Italy and Greece in particular) will probably think that’s ironic, though. Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 17:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed: the UK has claimed to be concentrating on taking migrants direct from refugee camps in the conflict area, although in terms of absolute numbers, it falls far short of Germany's effort. Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

According to the article linked above: "Four states – Germany, Sweden, Italy and France – received around two-thirds of the EU's asylum applications and granted almost two-thirds of protection status in 2014. Sweden, Hungary and Austria were among the top recipients of EU asylum applications per capita, when adjusted for their own populations, with 8.4 asylum seekers per 1,000 inhabitants in Sweden, 4.3 in Hungary and 3.2 in Austria."Clipname (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

What jurisdiction's license plate has the most possible combinations?

The regular vehicle registration plate, not the vanity kind. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I start the bidding at 3 English letters and 4 numerals for some US states (over 100 million possible license plates per state) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United States by state or territory would be the place for you to start your research. --Jayron32 11:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, Ontario probably has the most in North America, with 4 letters and 3 numbers. Xenon54 (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Chinese license plates can have an English letter (excluding the letters O and I) followed by five numbers or letters, greatly increasing the number of possible combinations (if my calculations are correct, to 1,090,450,176 possible license plates for the whole country). However, whether all of the five are not numbers is dependent on provincial/city convention so in practice the possible combinations are less. Alcherin (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

License plates issued after 2007 have apparently been limited to 2 letters in the last five places, but any two of the last five places can still be letters. At any rate, this reduces the number of possible combinations below 1 billion. Alcherin (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Indian license plates are separated by province/equivalents rather than applying to the whole country. Following the provincial code, there's a 2 number code (and sometimes a letter as well) for the district - 117 district codes for Tamil Nadu. After than comes up to two letters and four numbers. That's potentially 790,920,000 combinations for the state of Tamil Nadu. Alcherin (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

In Ontario, standard plates have four letters and three numbers. Some classes of personal truck have a different length for their plates (two letters, five numbers). I'm not sure about I/O, but that would leave us with 331,776,000 for cars (24 x 24 x 24 x 10 x 10 x 10) and 57,600,000 for trucks (24 x 24 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10) for 389,376,000 total (without vanities). Matt Deres (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

A letter position in a license plate should not be assumed to allow 24 different letters. Vehicle licensing authorities generally restrict letters that resemble numbers and letter combinations considered misleading or tasteless. Montana MVD bans a list of 4,212 plates[22], Maryland about 5000[23]. Thus plates such as PEN15, IOI101, OOO123, TITS4U are rarely allowed, or may attract collector interest if they occur. Here is a big list of plates that can't be bought in USA that comes with a warning that it may be offensive and not be suitable for all ages. Blooteuth (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

For sure, but taking ~30,000 away from 389 million is less than a percent of a percent. Matt Deres (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do Australians and Canadians and Americans use the dollar while the British use pounds and pennies?

Americans count their money by dollars and cents. For a fraction of a dollar, that may be represented by coins - penny, nickel, dime, quarter, half-dollar, and dollar coin. Australians and Canadian also have their own dollar. But British people have 2p and 5p coins and pounds? Why do Canadians and Americans name their coins while Australians and British people give their coins uncreative names? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Define "creative". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You've obviously forgotten the British groat, sovereign, crown, florin, shilling (bob), and tanner. I agree that these modern decimal fractions have less interesting names. Dbfirs 19:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not entirely true to say we don't have names for our modern coins. One pound is very often referred to as a "quid", and increasingly (IMO) a "squid". The 10p coin is sometimes referred to as a "2-bob coin" as this is what it was worth pre-decimalisation. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Australia wanted a decimal currency and 1000+ submissions were received for the new name. The prime minister wanted the name royal but the name dollar was chosen. Before 1966, Australia used the Australian pound and coins had the standard names: halfpenny, penny, threepence, sixpence, shilling and florin.
Sleigh (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Also crown and half crown coins. Interestingly, the Australians went for a dollar equal to 10 shillings, while the UK retained the pound. A maths textbook we used at school which had been printed before the details of decimalisation had been finalised, used "pounds" and "cents". In the end, the new penny (worth 2.4 old pence) was adopted.

Before Decimal Day in the UK in 1971, there were also informal nicknames for coins; "tanner" for a sixpence, "bob" for a shilling and "half dollar" for a half crown. No nicknames for the new coinage seem to have caught on, except that the new halfpenny was known as a "tiddler" (in London at least) before it was withdrawn in 1984 and the 50 pence coin was briefly known as a "ten bob bit" until people began to forget how much ten shillings was. Alansplodge (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Canada also had a Canadian pound until 1858 - see also Canadian dollar and History of the Canada dollar. Why Canada switched to the dollar is a bit complex, but basically comes down to making it easier to trade with the US. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Reserves in North America Indigenous peoples

Is there are list of reserves of Aboriginals in Canada and Native-Americans in USA? Donmust90 (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to Indian reservations? That article has a map, which may help to answer part of your question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

For Canada, see List of Indian reserves in Canada and for the USA List of Indian reservations in the United States. --Xuxl (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

national monuments to block mining

In S01E08 of The West Wing, Congress wants to approve a strip mine on a piece of federal land but the president, an environmentalist, disapproves but doesn't have enough votes to block it.

The solution revealed near the end of the episode was that the president could invoke the Antiquities Act to proclaim the said piece of federal land a national park and thus block the mine indirectly (in real life the Antiquities Act gives the president the power to proclaim national monuments instead but the tactic still works).

Has this tactic, or similar such maneuvers, ever been used in real life by a POTUS? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a note: You'll have perhaps more chance of an answer if you include tate Governers doing this at the State level? The reality of such tactics, in real life, is the destructive "side effect" of encouraging landowners to shoot, shovel, and shut up, lest endangered species be discovered on their land. Destroy the endangered species before they are discovered, lest your land be "locked up". Eliyohub (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

National monument declarations by Presidents have definitely been controversial at times. See page 2 of [24] and [25] for some examples which sprung up with a quick google search. Others may have more to add. Eliyohub (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This is based directly on Bill Clinton's creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in order to prevent its extensive coal deposits being mined; it was viewed as a payoff to China whose domestic coal industry would suffer due to increased competition with low-priced american coal.

It might have been viewed as such by a small far-right-wing fringe, but that's not really the reason behind the creation of the monument except in the minds of some fever-swamp conspiracy theorists. The primary reason was the protection of such a huge swath of largely-undeveloped public land from development incompatible with conservation of the natural landscape and ecosystem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Bernie sanders and Tony Blair equivalents

How many equivalents are there of Senator Bernie Sanders and how many equivalents of Tony Blair are there in the world? Donmust90 (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

None, unless they have identical twins somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you give the term "equivalent" its proper meaning. But the original question wasn't totoo clear, either. I assume that a "Bernie Sanders equivalent" is a relatively left-wing relatively successful relatively populist politician, while a "Tony Blair equivalent" is a politician with a boyish charm and popular appeal who moves a major political party to a more centrist position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

One could portray them both in many other ways, both more positively and more negatively. The question is unanswerable until the OP tells us what his image of these people is.

(Btw, "to clear" is a verb. I think you wanted an adverb-adjective pair, "too clear".) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course I wanted to use the verb - the question is hard to clear because it is not clear enough. I'd never confuse "to" and "too", not even in peer reviewed papers. Thx ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Bernie Sanders has an identical twin, but he has an older brother Larry Sanders who moved to the UK in the 1960s and has served in some minor offices as a member of the UK Green Party. From what I gather, his politics are similar to Bernie's. Tony Blair might be more like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Blair's politics are more closely aligned to Bill Clinton. Compare New Democrats to New Labour. --Jayron32 11:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion and misclarification. What I mean is that which politicians are considered as Bernie Sanders of this particular nation and as well as which politicians are considered as Tony Blair of this nation. For example, Jeremy Corbyn of Labour Party has been dubbed as British Bernie Sanders, Manuel Valls of Parti Socialiste has been dubbed as Tony Blair of France. Donmust90 (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I heard of Jean-Luc Mélenchon being described as a French Bernie Sanders in the context of last week's French election round (Mélenchon=Sanders, Macron=Clinton, Le Pen=Trump). 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Bloodiest day in history?

Hello. What was the 24 hour period in which the most people died violently in history? Google brings up several battles including Antietam, the first day on the Somme and Cannae, but I am not sure it was any of them. I suspect it was some battle on the Eastern Front during WW2 or something Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.136.45.110 (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino was at least one of the deadliest single day battles and possible the deadliest in history (guessing).--TMCk (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect the most violent deaths in a single day was not a battle but a natural disaster. I would suggest the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake with its 800,000 fatalities would be an excellent candidate for deadliest day in history. For war, the ~75,000 that died immediately from the atomic bombing at Hiroshima would be starting point for comparisons. Dragons flight (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that "died violently" implies intent rather than natural disaster. Of course, it's up to the original poster to clarify what the question is. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, died violently includes drowning, crushed in an earthquake, burnt in a fire and killed in a car crash but not by disease, old age or in childbirth.

So 23 January, 1556.
Sleigh (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

We have List of battles by casualties, but it doesn't indicate how long each battle / siege took. Reading the linked articles, should yield this information. LongHairedFop (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bombing_of_Tokyo killed between 75,000 and 200,000 people in a single overnight raid. LongHairedFop (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• List of battles and other violent events by death toll may be a good place to start. --Jayron32 12:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event is the bloodiest day in the history of Earth. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

While that is good and creative answer, I think the number of people (per the original request) that died in that event was fairly low. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Why did these MPs resign?

Why did Sidney Schofield resign from Parliament in 1953, and why did Tom Williamson resign in 1948? DuncanHill (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Schofield "insisted on resigning his seat because he did not like Westminster".[26] Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Not referenced but List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds lists Williamson as "Concentrating on work as General Secretary of the GMWU". MilborneOne (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hawaiian female suffrage

I need help to find sources about female suffrage movement in the Territory of Hawaii, who leaders of the movement, particularly native or Asian suffrage leaders rather than the missionary descendants or white upper class. I know a Massachusetts women by the name of Almira Hollander Pitman had some effect on the movement when she visited with her part Hawaiian husband in the 1910s but nothing about the local movement itself.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR: According to our article, Almira "Myra" Hollander married Benjamin K. F. Pitman in 1875. Her suffrage involvement is referenced with the following source:

• Susan Brownell Anthony; Matilda Joslyn Gage; Ida Husted Harper. History of woman suffrage. Vol. 6. p. 717.

I hope this helps.2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3CF4:5668:5FB:EC43 (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I made those edits. I am aware of that source. Looking for additional ones I am not aware of.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Who was Mrs. John W. Dorsett?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

May 1

Which All Hallows was Knox offered?

Our article on John Knox says "On 2 February 1553 Cranmer was ordered to appoint Knox as vicar of Allhallows Church in London placing him under the authority of the Bishop of London, Nicholas Ridley. Knox returned to London in order to deliver a sermon before the King and the Court during Lent and he again refused to take the assigned post." Do we know which All Hallows church he was offered? DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Various biographies of Knox in Google Books say it is All Hallows, Bread Street (which is not listed in our All Hallows page!). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added it to that page. A lot of All Hallowses aren't listed there either. Could be a fun project for someone! DuncanHill (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added a few more. Alansplodge (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Social etiquette of coffee request

People often ask, "would you like a cup of coffee?" I've observed that in movies and TV shows, I often see that the answer is "yes". However, I am not sure whether the answerer says "yes" because he/she likes coffee or because it is only polite to say yes to an offer of hospitality. What happens if the answerer really hates coffee or is just not a coffee drinker? Does the answerer then say "no" as a reply to the question or say "yes" because of politeness? In other words, is offering a cup of coffee an act of hospitality and that refusal is not polite, or is this question asking whether the answerer would like a literal cup of coffee and the answerer is free to decline the offer because s/he hates coffee? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you're speaking about America (since it's a place that's featured on television in America and is not serving tea), "I'm fine, thanks" or "thanks but no" usually works. If you need to be a bit more formal, replacing "thanks" with the full "thank you," or even saying "I appreciate the offer but no, thank you" would be the way to go. If you are on good terms, following that by asking "may I have some water, though?" (assuming you are thirsty) should not cause a problem. The question is an act of hospitality but one that the guest is under no obligation to accept.

In some other cultures (Lebanon came up on a cursory search), there's the possibility that saying no might be insulting the host. Some of them, you need to politely turn down the offer once or twice to show that you're not greedy but still accept it on the second or third time to not insult the host. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking a bit more, I see that many Arab cultures (I suspect most of the Middle East) consider it an insult not to accept hospitality, such that one Muslim theologian said that accepting hospitality was more important] than fasting. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd love a cup of coffee, but rather than coffee, could I have tomato juice ? And rather than adding sugar, could you add a celery stick ? And rather than cream, could you please add vodka ? StuRat (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Irish coffee. Hold the coffee. 04:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

On TV shows it's merely a conventionalism, maybe to make it look more "real" - and also to give them something to do while they're reciting the script. If you don't want coffee, you can say "No, thank you" and if you'd rather have something else, ask if they have soda or water or whatever. In the real world, they're trying to make you feel comfortable. Go with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 04:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really an answer; but I rarely drink coffee, but I still talk of "going to coffee with somebody" or "having somebody round for coffee", even though I will almost certainly drink tea. I think that's mainly because of the hangover of "tea" as the name of a meal in England, so "have somebody round for tea" would be ambiguous. --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

There are many ways around this. As a non-coffee-drinker, I avoid the situation by generally being an asshole and thus obviate the need for dealing with the question. As a bit of a side-note, asking someone to 'come up for a coffee' is sometimes used as a polite euphemism for initiating intimacy. As seen in The Big Bang Theory and more clearly in Luke Cage. Similar to requesting 'a nightcap'. Matt Deres (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

U.S. General Aviation flight hours

There's been a pretty sharp decline in General Aviation flight hours since the recession started[27]. Where can I find the 2015 and 2016 data? I like to see whether the trend continued or not. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not know whether or not those are figures affected by other factors as inheriting from system evolution: "The annual load factor declined from 2015 (83.8) to 2016 (83.4) because system capacity grew faster (3.9 percent increase in ASMs) than the growth in passenger travel (3.5 percent increase in RPMs)" [28]. Regarding safety the records are encouraging at any rate [29]. --Askedonty (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see my answer is not at all accurate, the data and the quote being about regular and scheduled airlines. Well the second article, at flyingmag.com, is suggesting the trend seems to be stable for 2015 regarding general aviation. From that article could be infered that even for 2015 precise data might be not available. Some data from the FAA is however available, it's here for year 2015, (none available for 2016). --Askedonty (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hiding inside animal carcasses

I was fascinated by the recent question about the Saxon lord Childe sacrificing his horse in a vain attempt to save his own life. Han Solo had more luck rescuing Luke Skywalker with the carcass of a tauntaun. TV Tropes has a page on Carcass Sleeping Bag; unsurprisingly, it doesn't mention the folklore of Devon, but it does offer one historic example: the Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa. Is this true? TV Tropes doesn't mention the scene in The Revenant in which Leo DiCaprio's character makes a similar choice; given that the film was loosely based on the survival of Hugh Glass, did it take the idea from The Empire Strikes Back (as suggested by this critic) or the real-life mountain man? Saving yourself with the carcass of an animal sounds like something the Spartans would have approved of, or Roman legionnaires. Are there verifiable historic examples of people who were put in the position of saying "And I thought they smelled bad...on the outside"? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

First, are you aware that, for much of humanity's prehistory, clothes were made of animal skins only? It must have smelled pretty bad each time, as the smell of a tannery tells us. --Lgriot (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, in the not that distant past, it was a staple of the great retreats from Moscow (1812) and Kabul thirty years later. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the internet a wonderful thing? I found crawlinginsideanimalstosurvive.blogspot which tells the story of Reverend Joseph Goiffon, who was sent on a journey from Pembina, North Dakota to Saint Paul, Minnesota in 1860. On the return journey, his party was delayed at Grand Forks and he decided to press on alone, but was caught in a snowstorm. When his horse died, he cut open the carcass and crawled inside. "When Father Goiffon was found he was still alive but one leg was badly frozen". This seems to be the only true story on the blog, but it does include a video of Bear Grylls climbing inside a dead camel. Alansplodge (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the internet rubbish? This more detailed account of Fr Goiffon's adventure says that he cut bits off his dead horse to eat, but was found next to the carcass, not inside. Alansplodge (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Jonah and the whale is an even older story. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Being swallowed doesn't count. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Viking (or Scandinavian) contact with Europe prior to the 8th century ?

The first known Viking raid took place in Lindisfarne in late 700s, and from there on, there are lots of history-related articles that tell of the vikings expeditions and endeavours. But prior to the raid on Lindisfarne, there is very little information to find about them.

What I wonder is that if they didn't known about the existence of Britain until late 700s, then what were their relationships to the rest of Europe prior to this? Surely they must have had dealings with those further south? Surely there was contact, and most likely trade? Especially the Danes, bordering modern-day Germany and being close to Belgium, France and Poland, must have had plenty of dealings with the rest of Europe. Those who hailed from Norway and Sweden had to cross the Baltic or travel the long way around, through Finland... So they may have been more isolated than the Danes.

But although viking raids may not have begun until the 700s, I am sure they were able to travel across the Baltic and such to trade and whatnot long before then. Of course, some might argue that there weren't vikings prior to this, since they'd consider the viking age to be roughly 8th to late 11th century. So whatever they may have been before that, let's just call them Scandinavians.

I guess my question is simply to what degree the Scandinavians, -prior to 700s- had contact with others and what knowledge they had of lands outside their own? Or were they largely isolated?

Krikkert7 (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

See History of Scandinavia for one place to start. "Vikings" are a particular aspect of Scandinavian history, so basically by definition there are no Vikings before they start launching raids across the sea (and not all Scandinavians were Vikings). The Germanic tribes in Scandinavia were certainly known as far back as the Romans but they were pretty much isolated in the early medieval period when the Roman system broke down. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Before they were called Vikings, they were called Goths. The Ostrogoths i.e eastern Goths crossed the Baltic and were forced to migrate by the Huns. The Visigoths i.e. western Goths left Scandinavia and sacked Rome in AD 410.
Sleigh (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Some other resources on Wikipedia, although they are kind of lacking in detail: Iron Age Scandinavia, Archaeology of Northern Europe. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. I'll have a look at all the links. 'History of Scandinavia' will certainly be of great interest to me. Krikkert7 (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2

Left-Wing populism in Europe

Which left-wing parties are considered as left-wing populist parties in Europe? So far, in the books "The Explosion Populist" by John B. Budis and "The Optimistic Left" by Ruy Texeira mentioned that Podemos of Spain, Five-Star Movement of Italy, Socialist Party of the Netherlands and Syriza of Greece as left-wing populist parties. Donmust90 (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Five-Star is not usually counted as left. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Podemos, Syriza and the Dutch Socialists are all members of the European United Left–Nordic Green Left. Most of the other parties in that group are also often described as populist, so that's probably a good place to start. (Although the situation can be complicated: Die Linke, the German Left party, is a radical anti-globalist party in West Germany, but an old-fashioned socialist party in East Germany - whether either or both of these are populist is debated). Five Star sits in the Eurosceptic populist Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group (a group otherwise made up largely of right wing parties like UKIP and a handful of other MEPs kicked out of far-right parties) and as Itsmejudith says, they aren't really left or right - they have a mishmash of policies. Smurrayinchester 08:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

ISIS and the Yazidis

Somehow, I stumbled across the ISIS Wikipedia article and then found the Yazidi people. I was curious about the physical appearance of these people. I scrolled down the page to find any good pictures and noticed that these people, from my point of view at least, look indistinguishable from white people. How does ISIS tell the difference between the Yazidis and their own people anyway? Do the Yazidis have some sort of cultural marker that would make them a target of genocide? I'm trying to figure out how similar-looking humans have the ability to recognize each other and kill each other and not their own people. Yeah, I get that ISIS is against the religion of the Yazidi people, but still religion is not observable, because it is a belief system. And the clothes of the Yazidi children are modern. So, what does ISIS use to quickly identify and target the Yazidi people? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

For one thing, ISIS is purportedly a religious-political group, whereas the Yazidi are an ethno-religious group. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3CF4:5668:5FB:EC43 (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the answer is that the Yazidis live together in their own villages, so if ISIS arrive in a Yazidi area they assume that most or all people there are Yazidis. The Yazidis could also be distinguished by their dress. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)