Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:50, 12 September 2018

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

September 5

Why was Duff Norwich?

Why did Duff Cooper choose the title Viscount Norwich? DuncanHill (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I can find is the joke he made. Is it possible he chose the title because of the joke? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A little Norwich is a dangerous thing". According to Diana Cooper: The Biography of Lady Diana Cooper by Philip Ziegler, it was entirely based on that joke. Discarded suggestions included Unicorn, Sansterre, St Fermin and Erewhon. Alansplodge (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it's that joke. And there was me wondering if he'd based his title on this. --Antiquary (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that too. I dimly remember a comedy sketch (maybe Peter Cook and Dudley Moore), about a well spoken gent dictating a telegram which he wanted to be signed NORWICH, the gag being that he was actually the Bishop of Norwich. Alansplodge (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also vaguely remeber a sketch - in which he was actually the Bishop of Korwich (to make a point about the correct spelling of Knickers). Wymspen (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Knorwich? -- SGBailey (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, it was their former BtF collaborator Alan Bennett, and his character only speculates what the Bishop of Norwich means when he uses that signature. I wonder whether the existence of the acronym explains, at least in part, Viscountess Norwich's refusal to use that title. --Antiquary (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Antiquary, it was even more "dimly" than I thought :-) Alansplodge (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the whole monologue can be read in The Very Best of The Secret Policeman's Ball. Alansplodge (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That was code used in letters home from service people of the day to their loved ones. There were many more which I have forgotten. Someone asked me if I knew what these codes meant, and that one I guessed aright. 86.133.58.87 (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See World War II postal acronyms for more. --Antiquary (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the gent would have signed himself Norvic [1]. See also this gem from [2]:

I heard a (probably apocryphal) story about a bishop and his wife signing into a hotel. The bishop wrote (picking arbitrary names for the telling) "John Barchester and Mrs Joan Smith". The clerk saw what had been written, and said: "I'm sorry sir, we are not that sort of hotel".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.58.87 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2018‎

If he was John Barchester his wife would be Mrs John Smith. Mrs Joan Smith would be the widow of Mr Smith. DuncanHill (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read of an allegedly true version of that story, in which the husband was a Scottish judge of a type that has the title Lord Somewhere, but (at the time) his wife was not Lady Somewhere. (British Titles by Valentine Heywood or Haywood, 1951. One of these months I really do intend to catalog my boxes of books, so that on occasions like this I'll know which box to look in.) —Tamfang (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Nott, who was Bishop of Norwich from 1985 to 1999, died on 20 August. His book Bishop Peter's Pilgrimage: History and Sketchbook (1996) marked the 900th anniversary of the completion of Norwich Cathedral. It always amuses me that the name of the main road which runs past it is "Tombland". In 1999 he officiated at the marriage, in St George's Chapel, Windsor, of Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones. 86.133.58.126 (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad specifically referred to as a mujaddid?

Does the following citation: "Rippin, Andrew. Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. p. 282." specifically refer to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a "mujaddid"?

Here's that page:

Rippin, Andrew; Associate Professor of Religious Studies (2014). Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. Routledge. p. 282. ISBN 9781134274376.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

No mention of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or mujaddid on that page; but he is listed in the index for two pages not available in the Google preview. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC) ... @Batreeq: P.s: you can add after the citation: {{not in source|date=September 2018}}.[reply]

Gold, frankincense and myrrh

If Yeshua received these gifts, why was he in poverty? What happened to these valuable gifts? 76.71.156.186 (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are some theories in Biblical Magi. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the Spartans might say: If. Iapetus (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Bible doesn’t say how much of each item the magi gave. Blueboar (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty is not eliminated by a one-time infusion of cash. --Jayron 32 12:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how much and how stupid the receiver is doesn't it? The personality that plays state lotteries a lot and is willing to have their name broadcast so hundreds can beg them for money just happen to be the kind that often takes the lump sum and goes broke no matter how many millions they have. Even the largest gold bar (12.4 kilos) is only 23 years of the US poverty line for a family of 3 (more if you get interest) so the OPs assumption that the amounts usually depicted in Magi art was enough to take 3 out of poverty for 35 years seems possibly false. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that he lived in poverty anyway. He came from what we would qualify today a middle class household, as his father was a skilled tradesman. Obviously, the Flight into Egypt would have been disruptive to the family's finances, but that was a short episode. --Xuxl (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they were headed to Bethlehem in order to be taxed. It's hard to be taxed successfully if you don't already have some assets. They didn't stay in the stable because they couldn't afford to stay at the inn, it's just that there was "no room at the inn", so they improvised. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek apographesthai is translated in the KJV as "to be taxed" but is more literally "to be written down", which in modern translations is usually given as "to be registered" or "to be enrolled" (context). While to most likely purpose of such an exercise would have been for the purpose of taxation, that it was done for "all the world" (oikoumenēn) implies that wealth would not necessarily have been taken into account. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a serious, non in-universe reference for "they were headed to Bethlehem in order to be taxed"? I'd always read that that was a adjunct to make the global narrative fit better with prior prophecies but with no historical evidence. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:C93B:24F4:374D:22CC (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may find Census of Quirinius useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be very much an-in universe reference and from the article itself "There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account: the census in fact took place in 6 CE, ten years after Herod's death in 4 BCE; there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee." 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:C93B:24F4:374D:22CC (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you've got it all figured out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Jesus/Yeshua followed Asceticism as a lifestyle, he may have simply renounced his material possessions by choice.: "Natural asceticism involves a lifestyle which reduces material aspects of life to the utmost simplicity and to a minimum. This may include minimal, simple clothing, sleeping on a floor or in caves, and eating a simple minimal amount of food. Natural asceticism, state Wimbush and Valantasis, does not include maiming the body or harsher austerities that make the body suffer." Dimadick (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Lynching of Black Maguire

In The Way Ahead, one of the characters recites the dramatic monologue The Lynching of Black Maguire. Was this written for the film or was it an existing piece? DuncanHill (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google can only find it in the film script, so it looks as though it was made up. Only the first two lines are recited: "It was hot that summer in Kicking Horse / And the earth was parched and dry". Google can't find that either. I imagine that most actual music hall monologues would still have been in copyright in the 1940s. Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those lines are reminiscent of the work of Robert W. Service, though I suppose that aspect of his style was not entirely unique. --Trovatore (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Thanks, there are a few bits more in the film and in the script you linked, "And the town was full of the frontier force... Though nobody seemed to know why", "Men looked with their eyes, nor was there a sound, For looks were as hard as knives", and the ending "As the sun went down, all there could see, Against the glowing ball of fire, hanging from the highest tree, The body of Black Maguire". I suspect it was written for the film but it sounds a ripping yarn. DuncanHill (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, there really is a place called Kicking Horse Pass on the Alberta/British Columbia border. Alansplodge (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where in Somerset was the Isleworth Mona Lisa found?

Our article on the Isleworth Mona Lisa says it "had been hanging for over a century in a manor house in Somerset", and our article on Hugh Blaker says he found it "in the home of a Somerset nobleman in whose family it had been for nearly 100 years". I would be interested to know which house and which family, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This says it was Montacute House. --Jayron 32 15:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Realism

Who are some of the major authors of magical realism? Goldfinch155 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FFS. Magic realism --Viennese Waltz 18:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This link Magic realism#Major authors and works will save a little scrolling. Gabriel García Márquez is a particular favorite of mine. MarnetteD|Talk 19:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magic realism writers would also have some good places to start. --Jayron 32 20:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selling something easily

I've heard the term for this concept, but I can't remember it. Imagine that you have a commodity: what do we call its capability to be converted rapidly into currency? For example, "It's easy to ____ a small number of casino chips; just go to the casino and redeem them for cash", or "Given the city's recent history, it's quite difficult to _____ a house in much of Detroit; the property will likely remain on the market for a long time." I thought maybe "liquidate", i.e. one converts property into liquid assets, but Market liquidity is talking about the effect of a sale on prices, rather than whether it's possible to sell it in the first place. Capitalization Covering The Concept Of Writing With 52 Glyphs, Not 26, I checked Capitalization (disambiguation), but again it didn't seem to cover conversion of assets into cash. If the term I'm imagining exists, it covers everything from casino chips to small change (the bank is generally happy to convert small change into paper money) to real property to bitcoin, whether "selling" or "exchanging" or "redeeming". Context — I'd like to say that it's difficult to _____ a certain kind of asset, so someone who's rich on paper may not be as rich as he thinks he is. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In your first example, I would say "cash in", where "cash" is used as a verbe. But for the second one it would be "sell", though it could also be "cash in on". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds as asset liquidity, which does not exist as an article, but maybe should. In a balance sheet, assets are ordered from high to low asset liquidity, so, it's not something binary. Gold is more liquid than stock, which is more liquid than vehicles, which are more liquid than real estate. Based on how long the asset will need to be liquidated (that is, be converted into cash, the more liquid asset), you can say it's a liquid asset or an illiquid asset. Doroletho (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the standard adjective is "liquidity". A "liquid asset" can be sold readily. Additionally, things like casino chips are often referred to as "cash equivalents", as they can be readily converted to cash at a known value. So your sentence would be, it's difficult to liquidate a certain kind of asset. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "monetize"? (apologies to the zed folk)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Market liquidity seems to cover the concept? --Jayron 32 15:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A good approximation would be.. 'supply llama'. "It's easy to ____ a small number of X". Supply llama refers to "loot" in online gaming, with "loot" meaning disposable resource. More conventional would be a shortcut like "to convert" but I think it's bad practice to easily consider liquidation, and that's why you do not find a proper term except like "cash in". --Askedonty (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is also "to realize", per 2a in https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realize but this meaning is not generally well known and in most contexts will not be understood. 194.174.73.80 (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]

"Realising the value of an asset" is standard commercial terminology. The phrase "X realised Y pounds/dollars at auction is also widely understood. 86.133.58.126 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

Young Adult Fiction

What is the first book to be categorized as Young Adult Fiction?206.188.44.157 (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's a beginning. In the Oxford English Dictionary Online, the phrase "young adult" as an adjective is defined as "Of or relating to a young adult; (now) esp. designating or relating to fiction, films, television programmes, etc., intended or suitable for adolescents in their mid to late teens". They cite 5 examples of the phrase being used, dated 1826, 1865, 1942, 1983, and 2012. The 1826 and 1865 cites are about "young adult age" and "young adult population", but the 1942 cite refers to books being selected "for the ‘Young Adult’ collection" of a library in Illinois. So whatever books were first "categorized as Young Adult", they must have been published before 1942.

Of course, if you're specifically talking about categorization by publishers and bookstores rather than libraries, it's possible that that happened later. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does our article on Young adult fiction answer this? "The modern classification of young-adult fiction originated during the 1950s and 1960s, especially after the publication of S. E. Hinton's The Outsiders (1967). The novel features a truer, darker side of adolescent life that was not often represented in works of fiction of the time, and was the first novel published specifically marketed for young adults as Hinton was one when she wrote it." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest specific book I could find was Call of the Land by Harold Sherman, published in 1948 and described as a "young adult novel" by Wisconsin Library Bulletin the same year. --Antiquary (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

What was the title or name of the occupation of a storyteller in ancient Greece or Rome?

For example the word Griot is used for a storyteller from West Africa but what were they called in ancient Greece or Rome? 50.68.252.153 (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to Rome: according to Cassell's Latin Dictionary, "storyteller" translates into Latin as narrator. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

aoidos, rhapsode. Шурбур (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also fabulator. --Antiquary (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Aoidos. --Xuxl (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No platform for the far left?

There have been several well publicized cases in recent years of far right politicians and other figures ~~not being allowed to speak at public events~~ not being invited to speak in a particular setting. The justification for this is normally that such people should not be given a platform from which to espouse their far right views. See here for a recent example. However, there do not appear to have been many, if any, calls for people espousing far left views to be prevented from speaking.

Is there a double standard at work here? The reasons for giving no platform to the far right are clear, but what about the far left? Aren't their views equally as abhorrent as those of the far right? This is not a request for opinion or an invitation to debate. I would like to know why there is no pressure to deplatform speakers from the far left. --Viennese Waltz 07:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a category error in this post; it's not about "not being allowed to speak at public events," it's about who is chosen to be invited to speak in a particular setting. Steve Bannon is free to speak anywhere he likes. There is no First Amendment right to be an invited guest of The New Yorker.

To more specifically answer your question requires more information. Who do you consider to be on the far left and what have they been speaking about? If your definition of "far left" is "someone who supports single-payer health care in the United States," well... the view that single-payer health care should be implemented in the United States is not equivalently "abhorrent" to public opinion as the view that, say, America should implement laws to remain a majority-white country. One is a legitimate, if debatable, question of health policy, the other is naked white supremacism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have struck out the offending text and replaced it as per your wishes. To answer your question, no I'm not talking about someone who supports single-payer health care. I'm talking about people who espouse the ideology of Marxism–Leninism. --Viennese Waltz 07:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "no-platforming" is not about whether it violates the First Amendment (basically if it's not the government doing it, it usually doesn't, with a possible caveat related to Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins). It's about whether to have an open discussion, hearing people's reasons before making a decision on them, or whether to foreclose certain views in advance — with the further observation that whoever gets to decide which ones to foreclose in advance has a noticeable advantage in promoting their own views. See Overton window.

As for the original question, I think there are plenty of cases of attempting to deny platforms to left-wing speakers, though I don't have immediate examples at the top of my head. Search the archives of http://reason.com and http://thefire.org, which cover such things as they apply to multiple sides. They probably don't call it "no-platforming", but that's just a matter of terminology; which term you use is an identifier for which tribe you're in. --Trovatore (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There sadly seems to be a significant number of people these days proposing racist policies in many countries around the world. I don't see an equivalent number of people proposing Marxism and Leninism. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would make it mucheasier if you gave examples of left wing iideas or people a university for instance might reasonably deny an audience to? And as to racism I'd have thought that came more under populism or nationalism than right-wing though far-right parties do seem to often go in for it. Dmcq (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually thinking about it, would the Chinese party be considered left-wing? I would consider it very racist and certainly a number of other left-wing states have been. Dmcq (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There has certainly been effort to silence or ban the BDS movement which is associated with the left wing, though not Marxist-Leninist. Some disinvitations: [3] 2607:FCD0:100:8303:5D:0:0:B7D4 (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because when we hear "Palestinian" we're programmed to think "terrorist". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or, maybe worse yet, when we hear "BDS" it sounds like someone's trying to say BDSM. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main reasons is that in the minds of a large number of "BDS" supporters, the purpose of the movement is actually to protest against the existence of Israel itself, and not just against specific Israeli government actions and policies. Also, in the United States, many people opposed to it think it's basically the same thing as the Arab League boycott of Israel, which was highly unpopular in the United States.... AnonMoos (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marxism/Leninism may be economically misguided (though I always wonder how such a broken system brought Russia from a state where it was beaten in WW1 by the Germans with a minuscule part of their army to a state where it bled Hitler's Wehrmacht dry in just 20 years), but it is just another economic system. It's not the same as fascism. It's not inherently racist or sexist. Also, how often have you heard say the Heartland Institute or the Hoover Institution inviting Noam Chomsky or Bernie Sanders? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be inherently racist or sexist, but it is inherently anti-individualist. It's not in error just from the point of view of economic consequences. It's morally in error. --Trovatore (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Although definitions differ, Marxist/Leninist parties tend to be rather explicit about democracy and civil rights being low priorities. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original question appears to be based on the false equivalency that racism is somehow equivalent and opposed to shared means of production, and that when an organization decides to not allow speakers that espouse racist policies, that somehow they are duplicitous by allowing speakers which espouse an economic policy. The use of terms like "far left" and "far right" makes them seem equivalent and opposed, and hides the real nature of the philosophy. --Jayron 32 11:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 has hit the nail on the head, and I endorse his response.--WaltCip (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marxism/Leninism is not only, or even mostly, an economic theory. It's a program for a vicious regime of repression, which when put into maximal effect has had outcomes every bit as horrendous as fascism. --Trovatore (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beware. People who have claimed to be Marxists and/or Leninists have put things into effect that are indeed "every bit as horrendous as fascism". Yes, they have done, and I say this as a communist. Stalin was a brutal dictator, an abhorrent dictatorship is what he built. But I don't see why this is connected with a specific "anti-individualist" idea that you want to have found in Marxism-Leninism. Also, I can't see why "anti-individualism" (which you want to charge Marxism-Leninism with) should be "morally in error". This is a position I have mostly heard from the GOP and its supporters. Still, I think these people - Stalin, Hoxha, Mao Zedong,... should, and would be disinvited just as frequently, if not more frequently, than the far-right.

However, not everybody who is "far-left" or espouses Marxism-Leninism admires Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung or Mengistu Haile Mariam. I, for example, don't. I would say that all those dictators - except possibly Fidel Castro - cannot claim to be true Marxists-Leninists.

And speaking out for the ideas of August Bebel, Karl Liebknecht or Arthur Crispien, or the ideas of James Connolly, Patrick Pearse and Éamonn Ceannt, or supporting Kwame Nkrumah and Julius Nyerere or Sahra Wagenknecht is - while just as much a "far-left" position as admiring Mao or Stalin - not nearly as bad as showing admiration for Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, Heydrich etc.

So why do you demand that everybody who has even remotely far-left ideas be disavowed and made a political pariah like people on the far-right political fringe? --ObersterGenosse (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't demand to make anyone a pariah. I am willing for all ideas to be expressed, even the ones I find sharply and morally in error. This is somewhat separate from the issue of freedom of speech; it's more about open discourse, which overlaps with freedom of speech but is not quite the same thing.

However, if you're going to try to refute equivalency by bringing up communists who weren't quite as bad, I can point out that there were also fascists who weren't quite as bad as Hitler. I would rather live in former communist-lite San Marino than in Nazi Germany, but, even allowing a Rawlsian veil of ignorance, I would rather live in Franco's fascist-lite Spain than in Stalin's Ukraine. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want? Go back to McCarthyism and the - in my opinion extremely un-democratic - HUAC? Or do you want to see more right-wingers at public speeches? --ObersterGenosse (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want open discourse. I don't especially want to listen to Steve Bannon or Alex Jones, myself. But I don't want them silenced by pearl-clutchers. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are not silenced. Jones has a Website and a radio show. Bannon has Breibart. There is no "right to be invited" - what would that be based on? The right to free speech does not imply that you will be provided with an audience. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has violated Jones's or Bannon's right to free speech. As I said, that's a somewhat separate matter. It's not about their rights.

Don't get me wrong; if anyone did violate their right to free speech, of course I would be against that. But that isn't my argument. --Trovatore (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I don't understand your argument. Jones, for example, is a self-admitted serial liar. He is not participating in a public discussion, he is making money by playing on the emotions of "people with a limited world view". Why would you expect anybody to offer him a platform as if he were a serious debater? I can understand him being booked for a comedy club, or maybe as part of a festival on the Theatre of the Absurd. But not as a serious speaker on political or social issues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's been banned from, for example, Twitter and Facebook, which are open to almost everyone, including liars and people who aren't particularly serious. What bothers me is not so much that Twitter and Facebook have decided they don't want them — that's their prerogative as private entities, though they are large enough that I'm concerned about their market power (what if American Airlines decided he couldn't fly with them, for example?).

What concerns me is that they've done so in response to a bunch of people yelling loudly about it. That's a bad precedent; it tends to enable a heckler's veto, which is something we shouldn't have, no matter how many people agree with the hecklers. --Trovatore (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently see consensus defined on Wikipedia as "There are more of us than you, so you're wrong, and what you think has no place in the article" (Not officially, of course, but in practice on some articles.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Touché!!! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So unfortunately I'm going to give an opinion/suspicion, but I did look for sources! At least. Anyway, I can't find any comprehensive list of people who have been no-platformed in the explicit context of having a speaking thing cancelled. I echo the above that there is a false-equivalency. There are people on the left who are as awful as anyone on the right, but there is a difference in the attention they are paid, if nothing else. There are black-lives-matter activists literally calling for white genocide, communists calling for a violent revolution, atheists calling for religion to be banned, etc. Of course they exist - pick any group of humans, and you'll find that 1% are consistently awful. But thinking mostly about social media, but also media in general, the difference is that the lunatics on the right get a lot more attention. They are much better known. And they appear to be disproportionately the targets of deplatforming because college republicans often deliberately invite controversial speakers, not to provoke debate, but to make left-wing students look bad when they inevitably overreact. The left-wing lunatics are probably just not getting invited in the first place. The closest similarity you can find are the various college professors who have been fired or or otherwise punished for, usually preaching violence or hatred, but in a way that might be described as far-left, or simply anti-white. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for free speech as in allowing for instance someone from ISIS to talk at a university meeting where their views can be debated in a structured context. I think the real problem nowadays is with social media and the way their algorithms drive people to enclaves of more and more extreme views. There is a big difference between one person talking to a group who have to actually travel to hear them and it being pushed to millions of people who wouldn't have considered it in the first place. Something like Speakers Corner in London is fine. Videoing it and putting it on YouTube is not. And I'm also very much against personalized email shots pushing political views where others can't see what nonsense is being pushed or try and counter it. I only hope that people growing up now have a more skeptical view of what comes over the internet but I'm not at all confident they do. Dmcq (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one's being forced to watch, either on a street corner or on youtube. It's by choice. And therein lies the problem. I concur with your skepticism. Quite to the contrary, it seems like more people than ever are willing to believe bizarre stuff spewing from the internet - which they actively go looking for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an NYT article[4] claiming youtube pushes extremist content, basically as click bait to generate advertising views. 2607:FCD0:100:8303:5D:0:0:B7D4 (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That article seems fair enough. It isn't that people setting up YouTube are evil, it's simply that AI recommender systems are set up to pick content that engages users because that brings in the most ad revenues. And people tend to click on more extreme content of all types rather than anodyne truthful stuff so that is the stuff it picks out to recommend. It isn't just politics, try practically anything people people can have strong views on. Fixing it is a difficult problem because the imperative 'make more money' is easy to program, 'do no evil' and yet make money - that is a very difficult thing to program a computer to do. Dmcq (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact thinking about it, I think this is good instance of a rudimentary Paperclip maximizer. Yes we do have to worry about that sort of thing now. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If rock music still counts as greasy kid politics, there was that time Marilyn Manson was formally booed out of Utah. And the Clear Channel memorandum kerfuffle. Or how the whole world was afraid of metal for a while. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, September 8, 2018 (UTC)

Baron Sonnino's mother

Our article Sidney Sonnino says he was born in Pisa to "a Welsh mother, Georgina Sophia Arnaud Dudley Menhennet". The source used describes her as "un’inglese che allevò i suoi figli nel culto anglicano" (an Englishwoman who raised her children in the Anglican cult). The New York Times report of his death says he was born on the banks of the Nile, and that she was Scottish. Menhennet is of course a Cornish name. I would like to know more about her - was she Welsh, English, Scottish, or Cornish, and how did she end up married to an Italo-Egyptian Anglican Jew in Pisa? DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question - why Menhennet? Italian wiki says her surname was Dudley. Georgiana Sophia Arnaud Sonnino, nata Dudley 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source used in our article, the Centro Studi Sidney Sonnino, says Menhennet. DuncanHill (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, more competing sources :) This will be a tough one. Here's the Italian wiki source, but unfortunately the book isn't readable online. [5] 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is a woman of mystery. Now I'm finding sources that say her surname was Terry. These ones all say her father was an English merchant and she grew up in Portugal and Egypt. If you google Sidney Terry separately, he also lived in Mumbai. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"apparently Georgina herself did not know her precise birth date. Some accounts describe Lisbon as her birthplace.50 Others refer to Bath, England.51 It appears that her father was one Sidney Terry, a native of Lisbon and son of British parents.52 But there is no consensus concerning the identity of Georgina's mother, who is usually described as English, or, somewhat less precisely, as British, someones as Scottish,53"

"Georgina met Isacco Sonnino in Alexandria. By January 1843, they were engaged to be married. As Sarah Terry, her adoptive nother, put it (in a letter to Amelia): Mr. Sonnino was a "Man of good Fortune:, who had "settled a handsome sum of money on Georgina"."

"Georgina was the dominant personality in the Sonnino household. She concerned herself with the upbringing and education of her children with great care - particularly since her own childhood has been, as she put it, "void of all affection".74 All the Sonnino siblings were baptised into the Anglican faith"

"... dei cinque figli di Isacco e di Georgiana Dudley Terry, anglicana, fu improntata ad un rigore morale di stampo vittoriano."

"Georgina Sonnino was most probably the illegitimate daughter of an English merchant, Sidney Terry. In 1843 she had married Isacco Sonnino in Alexandria, Egypt."

"Sidney Sonnino, infatti, era italiano, nato a Pisa nel marzo del 1847. ... una giovane, Geor- gina Sofia Arnaud Dudley Menhennet, figlia del mercante inglese Sidney Terry, la quale era stata a sua volta allevata in Portogallo e poi in Egitto."

"His father was a wealthy Tuscan (of Jewish origin), who had lived in Egypt for years, and his mother, Georgina Terry, was English"

On a separate issue, I don't think I'd translate Italian culto by English "cult"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More for the language desk, but you're right; "mode of worship" would be less likely to invite misunderstanding. That said, this use of the word "cult" is not unknown in English, though it's usually restricted to fixed phrases like "the cult of Mary". --Trovatore (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In certain (mainly) technical scholarly uses, the English word "cult" can have a neutral meaning, but otherwise the word has overwhelmingly negative meanings... AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How/Where to buy greeks short maturities bonds ?

I’m considering putting some of my savings in short term Greek bonds directly without using an investment funds.

As I’m not Greek and doesn’t live in Greece, how can I buy them remotely on the Athens Stock Exchange (or an other stock exchange if they are traded elsewhere). 2001:861:3A00:61C0:F525:FB70:751E:8ED9 (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not offer financial advice. Consider consulting a financial advisor.--WaltCip (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This was the first link in the Google Search titled "Buying Greek bonds". --Jayron 32 18:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is outdated. I’m talking about since the greek state come back issuing bonds on the bond markets. This isn’t about financial advice (I’m not asking if it’s a good investment) but where to buy. 2001:861:3A00:61C0:81B4:8EC6:5F43:C721 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a registered broker-dealer if they will allow you to purchase said bonds. Many of the "full service" firms may, though fees will probably be higher than for more liquid debt securities such as US Treasuries. Debt securities aren't traded on exchanges; they're traded "over-the-counter", in finance jargon. Note that Greek government securities are priced in Euros, so you will have to first purchase Euros on the forex market if you don't already have them. A broker-dealer can help you do that too, with concomitant fees of course. As noted, we don't give financial advice, but if you're not very confident in your financial knowledge and strategy I highly advise first consulting a licensed financial advisor. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

F. Herrick Herrick's first name.

I'm looking for the first name of F. Herrick Herrick. I think he is the one who was involved peripherally in the movie industry though you'll probably see his connection with Apollo 15 postage stamp incident. He was living in Miami at the time (1971) and apparently died in 1987 in Michigan. Obviously I'm looking for a RS if possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not an answer to your question, but wow! life imitates art, huh? In The Man Who Sold the Moon, there was a small subplot where stamps were supposed to be brought along, but Harriman forgot to get their weight taken into account in the flight-plan calculations, so they had to be left behind. I think they were fraudulently added to the manifest even though they weren't brought, so that they could be sold afterwards. In the real-life case, they were brought along but not put on the manifest, so not exactly the same, but so reminiscent. --Trovatore (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I've read the story but had not made the connection. The astronauts knew their science fiction too. Wonder if any of them ever have made the connection.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

Why did the Southeastern US's population grow much faster than the interior South's?

Based on this map, you can see that the population of the Southeastern U.S.--specifically Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida--grew much faster than the population of the interior Southern U.S. (specifically U.S. states such as Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia):

https://i1.wp.com/factsmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/us-states-population-growth-rate.png

Out of the nine interior southern U.S. states, only Tennessee grew by more than 100% between 1950 and 2016. In contrast, out of the seven Southeastern U.S. states, all of them other than South Carolina grew by 150% or more between 1950 and 2016.

What exactly is the reason for this discrepancy? Why exactly did the Southeastern U.S. grow much faster than the interior Southern U.S. did between 1950 and 2016? Futurist110 (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several things to consider, the first that came to mind was your keyword: "interior". Access to ports and major navigable rivers is vital for commerce (thus growth), and the Appalachians were a hindrance (later mitigated by rail and highway). The second is relative population; by 1950, some states were already quite populous, with less "room to grow"; whereas places like Nevada (which saw 1,736% growth in that period) were virtually unpopulated. I'm sure there are other reasons such as access to resources, etc. (as discussed below). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent this reflect the trend for growth to be concentrated in urban and suburban areas, and by strong higher education institutions attracting economic growth. One might also speculate on the role of certain political and sociological factors. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that all of the states cited as quicker growers either have or are close to major economic centers, with transport made easier by the interstate highway system, the exceptions being North Carolina (a relatively slow grower compared to the others) and Florida (which was less attractive to live in in 1950 due to the lack of widespread air conditioning). Florida also benefited from development prompted by the space program, and from being attractive to retirees due to weather and low taxes. There have always been fewer, less populous cities in the interior South. Note that the attractiveness of cities to some does not exempt them from population and economic near-collapse when their reason for being goes away (Detroit, though outside the area mentioned, a city dominated by the same political party for the entire period spoken of, or Baltimore, whose role as a port and manufacturing center has long been in decline).--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken on North Carolina and Florida; North Carolina has the sixth fastest growing metro area in the U.S. (the Research Triangle), and the third largest in the southeast after the Fort Myers, Florda and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina areas. Metrolina and the Piedmont Triad are only just off of that list of top 20 fastest growing metro areas; List of U.S. states and territories by population growth rate shows that in the Southeast, the three fastest growing states are 1) Florida 2) South Carolina and 3) North Carolina. --Jayron 32 01:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why basketball and volleyball but not baseball or football?

Why have basketball and volleyball spread around the world, but not baseball or football? In the case of football it might be that the gear is significantly more expensive, but I fail to see any reason why Europeans/Africans and so on don't play baseball. --Doroletho (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball and American football are both played in England. But cricket and soccer, respectively, were there first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is random speculation but perhaps because basketball and volleyball can be played casually almost anywhere and with a very limited number of people whereas one needs proper teams to play baseball or gridiron in any sensible way? Basketball and volleyball also seem much simpler rule wise which perhaps plays a role. I also found this article about "how the NBA went global" which perhaps answers part of the question. 37.138.73.248 (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Baseball is a simple game. You throw the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So is cricket and imagine learning the rules of cricket if you didn't know any bat and ball sport. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket is kind of like baseball with only two bases. I recall taking a foreign-born colleague to a baseball game. He had never seen either baseball or cricket, and found it baffling. Of the two, cricket might be easier to grasp for someone who's never seen a bat-and-ball game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our article List of organized baseball leagues is informative. Baseball is played seriously and is very popular in many Latin American countries and in Japan, Korea and the Philippines. I am interested in a guy named Les Mann who tried very hard to spread baseball around the world. He was responsible for getting baseball included as a demonstration sport at the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Japan, Korea, Philippines, many Latin American countries have had American influence via the presence of large numbers of American military.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball and American football are both played in England, true, but so are shin kicking and ferret legging. I'm not sure which are the more popular. They are both very minor sports. Perhaps it's because we already had perfectly adequate sports of walloping balls with sticks, and large blokes running into each other. OTOH basketball (which is also extremely minor in the UK) at least doesn't have such a direct competition. We do have netball though, and that's much more common than volleyball. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A more interesting original question might have been why global sports like cricket and rugby (and football of course) are not more popular in the US, when they are popular elsewhere. Although some elements of US culture (some music, some films, some TV, some soft drinks, etc.) are popular around the world, the original questioner may not be aware that many other elements are viewed with complete bewilderment (and occasionally despair) in other countries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because at the time association football was becoming popular in the UK (late 19th century), baseball was the big team sport in the US, played at many levels, and given the attitude of many Americans towards Britain in the 19th century, a sport seen as British (baseball, despite its origins, was not) wouldn't necessarily be popular. Soccer has become more popular in the US as those who played it at a youth level have grown up. Cricket is less widely played. I don't even think I saw it on television, growing up in the US in the 1970s.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket and soccer have histories in America, but baseball and American football eventually exceeded them in popularity, at least in terms of professional sports. Soccer was certainly well-known in America. Yogi Berra said he and his friends played soccer when they were kids. It's a great kids' game because they have lots of energy and can run all afternoon. And in the early days, some large expanses of land were used for both cricket and baseball. (Elysian Fields, Hoboken, New Jersey for example. And Recreation Park in Detroit.[6]) The obvious problem with cricket is that it took days to play, while a baseball game would be over in a couple of hours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in Baseball in Japan, it was first established there in the 1870s. One event that expanded interest was a 1920s tour involving Babe Ruth and a number of other top-level American players. That gave the game in Japan a boost. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First-class cricket takes days to play, certainly, but each team goes to the wicket twice. On games afternoons during the summer there is no problem in completing a game during the time available. If a pupil was due for after-school detention and the playing field was some distance from the school that pupil would be expected to return after the match. 86.133.58.126 (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peripheral to the discussion of baseball's popularity in England, some might care to read our article Baseball Ground, and perhaps also Baseball in the United Kingdom. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.253 (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best to think that it is rare for two sports occupying a similar ecological niche to both be established in the same culture. The "hitting a ball with a stick" sport is either cricket or baseball but rarely both in the same place; the "tackling a runner with an oblong ball" sport is either Rugby or American/Canadian football but rarely both, etc. Of course I'm sure someone will find an exception or two, but by-and-large, that seems true. Basketball spread in many places because they didn't have a "throw a ball into a hoop" game locally that basketball had to supplant. --Jayron 32 01:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And then you have a country like Germany that has neither a "hit ball with stick" sport nor a "tackling a runner with an oblong ball" sport. Add to that plenty of american cultural influence due to military presence, past and present. And still neither of the two sports have any meaningful following, nor are they played much from what i could see(rugby and cricket certainly are even less popular than the american 'variations'). In the end there probably just are so many factors that make or break any given sport in any given place that it is impossible to say. 91.97.248.0 (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what are the popular sports in Germany? Soccer (as a spectacle) is more of an international business these days, so it's everywhere. But what do people in villages and smal towns play for their own amusement? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RP online has an article leading to a list of the most popular sports in Germany by number of corresponding club members (Vereinsmitglieder). The link actually shows the figures for North Rhine-Westphalia, you have to click on the map of Germany or forward a page in order to see the nationwide data, listing the following top five sports:

Football / soccer (6,592,290 members)
Gymnastics (5,018,819) Actually "Turnen", the German popular variety of gymnastics, see also all sorts of forms listed in that article and the articles on Turners, Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, ...)
Tennis (1,439,736)
Athletics (833,009)
Handball (!) (786,748)

The article was published in 2015 and says its figures are from the German Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB).

Of course there are local differences, for example North Rhine-Westphalia's top five also include swimming. Another map there shows, however, that every State of Germany's number one sport by membership is either football (in 10 states) or gymnastics (in 6 states).

And I realize this isn't quite what you asked, but I found no numbers on what people play in towns and villages (whether as member of clubs or not, and the DSOB obviously didn't count individual joggers or even people who have membership cards at a local gym). In terms of ball games, I believe no observer of German towns and villages will deny that football is number one, very visible outdoors, and often played ad-hoc without membership etc, like basketball in lots of places in the U.S. Other lists I saw mention table tennis besides the three ball games already given above. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key issue here is that basketball and volleyball can both be played indoors in a gymnasium. Here in the UK, most people play those sports while they are in school, substantially fewer play them as adults at the local sports centre and very few actually pay to watch a match. You can only see basketball and volleyball on mainstream TV when the Olympics aor Commonwealth Games come around. See Outside of annual NBA event, Brits slow to embrace basketball: "We don't have a strong professional league, there's no easy access to facilities or to good coaches, we don't have a hugely wide participation base, we don't have enough good professional clubs, and we don't have a clear, predefined pathway for young talent." Alansplodge (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had an idea that soccer is regarded as a "cissy" sport in the United States and Australia, which is why they don't play it (there are soccer leagues in Australia, but many of the teams have Italian names). I attended one Australian rules football match - as I recall the shape of the ball and the goalposts is similar to rugby, which is also strong in Australia. Soccer is strong all over Europe - Ireland has Gaelic football and I believe soccer is weaker there. "Tackling a runner with an oblong ball" sport seems to be confined to English speaking countries. 62.49.80.34 (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or "sissy" as Americans spell it. I recall a Miller Light Beer commercial where Dick Butkus squared off against a ~~soccer~~ player, and at some point Butkus referred to the ~~soccer~~ player's "cute little shorts". My mistake - Butkus was actually talking about Rugby![7] Just imagine what he would say about soccer! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, people do play association football a lot in organised amateur teams. Almost every small town has a team, even a fair few of tiny places have teams. There are 24.958 teams with over 7 million people registered for teams in Germany, out of a population of 82 million,(primary source and in german but should be trustowrthy). Basketball is not that popular but always played in school, same for volleyball. They are part of the curriculum in physical education. So every German pupil will have come into contact with the two sports. 91.96.117.113 (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a number of about 23,000 people being registered for baseball teams in 2017. Basektball has over 200.000 registered and volleyball has over 400.000 registered players in more than 7000 teams, all in 2017. Can't seem to find numbers on gridiron though. 91.96.117.113 (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formulas for popular art

Certain chord progressions in music are more likely to be popular (like I–V–vi–IV progression), but are there other formulas that apply to the popularity of other forms of art? What are they? 121.45.102.242 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tutu tata drum pattern in braindead rock music. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tutu tata, whoa-oh-oh? Or the other thing? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, September 8, 2018 (UTC)

That's the drum pattern, I don't know what it's called. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Mean in fine art --TammyMoet (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Scrub that, I knw what I'm thinking of but it's obviously not known as that. It's the form of a spiral leading to the focus of a painting...--TammyMoet (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is something called the Golden ratio. Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paint by number kits sold rather well, though the resultant art didn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, September 8, 2018 (UTC)

Saving the cat and other formulas, in movies.[8] 2607:FCD0:100:8303:5D:0:0:B7D4 (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most pervasive formula in movies would be the three-act structure. There are lots of books available that teach you to write screenplays to this formula. The hero's journey is also popular as a story structure. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related: Painting by Numbers: Komar and Melamid's Scientific Guide to Art ^{(ISBN 0520218612)} (hmmm... I thought we had a article). Which is a semi-serious, but mostly tongue-in-cheek analysis of formulaic art. Somewhat related to the somewhat-related is: The People's Choice: Music -- I KNOW we have an article on that -- I helped edit it. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC) ... that should probably redirect to: "The Most Unwanted Song"[reply]

France 1815-1848

Is 1815-1848 classified as First Empire? If not, why not? Is there a similar title... better than Bourbon restoration? MBG02 (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the French First Empire is 1804 to 1815, under Napoleon who actually used the title emperor. Whether France was still an empire after that is a good question - since it had and still has overseas colonies, it has pretty much always been one, at least under that definition of empire - but aside from the Second Empire period, its rulers haven't called themselves emperors. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These terms refer to the system of government rather than the possession of overseas colonies. The progression goes:-

French Revolution (1789–1792)
French First Republic (1792–1804)
First French Empire under Napoleon I (1804–1814/1815)
Bourbon Restoration under Louis XVIII and Charles X (1814/1815–1830)
July Monarchy under Louis Philippe d'Orléans (1830–1848)
Second Republic (1848–1852)
Second Empire under Napoleon III (1852–1870)
Third Republic (1870-1940)

Our article, France in the long nineteenth century, gives an overview. Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The UK monarchs disdained to claim to be "British emperors" or anything of the kind, and were satisfied with the title "King" in that context. They only claimed to be "Emperors of India" after the Mughal dynasty was deposed (and gave up the title after India became independent in 1947). I would guess that the Bourbons had a somewhat similar attitude, only reinforced by the fact that the title "Emperor" was associated with the Bonaparte family... AnonMoos (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British monarchs did not "disdain", they where forced by civil institutions who claimed to stand above the monarchy. See Trial and execution of Charles I for example. --Kharon (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar the Peaceful (943-975 AD) liked to refer to himself as Totius Albionis imperator augustus (August Emperor of all Albion) after he temporarily subdued the Scots, but the title didn't catch on. Alansplodge (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historians call it the Bourbon Restoration, but at the time, diplomats and journalists simply referred to it as the Kingdom of France (when not using just "France"), right? --Lgriot (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankincense

(Prompted by 05Sep Q above). What was frankincense called in Hebrew, at the time. What, in Greek, and what in the Septuagint. Why was “frankincense” used in the 16C (onwards) translations. 120.16.137.31 (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankincense has everything you need - in Hebrew it was lebonah, and libanos in Greek (actually our article doesn't say so but that's what the Magi bring in the Greek New Testament account). Franc incense (pure incense) was what it was called in medieval French, which is where the English word comes from. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's pronounced Fronk incense! --47.146.63.87 (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are the instruments that cover at least the b1 to c5 range?

What are the list of instruments that cover at least the b1 to c5 range?177.177.208.76 (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a list per se, but the article on Range (music) includes a long chart showing instruments and their (standard) ranges. Maybe someone else will filter out those that fit your range - there are several. (I added "standard" because a lot of instruments, particularly in the wind and strings families, allow for playing notes way above their standard highest note. See e.g. altissimo and harmonic. This is not reflected in the chart.) ---Sluzzelin talk 06:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

Nanchang Changbei International Airport

The Nanchang Changbei International Airport article claims that it has a direct flight to Kansai International Airport, but the Kansai International Airport does not list this flight. Which one is correct here? Mũeller (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the flight from the Nanching airport article because the flight was supposedly served by Beijing Capital Airlines, but the airline's web site gives no indication of such service. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What form of phrase is this?

Here's the example: Great Wall cloud of China. You see the word cloud is embedded within the phrase "Great Wall of China", putting cloud after wall would make the two-word phrase "wall cloud". But in proper phrasing, "cloud of China" or "Wall cloud of China" would not be correct, rather it would be continuation after 'Great Wall' as if the word cloud wasn't embedded in them. Would you call the wordplay form "embedded" or could it be more specific? Planet Star 06:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Great Wall cloud of China" is meaningless and has zero Ghits. What is the context? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a cousin to a Portmanteau. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Jeopardy! they will occasionally have a category they call "Before and After" which takes two unrelated phrases and hooks them together via the word they have in common. Example: "All-Star pitcher who is also a 1980s shopping game show." Response: "Who is Chris Sale of the Century?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just by the way, I'm pretty sure (from watching both shows a lot) that Wheel of Fortune was using these constructions and identifying them as "Before and After" well before Jeopardy! ever did. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the better. (I don't watch WoF - too much fluff, too little game play.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the OP's example, we have obviously the Great Wall of China; a wall cloud, which precedes a tornado; and cloud computing. So maybe something to do with China's approach to "the cloud"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PlanetStar -- I would call such things an "interrupted idiomatic phrase", but I have no idea what your example is supposed to mean, or what purpose it was intended to serve... AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The OP needs to tell us where he got that expression from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding out what it is called so I can included in my hangman categories. The expression is used as an example so anyone can figure what form of expression is this. AnanMoos may have gave an answer as "interrupted idiomatic phrase", which is long and can be acronized as IIP, but not all of them are idiomatic. An example of a non-idiomatic one is Michael Jordan Jackson comprising of "Michael Jordan" and "Michael Jackson", but not "Jordan Jackson". In analogy it is like there is a wall splitting the sides into two-thirds and one-third on one level but in the other level it goes all the way across it. Another example using common nouns is death metal trap comprising of "death metal" and "death trap", but not "metal trap". Then if we replace the word "trap" with "chain", it would make it a proper before & after phrase.

There's some examples using your username, Baseball Bugs. An example of interrupted phrase is Baseball game Bugs and Baseball lady Bugs, while that of before & after is Baseball Bugs Bunny which you like and Major League Baseball Bugs. Planet Star 02:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you've never actually seen "Great Wall cloud of China" used anywhere? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really sound like an actual thing, but it seems at least related to tmesis. Abso-blooming-lutely. - Nunh-huh 12:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could call it "ensomatosis", having the same last three letters as tmesis, coming from the Greek word ensomatosi, meaning embedding. What do you guys think? Planet Star 00:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not in the business of inventing words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except combining a Hawaiian word for "fast" with the common word "encyclopedia" to invent a new word. 216.59.42.36 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia didn't invent the word "Wikipedia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which 1917 election?

Anyone who can deduct whether this poster is intended for a list for the Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917 or for Jewish community elections same year? http://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/vote-no-6 --Soman (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has no particular connection with Palestine that I can see, but it's in Yiddish, and the first line says Tsum alRuslendishen Idishen Tsuzamenfahr "For the all-Russian Jewish XXXX" (not sure what the last word is, but it contains the element spelled "zusammen" in German)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you put צוזאמענפאהר in Google Image Search, you get some interesting stuff, but I'm still not sure what it means... AnonMoos (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. It appears that it is then an election poster for the All Russian Jewish Congress (also held in 1917), and cannot be used to illustrate the Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917 article. --Soman (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By putting "What is the Yiddish word for congress" into Google and clicking around a little, I eventually found https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-meaning-of/yiddish-word-750edd9419b8a426dad02452de0a2d756d8ec8c4.html , so I'm pretty sure you're right... AnonMoos (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of this one? https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/03/12/arts/12jewishcommunists1/08jewishcommunists1-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp For List 4 in the Constituent Assembly, Jewish community body or municipal election? --Soman (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or this? https://i.pinimg.com/474x/40/49/2b/40492b994946829eb206b1d462ef052e--russian-revolution-rabbi.jpg ? --Soman (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the NYTimes one on this computer right now due to incompatible SSL protocols. In the Pinterest one, I can only read the second line quickly and easily: des Idishen Natsionalen "...the Jewish National...". AnonMoos (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a coincidence that Tsuzamenfahr looks like Zusammenfahr and could be seen as "fellow traveller" in the socialist sense? Rmhermen (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans and democrats on free trade and outsourcing

Have the Republicans and Democrats changed their positions on free trade and outsourcing ever since Trump won the presidency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.67.108.46 (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which Republicans and which Democrats? Both American parties are Big Tent parties, and people with a bewildering variety of political opinions within them. --Jayron 32 01:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While there will be a spectrum of opinions within any group of more than a few people, groups often broadly share certain ideological beliefs. Finding these out is what pollsters and statisticians are paid to do. Some do a better job than others, of course. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

184.67.108.46 -- in a sense they have, but mostly superficially in the case of Republicans. In recent decades, the Republican party has been a triad of culture-warriors (anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage types), defense and foreign policy hawks (neoconservatives and those in favor of high military spending), and economic plutocrats (those who want large tax-breaks to be given to corporations and the very wealthy, and largely got their way in last year's tax bill). None of those three factions was interested in workers' well-being or opposed to free trade deals. Democrats contained both a trade-union aligned faction (largely opposed to free trade deals) and a corporate & finance aligned faction (made up of people who fly off to Davos conferences and largely support free trade deals). This state of affairs has been disturbed by a leftward drift in the Democratic party starting even before the Trump presidency (with the widespread rejection of the Trans-Pacific trade Partnership among the Democratic party rank-and-file in 2016).

With Trump's presidency, Trump killed the TPP (which was opposed by most ordinary Americans) and has claimed an economic "populist mantle", but has done very little to benefit workers in his tax and budget policies, instead trying to attract worker support by visibly cracking down on immigrants and erratically starting tariff wars (neither of which benefits workers in any useful way). But his updated version of NAFTA recently renegotiated with Mexico did contain some provisions favorable to workers, and attracted some trade-union support... AnonMoos (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)`[reply]

Republicans did even before Trump won. Democrats remain divided. Your phrase for the day is "asymmetric polarization". --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

women working in cable news and at national newspapers

When did women start working at CNN, at The Weather Channel and at USA Today?142.255.69.73 (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the first day those companies started operating. There aren't many national companies in the USA since the early 1900s that have been 100% male. CNN's page on the Wiki even states that the first real newscast was hosted by a man and a woman. Nanonic (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of these were launched in the early 80:s, I'm quite certain from the start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for CNN, Mary Alice Williams was one of the principals in getting the network off the ground. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese endonym in Sino-Roman relations

During the centuries of Sino-Roman relations, we have records of the Chinese using exonym for Rome (Daqin) and Byzantium (Fulin) and the Romans calling the Chinese Seres or Sinae. What did the Chinese referred to themselves as in relation to the Roman or Persians? Were any of these uses preserved in Western sources? Were the Chinese aware of the use of the term Seres? 107.193.163.81 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does Names of China adequately answer your question? --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Indictions Synchronized to Varronian chronology ?

Indictions seem synchronized to the traditional date of the founding of Rome, as given by Varronian chronology. Is this intentional, or merely an unintended coincidence ? (The Roman New Year changed twice, first from March to January, and then later, within the Eastern Roman Empire, from January to September). — 86.123.9.38 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five-year Indictions were introduced by the Roman Senate in the autumn of AD 287, in Diocletian's third or fourth year of reign (as opposed to say, his first), an entire decade before his victory in Egypt in AD 297, and 25 years before Constantine's ascension in AD 312. — 86.123.9.38 (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The indiction article seems to explain its origins pretty clearly (well, as clear as can be, for something as confusing as indictions). How do you figure they are synchronized to the founding of Rome? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By proleptically extending Indictions back into time, the Varronian date for the founding of Rome in the spring of 753 BC takes places within the first year of an imaginary Indiction, starting in the autumn of 754 BC. By going further back into time, we get the autumn of 5509 BC, marking the epoch of the Byzantine calendar. The latter synchronization is most certainly intentional. I was wondering whether the same holds true of the former. — 86.123.9.38 (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

Age of the Earth according to some Muslims?

Some Jews and some Christians, especially those who interpret the Bible literally, believe that God created everything in 6 literal days between 6,000-10,000 years ago, the latter based on a literal reading of the genealogies in the Bible, in complete contradiction to what science teaches, that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. I read that Islamic cosmology is different from the Judeo-Christian cosmology. If so, what do some Muslims believe the age of the Earth and the universe is and from what or where do they base their calculation from? In other words, if I were to ask a Muslim, let’s say in Saudi Arabia, who has never heard about Evolution, the Big Bang, and the established ages of the Earth and the universe; how many years ago would he/she say that God created everything? How old did Muhammad and his followers believe creation was? Willminator (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned contradiction disappears when one takes into consideration the pious patristic tradition according to which time only began to be counted from man's expulsion from Paradise, since his stay in Eden implies eternity, due to God's presence there. Similarly, in Judaism, the reckoning of time begins with the creation of man, the previous five days being part of a so-called year of emptiness (molad tohu). — 86.123.9.38 (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and? Not everyone holds those beliefs. Most Young Earth creationists believe that the universe is about six to ten thousand calendar years old, and that all evidence to the contrary is either faked or misinterpreted. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and? Ultimately, Christians and Jews are bound to the traditional teachings of Christianity and Judaism, not to `young` earth creationism. If it can be shown that the former are not incompatible with the current scientific measurements, then the existence of alternate ideas is ultimately irrelevant. — 86.123.9.38 (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does your reply have to do with the question posed? This is not a place for debating our interpretations of religious doctrine. Some members of those religions disagree with you, and the beliefs of said people are an aspect of the question. We don't care what you think about their beliefs. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possible. I guess it ultimately depends on how one interprets the question's first paragraph. My point was that, even if one were to take Biblical chronology very literally, it would still not necessarily follow that creation itself is less than ten thousand years old. — 79.113.228.117 (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Willminator -- I don't know the answer to this, but one difference between the Bible and the Qur'an is that the text of the Hebrew Bible contains tantalizingly almost enough information to add various numbers together to get the ostensible number of years from the creation down to the Persian Empire period, and then you can use your knowledge of history to add to this the number of years from the Persian Empire period down to the present. However there are actually some gaps that have to be extrapolated, in order to do this, and some of the numbers differ between the Greek Septuagint biblical text and the Hebrew Masoretic biblical text.

By contrast, the Qur'an doesn't really contain any detailed internal chronology for events beyond Muhammad's father or grandfather's time; there are no long lists of kings with associated lengths of reigns to add up etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add detail: the Ussher chronology is the "extrapolation" most commonly followed by Christian young Earth creationists. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ussher chronology is the one most well-known among English-speaking Protestants, but I'm not sure there's much else to be said for it... AnonMoos (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Jewish and Christian scriptures also have sacred status in Islam, though second to the Quran and other sayings attributed to Mohammed. There are Muslim young Earth creationists, though—as in Christianity and Judaism—they're a minority. …if I were to ask a Muslim, let’s say in Saudi Arabia, who has never heard about Evolution, the Big Bang, and the established ages of the Earth and the universe; how many years ago would he/she say that God created everything? Most likely they would say, "I don't know. That is a matter for the religious authorities and scholars." Most Christians and Jews before the modern period would probably have said the same. Plenty of people are fine with not knowing things. After all, "reason is the greatest enemy that faith has." --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary of Jewish or Christian scriptures having "sacred status in Islam" could be rather misleading -- the traditional orthodox view is that if anything in Jewish or Christian scriptures contradicts anything in the Qur'an, then the Jewish or Christian scriptures are ipso facto automatically "corrupted", and that Muslim writings contain everything a Muslim needs to know to attain salvation. AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for the exposition. My point was that a doctrinaire Muslim may still read some of the Jewish scriptures, particularly the written Torah, which contains the genealogies cited by many Christian and Jewish Young Earth creationists. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is no historical theory of a specific age of the Earth that ever gained wide acceptance in Islam in the same way that the ~6,000 year old Earth was widely adopted in parts of Christianity. Perhaps influenced by Christian teachings, some Muslims have reported a similar age, but many others believe it is simply not known. The Quran and associated teachings do indicate that the universe, the Earth, and humanity had a beginning, but when and how that happened is fairly vague. In analogy to the Christian story of Genesis, the Quran tells that the Earth was created in six "days". However, the Quran also directly states that a "day" for God may be far, far longer than a day for man. Furthermore, the Quran also indicates that an act of creation for God need not require constructing a physical object, but could also mean creating conditions that will lead to the object coming into existence at a later time. (In other words, God deserves credit for "creating" television merely by structuring the world in a way that eventually leads to television.) Given these issues, Islam is pretty ambiguous about when and how the Earth was formed. Though not universal, there is a long history in Islam of using observations of the physical world to help inform and interpret religious teachings. In its modern form, many adherents believe that science should be used to understand and interpret questions like "How old is the Earth?" where the Islamic texts do not appear to provide a specific answer. As such, it is pretty common for modern Muslims to accept a timeline for the history of the universe and Earth that is consistent (or very similar) to traditional scientific teachings. Dragons flight (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are stuff like The Atlas of Creation by Adnan Oktar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number of roads passing through a single point

12 roads passing through same point (with allowance for a rotary since you can't have 12-roads literally continue all the way to the center all on ground level in the car era): Arc de Triomphe, Paris
10 roads: Dupont Circle, Washington
8 roads: ~~rotary at the center of Indianapolis~~ Rotunda da Boavista mentioned by Warofdreams
6: Times Square (but 2 roads are 45th Street, not 42nd)
5: Five Pointses
4: ubiquitous
3: ubiquitous
2: L-shaped intersections
1: lack of intersection
0: lack of road

Does anyone have a proof of existence of other numbers? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about multiple numbered highways occupying the same actual roadway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will count physical roadways. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What counts as a road? What if one road changes names at the intersection? Is that two roads or one?

Any of the azimuths from the center (even though we usually think of + shaped intersections as 2 roads when they don't change names) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So each roadway that exits an intersection counts as a "road". How are you handling divided highways? Two roadways or one? Do you want simple intersections, or do you also want to count interchanges and roundabouts? --Jayron 32 16:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The centerline of parallel(ish) divided highways are counted as one roadway unless there are two(ish) street canyons/tree canyons/etc. canyons or the median is disproportionately wide. Roundabouts are okay, preferably no interchanges but if it's hard to find 9 or 10 etc. without counting roads off ground level then sure. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's Hampton Roads, which is the "intersection" of a number of rivers and streams. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intersection (road) led to Seven Dials in London and Brighton and this article mentions another 7-way in Seattle: [9]. Rmhermen (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsford, New South Wales has a Nine Ways Roundabout. --Jayron 32 18:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think (if I count right) that Taganskaya Square in Moscow has 11 roadways coming together: [10]. --Jayron 32 18:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Capital Circle in Canberra is a large roundabout, with a bewildering number of roads feeding it; I've not counted though. --Jayron 32 18:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Google Maps, if you only count the inner roundabout, there are only about three. But if you count the outer six-sided "roundabout", it's more like 16. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how many now, but see Seven Corners, Virginia.Naraht (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One note on the initial list: Indianapolis' Monument Circle only has 4 roads leading in/out; the diagonal roads all terminate multiple blocks away (the farthest is sufficiently distant that there's not a regular road-grid square about the circle at its endpoint). — Lomn 21:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting, I learned of it 15 years ago from a pre-1990s magazine and probably remembered wrong. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to two 7-ways myself. One is the Seven Dials traffic circle in London, mentioned above. The other was on rural roads somewhere on the South Island of New Zealand. It was just a plain intersection with straight roads meeting from 7 directions. On Google Maps if you zoom in on the area around Ashburton you will see a lot of straight roads at arbitrary angles, some of them meeting in 5- and 6-way intersections (or intersections that look as if they used to be 5- or 6-ways and were later reengineered into multiple intersections). I think the 7-way was vaguely around there; but that was in 1983, I can't find it on Google Maps now, and I don't remember the exact location. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rotunda da Boavista in Porto has eight roads leading off it. Warofdreams talk 02:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rynek Główny in Kraków has 11 streets, one smaller square and one covered passageway leading to/out of it. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can do this for the railway as well. Pre-Beeching Cambridge had tracks leading to

Bishop's Stortford and London
Ely
Hitchin
Mildenhall
Newmarket
St Ives
Sandy and Oxford
Sudbury

a total of eight. Was this the highest number? 62.49.80.34 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White (European) Slavery not mentioned in your "Jamestown, Virginia" Article.

With the mention of African Slavery in Jamestown (the 1st English Virginia Colony), why isn't there any mention of White (European) Slavery that also occurred there before 1619 AD? I would be happy to contribute to your article(s) within Wikipedia that should reflect this fact with overwhelming evidence. Such evidence will only help to provide more facts for all readers to absorb what really occurred, especially for our younger generation(s).

My compliments to your Wikipedia Projects for providing an open door to only facts/truths and not opinions.Nubianpageants (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery (African or otherwise) is only mentioned once in Jamestown, Virginia, and then once again in History of Jamestown, Virginia (1607–99). In both cases these mentions are accompanied by links to much more thorough articles on the subject. The subject is simply so big that the main article is mostly an overview. But sure, everyone is welcome to edit. A good start would be letting people know on the article's talk page what you intend to add, and what sources you intend to cite. Prior approval is not necessary, but prior discussion sometimes prevents misunderstandings. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that your own books, being self published, would not be permitted as sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nubianpageants -- a formal legal framework for slavery in Virginia didn't exist until decades after 1619. See http://www.history.org/history/teaching/slavelaw.cfm -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This may have been mixed up with Debt bondage-cases and Indentured servitude where (white) people without property signed a labor contract to work off their debt to someone or finance their passage from Europe to the American colonies, which was a common practice. --Kharon (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "white slavery" is not a thing. The structure of Slavery in the United States (and in the Americas in general during the 17th-19th century) is built solely on the racist philosophy that everyone except white people is subhuman, and therefore subject to being owned as property by white people; and furthermore that a state of slavery is incurred because someone is non-white, and that state exists in-perpetuity for all time, even including children born to such people. This is also called chattel slavery, because it treats non-white people as livestock, where the owners of those slaves had the same rights as the owners of livestock. This form of slavery does not exist against white people, it did not then, and it never has. What existed for white people at the time was a form of contract labor, where a service (such as transport to the New World) was paid off not with cash, but with future work from the contracted laborer. This is in no way the same thing, it's a contract of legal equals which is enforced like any contract. White indentured servants had the same rights under the law as any free white person, their state of servitude was only covered by civil contract law, which would be enforced only in the case that they broke the terms of the contract. The idea that this sort of mutually-agreed contract is "white slavery" or is somehow equivalent to the brutal, racist, policies of actual slavery is basically bullshit invented by modern racists like the alt-right movement to justify their historical revisionism, and make their racism seem less problematic. --Jayron 32 11:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true enough, but the main difference was that the white person would eventually be free. Many people especially boys were taken off the street and sold into bondage in America, they never chose to go. Dmcq (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just that, though. It isn't like the white servants and black slaves lived under the same set of laws and principles during their times in servitude. White people still always had access to legal systems and social systems that protected them and their legal rights. Black slaves had no such rights. I'm also not saying conditions were egalitarian for white servitude. Under modern standards, it may have been a fairly shitty life. But it was orders of magnitude less shitty than that of a black slave. --Jayron 32 15:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If you killed any white person, even if they were your indentured servant, you'd face murder charges. Killed someone else's black slave? Property damage, unless you could argue they were being "uppity." Killed your own black slave? No consequences whatsoever. About the only legal charges that would have applied for slowly torturing a slave to death in the middle of Main Street would have "disturbing the peace" and "littering."

If someone raped a white person, they had to actually to make some kind of legal defense. Raped a slave? Almost encouraged because the slave's owner would get to keep the kids, too. Hell, it was more of a crime to rape animals than it was to rape slaves.

The whole "white slavery" claim is nothing more than a racist canard rooted in a misquotation. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please take time to actually read the slave codes. They were put in place in 1740 in South Carolina. They became the basis for slave codes throughout the entire United States. Also see slavery in the 21st century. This is not an issue of the distant past that belonged to one race of people. It is a modern problem that affects millions of people throughout the world. 216.59.42.36 (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

@@ Line 497: / Line 497: @@
 ::::If someone raped a white person, they had to actually to make some kind of legal defense.  Raped a slave?  Almost encouraged because the slave's owner would get to keep the kids, too.  Hell, it was more of a crime to rape animals than it was to rape slaves.
 ::::The whole "white slavery" claim is nothing more than a racist canard [https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4609 rooted in a '''misquotation'''].  [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 15:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
+:::::Please take time to actually read the slave codes. They were put in place in 1740 in South Carolina. They became the basis for slave codes throughout the entire United States. Also see [[slavery in the 21st century]]. This is not an issue of the distant past that belonged to one race of people. It is a modern problem that affects millions of people throughout the world. [[Special:Contributions/216.59.42.36|216.59.42.36]] ([[User talk:216.59.42.36|talk]]) 16:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 = September 12 =