Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed

November 26

African Americans and East Indians

Are there any notable East Indians of African American origin? When I Google African Americans and East Indians, not too many articles come up. Poodlesun (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what you're asking about. In certain Caribbean countries, such as Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana, there are large populations of African origin as well as large populations of subcontinental origin. AnonMoos (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

He might have the East and West Indies confused. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

If so, see East Indies (Southeast Asia) and West Indies (Caribbean). Alansplodge (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

First, could we please use terms appropriately. The term “African-American” refers to people of African origin born in the United States. The West Indies (Carribean) has a large percentage of people of African origin, but not many who came there via the US. Second, the article on the East Indies does not discuss the ethnic demographics of the region, so that article isn’t helpful. Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sensu stricto the East Indies generally refers to the islands of the Indonesian Archipelago and the Philippines, so that leaves us only a few countries to research the demographics of: Demographics of the Philippines, Demographics of Indonesia, Demographics of Malaysia, Demographics of Papua New Guinea and Demographics of Brunei I think should cover them. Perhaps also Demographics of Singapore. --Jayron32 13:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Based on the question, a more relative article is the one on the American diaspora. Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That article is somewhat also redundant to Emigration from the United States. Neither really mentions African Americans specifically. They also only deals with American citizens living abroad, and does not handle descendants of those people, who may or may not still be citizens and may or may not be counted as residents or citizens of their new homeland, for various reasons. --Jayron32 17:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Could you build a tube to space?

Could you build a tube to space? 201.251.17.228 (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean like a space elevator? --Jayron32 13:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Much the same as any space elevator, whether it's a tube, a wire, or a tower. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• See Is There a Limit to How Tall Buildings Can Get? Cambalachero (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

With all the advances in science in regards to creating organs with your cells and advances in DNA editing would it ever be possible to grow and organ that one didnt have in the first place such as a trans women getting a genetically similar uterus?

With all the advances in science in regards to creating organs with your cells and advances in DNA editing would it ever be possible to grow and organ that one didnt have in the first place such as a trans women getting a genetically similar uterus? 101.51.4.239 (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we cannot predict the future. If the past is any indication, it would be foolhardy to say that the answer is a definite "No" - many once impossible things have been accomplished and organ printing is still in its infancy. Matt Deres (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Toys R Us bankruptcy and "a dollar more than the liquidators"

My understanding was, a core problem for Toys R Us was the 2006 leveraged buyout, which saddled the company with massive debt. But a potential buyer of the bankrupt company was not expected to offer a price for the company which would pay all that debt.

The administrators handling theToys R Us bankruptcy said that in order to acquire the company, all a buyer would have needed to offer was "a dollar more than the liquidators". (I.e. a dollar more than would be realized by liquidating the stock). Yet nobody stepped forward to offer that dollar.

If the problem for Toys R Us was merely the debt burden it was carrying, and it was otherwise a viable going concern, why would no buyer have stepped forward to buy the company as a going concern? The price would have been cheap, and generally, there is considerable value lost in winding up a company. I don't see how the debt burden from the leveraged buyout would have posed a problem; the buyer need not offer a sum which covers it all - only the "dollar more than the liquidators". So why no buyer? (Was the stock worth more than the company as a whole? Or is there some other explanation?)

@John M Baker: as usual, I ping you as our resident corporate expert. Others welcome to answer too, of course. Eliyohub (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I haven't followed the Toys R Us bankruptcy, although you would think I would have excellent reason to do so. A fundamental question, however, is who would buy the reorganized entity. I don't think there are any potential strategic buyers for the company (e.g., a company like Walmart or Federated), so any buyer would have to be an opportunistic buyer (e.g., a private equity fund that wants to buy a toy retailer on the cheap). Such a buyer would be looking for a company that would throw off cash to service new debt. It's not clear, in this retailing environment, that TRU would be throwing off that kind of cash. In this regard, note that it can be difficult to scale down; if half the TRU stores are profitable, for example, the buyer would still have to fund operations of the entire TRU headquarters, which might result in operating expenses too great to sustain. Also, in the United States a bankruptcy reorganization requires not only an optimal financial result but also a workout of the debt issues, and it can be difficult to get the necessary agreement of creditors; I don't know to what extent this may have been a factor here. John M Baker (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It also depends on if people believed that Toys 'R' Us's sole problems was the bad debt it accumulated through the LBO, or if there were other structural problems going forward that makes a brick and mortar big box toy store was a viable business model in the future. Brick and mortar retail is generally on the decline, as shopping malls are half-empty and much retail has moved on to online businesses like Amazon and general-purpose retailers like WalMart and Target. The debt problems may have hastened the eventual collapse of the business, but there are many who probably felt it was a failing concern going forward anyways. Net sales had declined for most of the past 10 years. It may not have been worth saving. If it were, there would be other brick-and-mortar big-box toy stores who would fill that market niche. Where are they? The loss of Toys 'R' Us has not created a market vacuum, and whatever such market vacuum it did create is filled by other concerns (Amazon, Walmart, Target). --Jayron32 17:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you are overlooking that the company was operating at a loss for years. "The company has not had an annual profit since 2013. It reported a net loss of US$164 million in the quarter ended April 29, 2017. It lost US$126 million in the same period in the prior year." If your operating costs are always higher than your income, you are likely to run out of resources at some point. Dimadick (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Not overlooking so much as you just added more data that supported my thesis. Thanks for that. Anyhoo, one could argue that the losses were due not to problems in store sales, but rather due to unfavorable debt management. My argument was mostly that sales were dropping anyways and that even if the company were debt-free, it was a failing business regardless. But yes, that's another reason no one wanted to touch it. It's been dead for years, no one told them until 2017 though. --Jayron32 17:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Further to Jayron32's point: Toys R Us is a "category killer," a devastating competitor for the small independent toy stores that prevailed in the 1950s when Toys R Us and its largest competitor, Child World, were started. (Child World and the third chain of this type, Lionel Kiddie City, went out of business in the early 1990s.) But TRU's business model required a large amount of high quality retail space for an essentially seasonal business, as toy retailing is dominated by the Christmas season. TRU was therefore in a poor position to compete with Walmart and Target, which can provide a large toy selection at Christmas but reduce the space devoted to this category during other seasons. The advent of Amazon, of course, further weakened TRU's competitive position. It's not clear why someone would want to get into this business at this point. John M Baker (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, the largest competitor to Toys 'R' Us as a toy-only business was KB Toys, which went out of business about 10 years ago. While it generally operated much smaller store sizes compared to Toys 'R' Us, they were usually in higher-rent locations like shopping malls. The fact that TRU kept going another 10 years is probably inertia more than anything. Interestingly, the brand is supposed to be making a comeback this year as a "pop-up" store brand, similar to Halloween Costume stores and Christmas Ornament stores, which is in all honestly, a better model for seasonal businesses like this . --Jayron32 19:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

As a '90s kid I got a lot of video games at the local Toys 'R' Us. I suspect video game sales helped revenues outside of the Christmas season, as games are released throughout the year, and I know I didn't like waiting! Video games moving largely to digital distribution probably had an impact. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the reduced importance of the physical videogame market undoubtedly further contributed to TRU's problems.

I find it kind of amazing that KB Toys held on as long as it did. Like many mall chains, their competitive advantage, such as it was, essentially derived from their negotiating position with mall landlords as a major national tenant. Otherwise they had little to differentiate themselves from the old-fashioned toy stores that TRU, Child World, and Lionel eviscerated. But somehow they managed to hold on for years longer than Child World or Lionel. There is still FAO Schwartz, but I don't know how much of a market position they have. And that's pretty much it for toy stores, except for a few small boutiques that have little impact on the larger economic picture. It doesn't make for a very appealing environment for a potential purchaser of TRU. John M Baker (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, FAO Schwarz died at the same time as the other stores. The brand all but died in the mid 2000s (around the same time as KB Toys), it was never a market force, like the other stores, but occupied a niche market as a toy store for rich people. At its peak it only operated 42 stores, which it hit about 1999, but by 2001, the company was sold, 18 of its stores closed, and by 2003 the new owner declared bankruptcy, closing one of its two New York stores in 2004, and there were only a few locations still operating by then. They were basically down to 2-3 stores in 2009 when (ironically) the defunct brand was purchased by Toys 'R' Us. Toys 'R' Us didn't really help it, and the last stores closed in July 2015, with the famous flagship store (the one from the movie Big) closing that month. Like KB Toys, the brand was bought off of Toys 'R' Us and has been recently revived. --Jayron32 15:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

California governor recall 2003, could Gray Davis have run to replace himself?

Regarding the California gubernatorial recall election in 2003: the ballot had two questions. (1) should the sitting governor Gray Davis be recalled, and (2) if so, who should become the new governor. At the time, Gray Davis had not served more than half his term, and the article notes that he is eligible to run again if he chooses.

My question is, could Gray Davis have run as one of the candidates to become governor on the same ballot as the recall question?

RudolfRed (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, no. The way to vote for Gray Davis was to vote against the recall. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Straight to the source: here's the relevant portion of the California Constitution, which bars a state officer from running as a candidate in an election to recall said officer. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! RudolfRed (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

November 27

Did any hierarchy of social statuses ever have a "pecking order" based on one of the 3 dimensions?

Where the higher status you were the more north, south, east, west, high or low you got to live or the closer to the northernmost/southernmost/eastermost/westernmost/highest/lowest point you could live and that direction or point was held in high regard, maybe even holy? At least to the degree this is practical. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this is why castles were on hilltops? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't that mostly for practical military reasons? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Possibly for feng shui or similar beliefs? See Feng shui#Compass School for example. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I remember PBS showing that the Bank of China owned a very long strip of expensive grassy land to ensure nothing can be between the BOC Tower and Hong Kong Harbor for feng shui reasons. Google Maps says there's buildings on it now though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

When Beijing was laid out in the early 1400s, the imperial palace zone or "forbidden city" was to the north of the main city. Not sure that living more northward was always more prestigious. Also, in most countries, dwellings on hills a little inland from the ocean, with panoramic views of the beaches, would have a high property value, but in Brazil they've been traditionally inhabited by poor people... AnonMoos (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Why do the rich Brazilians not want them? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

You could start at Favela... AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

So are all hill favelas on steep hillsides like that picture (or at least a place that requires traveling on steep slopes to get in and out) or does the middle and upper class not want flatter parts of hills with less acrophobic access either? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Visit any large city and you'll find an altitude-based stratification of status in high-rise buildings. If a large company owns a building, which floor is the CEO's office on? (Hint: it's not the basement.) Heck, it's a film trope—the opening of Jim Carrey's Fun with Dick and Jane riffs on this, with Carrey riding the elevator all the way to the top while less-successful executives exit on lower levels. During his solo ascent through the last few floors, he sings I Believe I Can Fly.

I was once in an office building were the top management was located on the third-from-the-top floor. I was told this was supposed to confuse potential terrorists. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Was that before or after 9/11/01? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It was in Germany. The building was constructed after the Munich Olympics. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Buying a condo in Manhattan? The best-appointed, largest, most-expensive suites are not going to be right above the lobby. The private elevator goes to the penthouse, not the third floor.

(To be fair, it depends a bit on how one reads your question, and whether you are looking for a causal relationship flowing one way or the other. The CEO gets the penthouse suite because they have attained a particular status; the status doesn't come from having a high-floor office.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In modern western culture things are based on a lot more than altitude though. Riverside Manhattan zip code 10069 is about 50 feet above sea level with $10,000/month per capita and barely further than the other shore is ground 150+ feet above sea level with $1000/month per capita and better views in a 1.5 star school district. A tiny 2nd floor apartment in the former is probably over a million dollars while you can buy at least 5 homes with that on the other shore. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Note, however, that this is only since the advent of elevators. Before that, in cities, the wealthy lived at ground level or the lowest floors of multi-story buildings. The poor lived on the top floors and hence had to climb stairs constantly. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Older apartment buildings in Paris were built with smaller and less-luxurious apartments at the top. The garret part of the "starving artist in a garret" cliché also refers to this... AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The association between elevation and social status seems pretty straightforward: shit both literally and figuratively slides downhill, so having the high ground is almost always an advantage. Matt Deres (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• In the UK post-industrial revolution, the slums tended to be on the east side of cities. The reason is that wind (and the pollution it carries) tends to blow from west-to-east, making the eastern side of population-and-industry centers the least desirable land. this video has a nice synopsis. --Jayron32 17:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In olden days, living on a hilltop was healthier and preferred by the higher classes. 2A02:C7F:8230:8F00:A117:7494:3EFE:1867 (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Greenwich Palace and Hampton Court Palace are both next to the River Thames. The Palace of Versailles was built on a swamp. Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hill forts were from oldener times than that. --Jayron32 17:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Copied question 1

Original question by 185.217.90.25 (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC) copied from Reddit is as the title here [1]. Removed due to WP:copyvio concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The seas are constantly in motion, so that could be a tall order. It brings to mind Will Rogers' solution to getting rid of U-boats: "Boil the ocean!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Gomer Pyle in The Short-Timers, Full Metal Jacket, and reality

"Gomer Pyle" in The Short-Timers, the book which the film Full Metal Jacket is based on, displays "ineptitude and weak character", according to the article. In the book, is he also described as fat and totally out of shape as Leonard Lawrence is in the movie? And: Would someone as Leonard Lawrence really have been enlisted into the Marines... of all US Armed Forces? --KnightMove (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Why not? He might have thought the Marines would make a better man out of him. It didn't necessarily work out that way, but he couldn't know that ahead of time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Given that neither he himself, nor the Marine instructor, think a second about him quitting, although he's so obviously inept, he was hardly a volunteer. Someone who read the book told me that he was compulsorily conscripted with the draft lottery, which makes sense. --KnightMove (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should read it too, and let us know what you find out. It's kind of ironic that the sergeant called him "Gomer Pyle", as the "real" Gomer Pyle was a pretty good soldier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Ahem, he was not a "soldier". He was a Marine. Calling a Marine a soldier can get you pretty roughed up. --Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I knew that. I just wanted to see if you were paying attention. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm with the OP on this one. In the British Armed Forces, recruits are given a medical examination and only the fittest are put into combat roles (my dad was graded "C1" in 1939 and was sent to Royal Engineers railway workshop). I can't believe that the US Marines didn't have a similar system in the 1960s. Alansplodge (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

There's some discussion of this topic at TV Tropes (see the section beginning "How do you know he volunteered?"). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The gist of which seems to be that the US Marines didn't accept draftees as a general rule. Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Copied question 2

Original question by 93.99.194.244 (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC) copied including typo or spelling error from Reddit is as the title here [2]. Removed due to WP:copyvio concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

List of distributed computing projects might help (sort the table by "Active processing units"). There is SETI@home, for example. --Viennese Waltz 10:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Question

Original question by 93.99.194.244 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC) copied from Quora is as the title here [3]. Removed due to WP:copyvio concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "some people" and "gravity" and "does not exist". If you mean "why are there silly people who don't believe in the existence of gravity", the answer is "because they are silly". If you mean "I heard there are some definitions of gravity that do not treat it like a real force, but instead as a pseudoforce and that as such, it isn't actual a real force" then the answer is that is basically the most accurate definition of gravity we have, as that's what General relativity tells us that it is. It's a really real phenomenon, that is large masses really do move towards each other when you watch them. You really do stick to the Earth, and if you drop an apple, it really does accelerate towards the ground, but the cause of that acceleration (that cause being what we call "gravity") is not a force in the traditional sense, but rather a pseudoforce created by the fact that spacetime is curved around massive objects, similar to how the sidewards "force" you feel when a car turns a corner is not a real force, but a product of the way your reference frame is moving relative to you. But gravity is still a real phenomenon, even if it is not what you may think it is. --Jayron32 15:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Those people don't exist. They all floated away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip when his parents have forgotten to pay the "gravity tax"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

As a public service: [4]. Also: [5] [6] —Tamfang (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"Well, it's not so much that you know, like I don't believe in it, you know, it's just...I don't know, lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed." --Golbez (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that's not far from what GR says: the Earth doesn't pull you, the curvature of spacetime pushes you into the Earth. I don't have time at the minute to look, but there's a great pop-sci channel on YouTube called "Science Asylum" that has a good video explaining the "spacetime pushing you" interpretation of GR. --Jayron32 18:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Robin Hood

Robin Hood robbed the rich and gave their money to the poor. So what's the moral of the legend, what did it teach people? That wealth shouldn't be obtained by working and mastering skills, but by having it handed to you while doing nothing? --Qnowledge (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

There are going to be many different analyses of the Robin Hood legend. You can read about just one of them here. If you do a Google search with phrases like moral of Robin Hood you can find many more examples. --Jayron32 16:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a "Wizard of Id" strip. Robin Hood gives a bag of money to a poor person. The peasant jumps up and down, "I'm rich! I'm rich!" Robin Hood brandishes his sword and says, "Stick 'em up!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The Lucky Luke story Jesse James (1969) similarly satirizes the Robin Hood legend: "In 1880, the story begins with Jesse James, who idolizes and tries to emulate Robin Hood, but somehow he is not able to clearly define the line between the rich he is supposed to rob and the poor he is supposed to help. With the help of his Shakespeare aficionado brother Frank, he therefore simply redefines the term "poor" for his own benefit" Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, riding through the night.... --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Much of the wealth that Robin Hood took from the wealthy was accumulated through no work of their own, but rather by exploiting the masses. If Prince John has lots and lots of money because he has raised taxes again and again and again to the point that the peasants are having trouble paying the taxes and still having enough to live on, has he not robbed from the poor? And is Robin Hood not just recovering these monies and returning them to those who did work to earn them? --Khajidha (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't say it was through no work of their own. That talent for exploitation you're talking about would be the "working and mastering skills" that the OP referred to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• I’m not sure that the story of Robin Hood is intended to have a moral behind it. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  On the contrary, it clearly has a moral framework, with clearly defined "good guys" (Robin and the Merry Men, Good King Richard) and "bad guys" (Prince John, the Sheriff of Nottingham). Any story that sets good against evil has principles upon which those "good" and "evil" are defined. --Jayron32 18:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  If I recall correctly, J.C. Holt remarked that the point of the tales is not the justice of the outlaws' cause - for there is none - but the injustice of those who oppress them. John M Baker (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

There are discussions of the moral of the Robin Hood story here and here. --Antiquary (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

One thing worth remembering is that the story (or stories) are old, and have changed over time, and been merged with or influenced by other stories, and that the moral of the story may have changed accordingly. The earlier stories seem to me to be more akin to caper stories like say Lock,_Stock_and_Two_Smoking_Barrels, where you have a bunch of "bad" criminals who prey on people like us, and a "good" group of criminals (Robin and his Merry Men) who are like us and prey on the bad criminals. Other aspects of the story (robbing the rich to give to the poor, Saxon rebellion against Norman overlords, Robin being a dispossessed noble, supporting the good King Richard against the bad Prince John, involvement in the Crusades, having a Saracen/Moor in the gang, etc), are all later additions that reflect the ideals of the time when the story was retold. Iapetus (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

However, the green tights are indeed historical, and beyond question! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas -> Acting

I'm trying to figure out what happens when the office of Governor of Arkansas is vacant. Everything, including the constitution, seems to indicate that the lieutenant governor acts as governor for the remainder of the term. But is the office of lieutenant governor vacant during that time? Or is one person holding both offices? Or should we still consider the governorship vacant, and the Lieutenant Governor is ex officio "acting governor"?

I guess the meat of the question is, for List of Governors of Arkansas, for example, Harvey Purnell in 1928 - Should he be in both columns at the same time? Should it stay as it is, with him as governor and the Lt Gov column labeled "acting as governor"? Should governor be marked vacant, with a note that Purnell was acting in that capacity? --Golbez (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

That could depend on what the state's laws were at the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel like the constitution alone is the arbiter of this, and all it ever says is the powers devolve upon the lieutenant governor. And the state archives notes some lieutenants as "acting governor" without noting if one or the other office was vacant. I was hoping someone might have some insight into this. I guess I should email the state. --Golbez (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the constitution is just words on a paper, the meaning and application of those words is where it is at. There can be differing interpretations, which is why courts are a thing. --Jayron32 17:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if it helps, but by analogy to similar phrasing from the U.S. constitution, and its common interpretation, see Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 6: Vacancy and disability and John Tyler#Presidency (1841–1845), to wit, "Harrison's death in office was an unprecedented event that caused considerable uncertainty regarding presidential succession... led to the question of whether the actual office of president devolved upon Vice President Tyler, or merely its powers and duties." In the case of the president, such wording was interpreted to mean the actual office and title devolved to the VP, making him the new president. Not sure how this is handled on the Arkansas governorship, but it is one data point you can use. --Jayron32 17:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

True, though the state makes a point of saying that the short-term successors were acting governors. This notion isn't unique to Arkansas, but Arkansas might be unique in the possibility that both offices are held by the same person: [7] --Golbez (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

We have an article Constitution of Arkansas, which includes a link to presumably the full text. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

... yes, I'm familiar with the text of the constitution, thanks. --Golbez (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything the governor can do that the "acting" governor cannot? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. --Golbez (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Be called a Governor. IIRC, that was the main bone-of-contention with the Tyler controversy: His opponents were ready to grant him the full rights and duties of the office of the president, that is he could do everything a President could, but he would merely be acting as the President, not an actual president. He demanded that he was the actual, honest-to-god, full on President. By doing so, he established (mostly by his own force of will) that the constitution is properly interpreted to mean what he meant it to. It wasn't until the 25th Amendment that the practice was codified into more formal terms. It is sort of the difference between being a regent or a viceroy and being the actual king. People who hold those jobs get to do all of the constitutional duties of the King, including appoint ministers, preside over matters of state, etc. What they cannot do is get called "Your Majesty" and get recorded by the history books as The King. --Jayron32 19:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Kings appoint ministers? Not in the Westminster system as far as I know. Perhaps you might clarify what you meant. Akld guy (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they do officially, or outside of the UK, their viceroy (like the Governor General of Canada) does. See Monarchy of the United Kingdom#Royal prerogative, to wit "The royal prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers". It is the Queen's government after all. They used to really do this, like actually considered candidates, chose ministers, dismissed them when they fell out of favor, etc. Over time the real power has devolved so that the Monarch or Governor General merely accedes to decisions already made for them. I can't think of the last time the British monarch did not follow conventions for approving the PM and other ministers, certainly by the time of the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution these powers started to devolve to Parliament, and definitely by the time of the Regency era such devolutions were in full swing. But England/the UK never gave up the constitutional power accorded to the Monarch, so long as they don't actually use them. There are lots of complicated legal fictions that make the system run more-or-less democratically now, but for most of British history, the King really did appoint all of the ministers. Legally, they still kinda-sorta do, but only on paper. Really, the party in charge of Parliament chooses the PM, and the PM appoints the rest of the Government. But on paper, those are still the Queen's appointments. She just always says yes to whosoever she's told to approve. Constitutionally, however, the appointment of ministers is her (or her viceroy's, in countries outside the UK) prerogative. --Jayron32 15:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"She just always says yes to whoever she's told to approve." Yes, and that's a long way from what "appoint" means, which is that she selects candidates based on her personal preferences and directs that they be installed in office with no right of refusal.

"...the PM appoints the rest of the Government." No, the government consists of Members of Parliament who were successful candidates at the general election. The candidates were selected by vote by the party at large before the election. The leader of the party (who may be the PM if the party is already in power, or otherwise usually becomes PM after the election) may have a strong influence on who gets selected, but it is the party at large who select the candidates who, if successful, go on to become Members of Parliament and form the government. What you're confusing is the PM's choice of members of his Cabinet, an inner circle of high ranking MPs who make top-level decisions. The PM has absolute choice of these members, and can dismiss them without being accountable to anyone. Akld guy (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It would probably be more accurate to say the PM selects the rest of the Government from the available Members of Parliament. Remember the generally only some of the MPs of some of the parties are members of the Goverment. (Remembering that the Government e.g. Government of New Zealand, is distinct from the governing party or coalition in the legislature.) Note also that the manner of selection of Members of Parliament varies between different countries using the Westminster system. It's not required top be a successful candidate at any general election to be a member of parliament. Notably this is not the case in either the UK, India or Malaysia. All three have bicameral legislatures and the manner of selection or election of the upper house varies, within the country in India, but these mostly do not involve direct election in a general election. Either precedent or the constitution generally prevents the PM and possibly some other members of the Government from being from the upper house, and it's generally expected that most of the Cabinet will be from the lower house, but it's generally possible for at least some members of the Government, including Cabinet ministers (well not so much the UK nowadays), to be from the upper house. As for the appointing issue, Jayron32's comment is IMO a more accurately reflection of how these things are normally worded. See e.g. [8] from the government of New Zealand In appointing Ministers, the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. This tends to be also the case in non Commonwealth realm Westminster systems see e.g. Union Council of Ministers#Appointment. P.S. Actually thinking about it, I don't think it's always required that appointments to the Government are MPs at the time of the appointment. I believe in India and possibly Malaysia, it's sometimes acceptable to appoint someone who is not yet an MP (be it the upper house or lower), with the understanding they will become one within 6 months and if they don't, they lose their position. Nil Einne (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Frank Cousins and Patrick Gordon Walker were appointed as ministers by Wilson in 1964 despite not being members of parliament at the time (one was a trade union leader, the other had lost his seat in the 1964 election). Both entered the Commons through by-elections within months. There was also Peter Mandelson in 2008 (he was given a life peerage). I imagine this is still the case. I'm not quite sure how you would challenge the Queen making someone a minister when the minister's party has a majority in the Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The last British monarch to refuse a choice of ministers, I think was William IV, though Victoria effectively did the same thing a few years later in the Bedchamber Affair by refusing Peel the normal patronage of office, that is, the Ladies of the Bedchamber.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Jayron, you say how important it is for question answerers to provide sources . You say there is a paper somewhere that says that if Theresa May, say, appoints a junior minister the appointment is actually made by the Queen. The Queen’s official website says rather different [9]. Would you like to link to the paper you are referring to? 2A02:C7F:8230:8F00:5142:DE0B:C770:E83E (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

November 28

Humphry Davy

Do we have a reliable source for Sir Humphry Davy's attitude to gravy? DuncanHill (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean aside from the source of the little poem about how Davy "abominated gravy"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

For those in the dark:

"Sir Humphrey Davy / Abominated gravy. / He lived in the odium / Of having discovered sodium".

From Edmund Clerihew Bentley, Clerihews: Biography for Beginners (1905).

This writeup[10] indicates that no one really knows. It might be poetic license, like when Tom Lehrer wrote a song about Lobachevsky allegedly being a plagiarist, not because he really was a plagiarist, just that his name worked in the song. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Similarly, it seems unlikely that "Edward the Confessor slept under the dresser", but it is incontrovertible that Clive ... is no longer alive". 11:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

And maybe William Lyon Mackenzie King didn't sit in the middle and play with string, but it's possible that he loved his mother like anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The whole Clerihew is here. I've always thought it a bit of a cheat to re-use the first line at the end if you cant think of a better rhyme. Alansplodge (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

"God save our noble queen ... God save the queen." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the tune is much better than the lyrics. A worse rhyme is in the third verse which tries make "laws" and "cause" go with "voice", But it's the thought that counts, I suppose (BTW, it's "God save our gracious Queen / Long live our noble Queen"). Alansplodge (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought something didn't look quite right. I've sung that tune many times, except it starts with, "My country, 'tis of thee..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Also Heil dir im Siegerkranz. Alansplodge (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Lois does rhyme with voix, so maybe laws is playing a double role here? —Tamfang (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Tamfang, our God Save the Queen article relates a "doubtful" tale that the anthem had originally been written for Louis XIV but adds "The entire story might have been intended as a joke". As far as anyone can tell, it was never written in French and it seems likely to be just an eye rhyme, which was a common device at that time. Note that New Zealand's anthem, written 130 years later, tries to rhyme "star", "war" and "afar". Alansplodge (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Baseball Buggs, Often just shruggs: "Ignoring my carrots, makes you all parrots." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

That should be shruggs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Real lawsuit for virtual theft

I've been searching and I haven't found anything... I have to write a paper for school. I want to write about legality of stealing virtual stuff, like stealing somebody's weapons in an online game. Are there examples of lawsuits like that? If I can't find reliable online resources, I have to change topics.

Would such theft involve money, such as for professional gamers? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried searching for "theft of virtual property"? There was at least one case,[11][12] in China of all places. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course there have been some over bitcoins and also over domain names. Those should be easy to find. For in-game assets, maybe this[13] counts, though it wasn't user-v.-user. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Who was Colonel Drewry?

Peter Rowland's The Last Liberal Governments: Unfinished Business 1911-1914 is dedicated to the memory of Lt.-Col. G. Drewry, O.B.E., T.D., B.Sc., A.R.I.C. Who was he? DuncanHill (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

There's not an awful lot about him out there, but I found an obituary here. --Antiquary (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

November 29

Is Singapore part of the Muslim world?

Is Singapore part of the Muslim world despite being in a central location in Southeast Asia surrounded by countries with Islam being the official state religion and/or the countries themselves having a Muslim-majority population? Also, is Singapore an enclave of the Muslim world because its Muslim population is 14.0%? WJetChao (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Muslim world#Geography doesn't think so: "One commonly supported rule of thumb is a Muslim population of more than 50%." Also, Israel is surrounded by Muslim countries, so location isn't a valid criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

As noted in the Religion in Singapore article, Singaporeans have very diverse religious beliefs and Islam has the fourth-largest number of followers (including no religion). It is not considered a Muslim country by any measure. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

November 30

References proving notability of an artist - an illustrator

Hi, to prove notability of an artist who is an illustrator, can I use his signed works in copyrighted books, articles in Urban Post and magazine articles as references? Thanks in advance, Vinvibes

Please see the notability criteria at WP:ARTIST.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Where on the internet is a good place to ask questions about the WWI era?

I've stupidly decided to write a novel set in early 1914 Europe (nothing fancy, a self-pubbed horror/mystery novel) and as it turns out, the further back you go the more incomprehensible the world is. I have plenty of seemingly irrelevant questions which could be answered by a significant amount of research OR I could just ask the good-natured nerds who live and breathe this stuff and who I know must be out there on the internet somewhere. (Were the police in Alsace in 1914 likely to be native French speakers or German imports? What kind of sidearms were issued to the French Foreign Legion? Where can I find an exact timetable for the Orient Express in that year? Et cetera, with doubtless many more to come.) Is Quora probably the best bet these days? Dr-ziego (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This is as good a place as any! As for the Alsatian police, as our article Alsace-Lorraine points out, "various German dialects were spoken by most of the population of Alsace and Moselle (northern Lorraine)". I recall that in Three Men on the Bummel includes a comment on the lines of "a third of the people were offended if you spoke to them in German, a third if you spoke to them in French, and the other third were offended if you spoke to them". DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

According to this, the Orient Express didn't run from 1914 - 1919 due to the war. --Jayron32 16:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I expect it ran in the most of 1914 that was before the War though. DuncanHill (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, half of 1914. According to the article I just linked, it clearly states that it stopped running in July. --Jayron32 16:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Not "most" then but "more than half". Whatever, it does not make a request for a 1914 timetable either invalid or unanswerable. DuncanHill (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I never said that it was. You just said that. --Jayron32 19:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

List of infantry weapons of World War I#French Republic may be helpful as well. --Jayron32 16:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Try The Great War Forum. Another useful resource (but focused on the British experience) is The Long, Long Trail. Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

If you're looking for train timetables, it looks like Bradshaw's Continental Railway Guide might be your best bet. The online preview doesn't go far enough to get to the train tables, but that edition is from 1913, and if you're willing to shell out 13 quid for the Kindle version, it may actually help you with a WEALTH of background knowledge for your story, not just the OE timetables. --Jayron32 19:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to put the story in a timeframe you do have knowledge of, or an interest in researching? You're giving every opportunity for making errors through your lack of knowledge, because with some things you will just (sorry to "Rumsfeld" you) not know you don't know that you're making an error. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

On the variability of geographic names

A question above about Xenere in Iraq reminded me of this. A human settlement or geographic feature may be known by unguessably different names in different languages, and in addition may be renamed over time. I recall reading about a global project to create a comprehensive map or database, such that when an emergency occurs, all parties can know where to send the relief. What is the name of this project? --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like what3words, which advertises that it can be used for humanitarian and emergency services, although just about any geocoding system would fit the bill. Reschultzed|||Talk|||Contributions 03:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Name-dropping in a Canadian novel

A novel by Robertson Davies mentions the quintessential London umbrella shop, James Smith & Sons, in the first chapter, possibly the first page, as a way of characterising the protagonist as that sort of Anglophile. The shop was not, IIRC, named, but perhaps its location on New Oxford Street was. What novel was it? --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Carbon Caryatid: Are you thinking of "A Spy Among Friends"? It's mentioned in the James Smith & Sons article, but by a different author RudolfRed (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

December 1

Identifying a logical fallacy

I'm trying to figure out what this fallacy would be called and it's really bugging me:

• Person A: "We should implement socialism."
• Person B: "Imagine if we lived in a nuclear wasteland with limited resources and manpower. Would socialism work then?"

The fallacy is that Person B has moved the argument from the present moment and set of conditions where such a thing might be feasibly achievable (as is being argued, regardless of whether you agree with the argument or not) to an imaginary scenario in which what is being argued would be unachievable by default. Is there a term for this fallacy? --Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 18:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

If you haven’t already, you could look at List of fallacies. The only two possibilities I saw there are red herring and moving the goalposts. Loraof (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I checked the list and couldn't find it, but thank you anyway. --Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 16:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is such a word to describe such an imaginative argument fallacy (possibly just a false analogy/metaphor/hypothetical?). Maybe it could even be an equivocation, a false appeal fallacy (authority, emotion, popularity), an argument from ignorance, a straw man fallacy, an "Either/Or" (false dilemma) fallacy, or just begging the question. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. It's funny how we can still discover new logical fallacies even now. Thanks for the help! --Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 16:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a good neologism would be changing the premise – the original implied premise is the existence of whatever conditions we are experiencing now, whereas the changed premise is a nuclear wasteland. On the other hand, if the original premise was under any and all circumstances, then there is no logical fallacy (assuming the validity of the implied additional premise that socialism is wrong in a nucler wasteland). Loraof (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• And maybe the change of premise is a form of misdirection. Loraof (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It's kind of an indirect way of Person B telling Person A that it's a short-sighted idea. Hence, a bad idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Could it be a form of Nirvana fallacy/Perfect solution fallacy, in that it is arguing that because something is imperfect (in that it doesn't work in all scenarios, regardless of how irrelevant or unlikely those scenarios are) it is no good? Iapetus (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Problem with new biography: link between two 18th century revolutionary women

I've just written a bio for Marguerite Brazier, a figure of the American and French Revolutionary period. I've included one piece of information that's actually not referenced, but is tantalizing, and comes from our biography of her husband Nicholas Bonneville:

...Bonneville's wife, Marguerite Brazier (1767–1846), who was a disciple of Bonneville's associate, the radical feminist, Etta Palm d'Aelders...

Every other part of the article is sourced, but I can't find a source for this. Perhaps we'll need to remove it, but can anyone find more information on this link? P.S. I'm tagging a few good scholars I know, Ruhrfisch, Victoriaearle, Ian Spackman, but please don't let that stop anyone else from looking into this. With many thanks, -Darouet (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from Google, the connection exists only in the Wikipediasphere. Alansplodge (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: I get the same result, and fear the possibility of WP:CITOGENesis. That said, French books are not nearly so available on the internet as are English ones. and I'm hoping we might find some research support from somebody with access to a library containing French academic texts on the French Revolution? Darouet (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be your only hope. There are some likely suspects at Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Members. Alansplodge (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2

Did Ronald Reagan's assassination attempt affect his life expectancy?

Did John Hinckley's unsuccessful attempt to kill Ronald Reagan have any impact on Reagan's life expectancy? Has anyone ever commented or speculated about this?

Reagan was the oldest U.S. President ever at the time of his death and I wonder if he could have lived longer if he hadn't been shot back in 1981. Futurist110 (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't imagine that there would be any connection. See Death_and_state_funeral_of_Ronald_Reagan#Death. Reagan had gone through a decade of Alzheimer's disease. I can't see any link between that and the injuries he sustained in the assassination attempt. According to our article Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, "Reagan was struck by a single bullet that broke a rib, punctured a lung, and caused serious internal bleeding". I can't easily see how those injuries could be linked to either pneumonia or Alzheimer's 23 years later. Eliyohub (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Although there is no definitive link, there are many possible links. A large scale injury like that will inevitably lead to immune system activation and inflammation, and these are strongly linked to AD through activating microglia, see for instance here, here, or here. Just one plausible link between the shooting and AD. Fgf10 (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"Reagan was the oldest U.S. President ever at the time of his death" Reagan was 93-years-old and was suffering from a disorder causing neurodegeneration for at least a decade. Our article on him mentions that there were peculiar episodes of Reagan forgetting things or failing to recognize his own cabinet members as early as 1981, but that there is no agreement on whether these were early signs of Alzheimer's or caused by other factors. (Was he wearing his eyeglasses? He was suffering from "poor eyesight" at least since the 1940s.) Nancy Reagan was also convinced that Reagan's mental health was affected by a horse-riding accident in 1989 (he was thrown off a horse and suffered head trauma), but there is not enough evidence that the accident had any long-term effects on his health. Dimadick (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• The problem with questions like this is that it's applying a statistical concept (being life expectancy) to an individual person. It doesn't really work that way, concepts that are built on many millions of people cannot be individualized meaningfully down to the person. He did not die of his injuries, nor of any complications of his injuries. Excepting the nebulous effect of generalized inflammation on development of neurogenerative disorders, noted above, there's nothing in the cause of his death which could have reasonably been attributed to the injuries sustained by his gunshot wound. --Jayron32 18:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Reagan was the oldest U S president ever at the time of his death and remained so until Friday, when that honour passed to George H W Bush. Jimmy Carter (who shares his birthday but not his birth year with Theresa May) is 94. 2A02:C7F:8230:8F00:5142:DE0B:C770:E83E (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If my arithmetic is correct, Gerald Ford outlived Reagan by a month or so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Emperor Meiji

When did Emperor Meiji cut his hair to the more Western style short hairstyle? KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Two of the sources I'm finding say he cut his topknot in 1872, another says 1873, and a fourth finds the evidence conflicts between 1872 and 1873. [14][15] --Antiquary (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"The Meiji government decreed in 1871 that men should remove their topknots, and the Meiji emperor himself cut his hair the following year". Domesticated Modern: Hybrid Houses in Meiji Japan, 1870-1900 (p. 229) Don Hoon Choi, University of California, Berkeley, 2003.

The 1871 decree was called the dampatsurei, which gets a mention in Wikipedia in Haitōrei Edict. No more luck with more references though. Alansplodge (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

December 3

File:Tedda Courtney 1908.jpg

Tedda Courtney

In deprecating an old template, I came across this old photo by chance, the 1949 date given was in error, based on the players age and the length of the typical playing career, it didn't seem plausible. The 1908 date in the information is from the caption in the article in which it appears. I've not been able to find any more information on the image. AllI know is that it's from 1908 or so, and that appeared in an article in The Daily Telegraph (Australia) at https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/image-gallery/d1b705f376a5a7c854ba64af2a48cc37?sv=e93dde61503395ad5da13a25a5c28144&nk=2af44fc4d9abb9a11d592403d0906976-1543821354 (image 13 of 71), That article doesn't give an additional photo credit either. It would be nice given that a 1908 image is clearly public domain in Australia and the US, to pin down if there's an archive source that someone could get a higher quality version from.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Roger Clinton Jr. or Sean Astin?

Who am I?

I uploaded a photo I that thought showed Roger Clinton Jr. (the photographer said so on FlickR) and inserted it into the article, but an anonymous user soon reverted and said the picture showed Sean Astin. I Googled both men and I am not sure. What say you? Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Roger Clinton has blue eyes; I think that's Sean. Matt Deres (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That is a photo of Sean Astin from the Stranger Things 2 premier. 216.59.42.36 (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)