Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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.

May 3

Request for debate

Sorry, we don't answer this sort of question here. Please see the guidelines at the top of the page

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

how many more white americans must die in race riots before the american police force finally wake up their idea and reduces their discrimination against black men? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.60.111.95 (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forty two. Widneymanor (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was Highland Homes history back in 1946 502 W. Highland Ave Phx. Az 85013

+ I would like to fine out the history about Highland Homes back in 1946. Was it a Air Force, or maybe pow camp,or army barracks?70.190.231.174 (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but Lindsey Balinkie seems to lead a neighbourhood group that aims to "share information about the community". Might not hurt to send her an e-mail. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:49, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

The subdivision is called the "Pierson Place Historic District" - according to their website, the area has been residential since 1929. "We are not the largest historic district, not the oldest, nor do we have the cachet of some, but we offer a great place to live near the resources of our large metropolitan area". Tevildo (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Politics in England

Does UKIP have any objectively racist policies? I had a skim through their election manifesto and couldn't find anything that fits the dictionary definition of racism, and yet everyone says they are racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordenGorne (talk • contribs) 18:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, their anti-immigration position can be construed as being racist - see, for example, this letter which appears on the front page of their website, with (presumably) their full endorsement of the views it expresses ("I am therefore not racist, but..."). See also Godfrey Bloom, whose remarks, using the term "Bongo Bongo Land", were described as "crude stereotypes that see Britain as a civilised place and overseas as tribal" by a spokesman for Show Racism the Red Card. Although he has admittedly been dismissed from the party. Tevildo (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tevildo: Please redact or rephrase the latter part of your reply. Per BLP policies you shouldnt be using the Reference desk to accuse a living politician of being racist. Bosstopher (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing added. Tevildo (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bosstopher (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what Tevildo says, none of their policies are "objectively racist" in a Jim Crowe sort of way, but their immigration policies are considered racist by some, or pandering to racists. Also quite a few members have gotten in trouble for making remarks that have been viewed as racist.Bosstopher (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Playing the race card is really slimy innuendo. Should we take seriously a question that asked how many labour supporters smoke crack when they cottage, and how many tories are supporting the children of their former aupairs? Is there some reason not to google UKIP to find to their manifesto and read it, and judge for one's own? μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP did say they've skimmed the manifesto and turned up nothing. He reports that "everyone" says they're racist, yet he can't find any evidence that that is in fact the case. That seems like the opposite of innuendo to me. If people are never allowed to ask questions that have anything to do with racism, then PC has gone way too far. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Medy, if you'd actually read the OP's post, that's exactly what they've done. UKIP is clever enough not to outright state their racism in their manifesto of course. Also, loving that Americans want to correct British posters about British politics (well, not so much politics as scaremongering and lying in UKIP's case, but I digress). Fgf10 (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw Medies' attention to the following passages from the manifesto:

Page 16: "The NHS is the National Health Service, not the International Health Service."
Page 23: "Our common sense approach to benefits includes [...] Ending welfare tourism with a five-year ban on benefits for migrants."
Page 31: "We will support and fund free schools, provided they are open to the whole local community, uphold British values and do not discriminate against any section of society." [Emphasis added].
Page 34: "We will not allow non-British nationals access to the Right to Buy or Help to Buy schemes."
Page 41: "Allow British businesses to choose to employ British citizens first."
Page 47: "[W]e can insist animal products are labelled to show the country of origin, method of production and transport and whether the animal was stunned before slaughter". [Emphasis added].
Page 53: "Truly horrific, tragic crimes have been committed in Britain by foreign criminals with long records in their home countries and petty criminality has risen as gangs of thieves, pickpockets and scammers have arrived from overseas to target the UK."
Page 55: "We will adopt a zero tolerance approach to cultural practices that are either illegal or which conflict with British values and customs". [Emphasis added]
Page 59: "Make the setting up of a traveller pitch without permission illegal."
Page 61 passim. Particularly, "UKIP will promote a unifying British culture", "We reject multiculturalism", "those faiths and beliefs must exist firmly within a British framework".
Page 67: "But the fight with and against this ideology [Islamic extremism] is not best fought on a battlefield 3,000 miles away, but at home".

Now, those statments may not be "objectively racist". The electorate will decide on Thursday whether or not to endorse them. Tevildo (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dog-whistle_politics may also be informative (oops, I see now RomanSpa linked this already with a different pipe. But it's worth linking again for emphasis). SemanticMantis (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The key thing to understand about UKIP is that they speak in code. Sometimes the code is fairly obvious - their remarks about "NHS tourists", particularly their recent remarks about people with HIV - were fairly clearly aimed at black people (as well as helpfully reminding their audience about "disease-ridden homosexuals"). Other times the code is much more subtle - their advocacy of "British culture" really means "white lower-middle-class culture", but you have to dig through a lot of verbiage before the pattern becomes clear. They have been, and continue to be, very clever in not saying anything overtly racist, but it's clear to any Briton what they mean: British people use English with a great deal of careful circumlocution, because we don't like to be seen as rude, but we can all understand the code perfectly well. Basically, UKIP is the genteel lower-middle-class wing of the BNP. RomanSpa (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt some or even most UKIP supporters are racist, but isn't it more accurate to describe their ideology as xenophobic? Apparently UKIP is attracting some support among black people in Britain who share its xenophobic perspective: [1] [2] Marco polo (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What utter bollocks. Speaking in code means the leftist has psychic powers to detect racism in his enemies, again, an adjuvant of the race card. Wanting to cut social spending or limit immigration may affect different races (you know, race, that concept leftists say is unscientific, unless they have need to call someone names) but unless the law says spending only on blacks will be cut or only Indians will be kept out of the country there is nothing racist about a law applied equally regardless of race. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is sounding much like a debate now. You know, that thing of which you have such an abhorrence that you regularly shut it down when conducted by others. But I could be wrong. I think I'm getting a cold. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, Medies, you are utter bollocks. The 'leftists', or as we like to call them, non-racists, don't have psychic powers, we have powers of observation. You clearly have no idea of British politics whatsoever, so I'm wondering why you are bothering to comment on this. I know racism is far more acceptable in the US, and in many ways is still institutionalised, but things are different here in the civilised world. Don't apply your warped standards to us. Fgf10 (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes; to proclaim that one intends to vote for some callow, economically illiterate middle-class quasi-Marxist politics geek is a public demonstration of one's own moral superiority; a bit like buying an indulgence in the Middle Ages.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. - Matthew 6:5 81.159.210.231 (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"some callow, economically illiterate middle-class quasi-Marxist politics geek"? Seriously? DuncanHill (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Marco polo says, UKIP's official policies are xenophobic rather than overtly racist. There have been incidents where individual UKIP members have been surprisingly frank in expressing their opinions to journalists and documentary makers. For example, the BBC made an excellent "fly on the wall" documentary about UKIP which included several "I can't believe someone said that while being filmed" moments. But UKIP generally tries to distance itself from the more extreme views of its members. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, earlier today I was speaking to an older (60+) couple who (a) interpreted UKIP's desire for an "Australian-style" immigration policy as meaning something like the White Australia policy, rather than Australia's current "points-based" system, and (b) confirmed that this was the general understanding amongst other people of their age group and above. When told that Australia currently uses a points-based system, one of them freely remarked that "[Farage]'s just mentioning Australia to tell us what he really means". Interestingly, there are plenty of other countries (Canada, New Zealand, etc.) that UKIP could mention in providing examples for the points-based approach (which, in any case, is already implemented for the UK). Continually mentioning Australia does seem calculated to imply a "whites only" policy without explicitly saying so. RomanSpa (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How quickly people forget when it suits them, and how long they remember when it suits them. The White Australia Policy was abandoned in practice during the 1960s, the final coffin nail was hammered in in 1973 when it was abandoned formally, and ever since then it has been illegal for race to be taken into account when selecting people for orderly immigratiom to Australia. The WAP has been gone for almost as long as it was ever in place. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. No-one is disputing that Australia's policy is long gone. Indeed other countries, including Canada and the US, had somewhat similar policies in the early 20th century. The point being made was about how UKIP's references to Australia would be interpreted by a target demographic of voters in Britain. Paul B (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

How do I open a manhole?

How can a manhole be opened? How deep is it? How does one descend down safely? Will it stink? Is there a way to find out about the underground sewers without getting myself dirty? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See manhole. --Jayron 32 17:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in our article, but you need a manhole key - they come in different sizes. Failing that, they can usually be levered open with the aid of a large screwdriver and a garden spade (blimey, we're really stretching the definition of "humanities" here aren't we?). Alansplodge (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest and spirit of sexual equality, should we not refer to them a Person-Holes?--Aspro (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, there was some movement towards "inspection cover" for that reason, but "manhole" remains in widespread use, even by local government, formerly in the vanguard of political correctness. [3] Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I'm surprised at you falling for the tabloid line on this. Inspection chamber/inspection cover is the correct name and always has been. It's what horny-handed sons of toil in the construction industry say, while parking up their white vans and failing to cover up their builders' bums. The Daily Mail tactic was to try and discredit "looney left" councils by finding them saying "inspection cover" and then asserting on no basis at all that it was a euphemism because "manhole" was considered sexist. This kind of stuff can only be countered by loud and lusty singing of Baa Baa Black Sheep and Three Blind Mice. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See, naturally, Loony Left for our article on _this_ subject. (Although there are certain nursery rhymes that _are_ considered unsuitable these days...) Tevildo (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the error, but I lived in Waltham Forest during the 1980s and can assure you that the "Looney Left" was not entirely the invention of the Daily Mail; truth can be stranger than fiction. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Footway boxes--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may be laws or ordinances in your jurisdiction limiting access to sewers to authorized personnel. If so, you risk arrest or a fine if you enter a manhole. There are easier ways to find out about your sewer system. Contact your local public works or public utilities department. They may be able to answer any questions, and they may have publications that would interest you. Your IP address suggests that you are in Columbus, Ohio. If so, here is the relevant link: [4] Marco polo (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urban exploration is probably the article OP is looking for. Tevildo (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are liable to get a ticket for causing a public nuisance, if not a charge for tresspass (or manslaughter) or whatever a lawyer you consult tells you is possible in your jurisdiction--please contact your municipal sewer department and tell them you want a looksee. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or just take a trip to Paris.--Phil Holmes (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are human beings so unpredictable?

Although it would be nice to do an experiment to ascertain the cause and effect of a phenomenon, sometimes it seems that correlational studies may be easier, even though they don't provide much information beyond a correlation and may even be misleading due to a third unknown variable. Plus, scientists have to do a debriefing after deceiving for ethical purposes, which may imply that participants can intentionally go against the expected results instead of acting spontaneously like in a real-world situation. Why can't humans be more predictable and consistent in their behavior? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sapience, Sentience, consciousness, self-awareness, cognition, etc. --Jayron 32 17:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free will, Volition_(psychology). SemanticMantis (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as evolution, game theory may figure in. That is, if you were totally predictable then other humans could take advantage of this. For a simple example, consider if you played poker "straight". That is, no bluffing, with each bet proportional to your hand. The other players would know approximately how good your hand was, and beat you consistently, if they could continue to bluff. So, you'd soon lose all your money due to this "consistency" gene. StuRat (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a movie about that. See The Invention of Lying. --Jayron 32 18:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or Liar Liar. StuRat (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the reason that they appear unpredictable is that one has not taken the time to get to know them properly? Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If humans were predictable psychopaths could manipulate them. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are very predictable and its not just psychopaths that do manipulating. I think what you are talking about is why are they not more logical - but that assumes you know what would be more logical and that requires quite a bit of work to tease out Dmcq (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted that knowing you would respond that way. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know that Dmcq is a master at predicting human behavior. Count Iblis (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of my coworkers would greet customers with "How are you?" I would ask "Did you find everything you need?" The majority of customers would respond to me with "I'm fine, and you?" as though I had asked how they were. Some wouldn't even catch on, even going into details completely unrelated to "did you find everything you need?" and only relevant to "How are you?"

On different internet forums, in college, and even on this site, I've been stonewalled by Thought-terminating clichés in discussions on religion, politics, philosophy, and art, from people of various backgrounds, positions, educational levels. (I'll admit I've shot a few back myself on occasion, and that's admittedly the easiest way to deal with vandals trolls: state the guideline like a Vogon, and warn and report them). I've stopped arguments between individuals by pointing out that the thought terminating cliches they were using supported the same position. I've also started arguments with people I agreed with by pointing out a platitude they brought up was questionable.

As much as I disagree with both behavioralism and Neuro-linguistic programming, the above experiences lead me to believe most of humanity operates off of set scripts and for a lot of common interactions. If you attempt to modify these scripts, you're "weird." If you point out these scripts, you're "rude." If you try to tear apart these scripts, you're "disruptive." If you attempt to write new scripts, you're either "crazy" or "smart." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, while it is true that many iconoclasts are often perceived as problems by society, the opposite isn't always true. Sometimes an asshole is just an asshole, and isn't advancing society against the resistance of mindless drones, but rather just being obnoxious. --Jayron 32 14:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The solution, Ian.thomson, is to clearly and audibly say "Happy Tuesday!" (varying as appropriate) to anyone you greet. This forces them to respond "Happy Tuesday!" and staves off all that, "How are you doing? And you, Fine too, thank you very much!" bullshit. My local pharmacy has instituted a requirement the floor staff go through that long and tedious ritual from every worker to every customer, to the point you want to change aisles to avoid people stocking a shelf. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that my response to any child that screamed "I hate this store!" was "It's ok, I do, too," me saying "happy (anything)" would've been an obvious lie (and I can only successfully lie when drunk or blaming management). One of the few times where going outside of programming got a positive response, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how "Happy <whatever>" can be a lie, Ian. It's an expression of your desire that the other person have a happy whatever; it's not stating that you're having one or have any realistic expectation of ever having one. See, when you've just lambasted and reduced the store manager to tears for the shocking standard or, indeed, lack of service in their establishment, you can still end with "Good day" as you turn and flounce off in a huff. You're obviously not having a good day, and the manager is definitely not, but things can always improve, for them if not for you, and so that must remain your most fervent hope. Otherwise, why waste your breath. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are complicated. Everyone has experiences, current conditions, and predilections which vary widely and conflict. Mr.Magik-Pants (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic Lights - Red, Yellow, and GO!

Are traffic lights programmed to switch between green and red lights at different set times of the day? How do traffic lights keep all the vehicles orderly? How do pedestrian buttons (the buttons that you press to cross the street) interfere or interact with the flow of traffic lights? Are there hidden cameras in the traffic lights to catch speeding motor vehicles or to adjust to the traffic on the road? If a traffic light is broken, what type of person maintains the traffic light? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen our Traffic lights article? --TammyMoet (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a flashing yellow light means "proceed with caution", what does a green light mean ? "Proceed with reckless abandon" ? StuRat (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The variation on this that I grew up with is "green means go" "yellow means go like hell" MarnetteD|Talk 18:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this depends on where you are. As UK amber means stop (unless you've aready started to cross the stop line or cause an accident) while in the States yellow means about to become red. Dja1979 (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a joke that's probably been around since traffic lights were invented. What normal yellow means is "the light is about to turn red." And there's this old saying: "Stop when it's red / Go when it's green / And don't sneak through / When it's in-between." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Position at about the 30 second mark of this 1940s item:[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live, yellow means stop if it's safe, red means stop at all cost. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major roads tend to be timed to assist the traffic pattern, while smaller roads may not be. As for where smaller roads meet major roads, there they may wait until a car is detected on the small road, then wait for the next opportunity to turn the light green without interrupting the pattern on the main road. StuRat (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The big change where I live was computerization of the traffic light grid. Before that the lights were timed the same 24 hours a day - now they are timed one way during most of the day but from 12 am to 6am they can be very different. MarnetteD|Talk 18:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Useful information. 140.254.136.157 (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't drive much, but in my parents' town in NJ there are two noticeable patterns. During high traffic periods, the signals are timed longer to allow traffic at a standstill to accelerate, and the exclusive left turn signals are activated separately from and before the general green lights to accommodate more left-hand turning traffic that would otherwise never get across the oncoming traffic. At night the left turn signals don't activate, as one can still turn left, given the lack of heavy oncoming traffic. Also, sensors in the pavement detect whether a lane has traffic. This is a problem at one intersection where they put the sensor too far forward, and if the first car in the left turning lane doesn't pull all the way forward (basically with his nose in the highway) the light will not activate, even if there are twelve cars waiting to turn. Many signals at night simply won't change to allow traffic from smaller roads to enter the still busy highways at all unless there's pressure from a car on the sensor at the light. Hence pedestrians have to push a button on the light pole if they wish to cross, or they will stand there until a car comes. μηδείς (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will sometimes see a person get off of his/her motorcycle and walk over and press the pedestrian button, for just this reason (either because the bike is not heavy enough, or large enough to trigger the automatic switch). The article above suggests that some of the switches respond to weight, while others, a magnetic field. Llamabr (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a cyclist and use the roads, but when it comes to turning or using roundabouts, I always go onto the pavement and use the pedestrian crossing. In Japan, you are required by law to do this. I don't know about here in the UK, but I think it's a good idea. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 07:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As it should be, that is illegal in the UK, and can cost you a £30 fine. As a keen cyclist myself, there is nothing more infuriating than seeing people cycle on the pavement. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're OK about children cycling on the pavement. We always did when I was a kid in the Middle Ages. I wish the roads were safer for kids but actually they aren't. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually get off the bike, and walk it across, then when I get to the other side, I get back on the road again. I have an action-cam (CCTV) on my handlebars, and always take videos in case there is the inevitable nutcase who jumps the lights, or if I need it as evidence of verbal abuse ("Get off the road, you stupid f**ker" - which does happen a lot, because apparently the bit in the driving guide saying that bicycles are legally required to use the road is completely ignored by tanked-up Ford Escort owners), and also for evidence in case of an accident. Someone gets banged up in prison, and I get free money. I should turn professional. :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, yeah that's fine. A massive waste of time, but not illegal. And I hear you about arsehole drivers..... 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toucan crossing--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a crossing from shared paths, different thing altogether. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 5

Prayer Your Cross

Where was this prayer published? In which book/letters?

"The everlasting God has in His wisdom foreseen from eternity the cross that He now presents to you as a gift from His inmost heart. This cross He now sends you He has considered with His all-knowing eyes, understood with His divine mind, tested with His wise justice, warmed with loving arms and weighed with His own hands to see that it be not one inch too large and not one ounce too heavy for you. He has blessed it with His holy Name, anointed it with His consolation, taken one last glance at you and your courage, and then sent it to you from heaven, a special greeting from God to you, an alms of the all-merciful love of God." St. Francis de Sales — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anja245 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a prayer?? —Tamfang (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the use of the word 'you', it would sound more like a blessing than a prayer. Still, I have never heard it before. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it hard to find the source of this in the works of Francis de Sales, but that's because it is so widely published, most of the time attributed to him -- but I'm not finding it in actual collections of his letters and writings. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Your Cross" (is this known as "Votre Croix" in the original French?) is a commonly cited prayer of St. Francis de Sales, found on several Catholic devotional sites, but alas, no mention of printed source found in quick search; also checked both old and New Catholic Encyclopedia.

The concordance to his complete works in the original French is online and easily searched by a single word. Concordance - Œuvres Complètes de Saint François de Sales Find a French version of the prayer, a statistically unusual combination of a couple of words within a single sentence, search the first term in the concordance, and do a find on the second term on its huge results page. (No luck with "votre" and then, within results, "croix" - that title apparently not in source text). Alternatively, try the index of all 27 volumes - www.donboscosanto.eu Oeuvres de Saint François de Sales - Tome I - XXVII Touts les index, each in public domain and available on archive.org or, more conveniently organized on one page here: www.donboscosanto.eu/francesco_di_sales/index-fr.php Volume 2 looks promising, Défense de l'estendart de la Sainte Croix. Good luck! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the English phrase, "warmed with loving arms and weighed with His own hands" most promising for its unusual combination (more so in this context than "your cross", at least!) of "warmed" and "weighed" in a short passage, but found no results searching concordance (with Google Chrome offering helpful translations of results pages) for all matches on cognates of French words for "heated" or warmed": Réchauffe, Réchauffer, Réchauffez, Chauffent, Chauffer, Chaufferont. Maybe those with better French could try that phrase with alternate translations. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Great Wall of China accomplish what it was originally intended for?

^Topic ScienceApe (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not really. --Jayron 32 11:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. It wasn't very big, and was not a continuous wall, but rather a bunch of shorter walls, so there were gaps in it for the northerners to easily get through. Calling it 'The Great Wall' would be erroneous, as it was a serious of disconnected walls, none of which was particularly great in comparison with the other walls. These days, local people have been dismantling it to obtain building materials for houses, etc. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nontheless, the wall was nearly continuous under the Ming dynasty, and it succeeded in delaying the Manchu invasion. The invasion succeeded not because the Manchu stormed the wall or found their way through gaps in the wall. Instead, the invasion succeeded because the renegade Ming general Wu Sangui opened the gates of the wall to the Manchu. Marco polo (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It wasn't like Wu allowed the Manchus in to a stable Chinese state; China was in a state of Anarchy, under widespread rebellion, and the last Ming emperor had just committed suicide. It wasn't so much that Wu "opened the gates" as much as "Abandoned his post because he had nothing left to defend". Wu switched sides to the Manchu because his former side pretty much disintegrated around him. It was the destruction of the Ming state from within that caused Wu's defection, not Wu's defection that caused the fall of the Ming. The Manchu takeover wasn't so much an invasion into a well-defended state so much as the Manchu moving into a power vacuum created by the extinction of the prior dynasty and the complete breakdown of the entire state structure from within. It's also quite likely the Manchu didn't need Wu to succeed anyways. --Jayron 32 13:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Wall of China actually refers to a variety of walls over a period of almost two thousand years. I think it's fair to say that some of these were successful and some were not. If you mean the Ming Great Wall built by the Ming dynasty, which forms the most visible parts of the Great Wall today, our article says: "In academia, opinions about the Wall's role in the Ming dynasty's downfall are mixed. Historians such as Arthur Waldron and Julia Lovell are critical of the whole wall-building exercise in light of its ultimate failure in protecting China; the former compared the Great Wall with the failed Maginot Line of the French in World War II. However, independent scholar David Spindler notes that the Wall, being only part of a complex foreign policy, received "disproportionate blame" because it was the most obvious relic of that policy." So that would suggest a negative or mostly negative answer. John M Baker (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scramble for Africa - shares of the colonial powers

What was the share of colonized Africa for each colonial power in 1913? While most key figures are probably impossible to reconstruct, the share of area has probably been calculated somewhere? --KnightMove (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are you measuring "share"? By population or by land area? Both figures are trivial for you to calculate. You just need sources for the numbers. For example, you can use the map you just shared at the right, and approximate the land area of the territories using the maps of the modern countries overlayed with it. From there you can portion out what % of the total land area of Africa is claimed by each colonial power. --Jayron 32 14:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partial answer: "By the beginning of the 20th century, 90 percent of the land area on the African continent came under colonial control....France and Britain together colonized over 70 percent of the land." Colonialism, by Gerald R. Pitzl, in Encyclopedia of World Poverty, Volume 1, Sage Publications, 2006, p. 186. [6] (The sources listed at the end of the article might help you get more specifics.) 184.147.117.34 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some numbers by population: "Between 1885 and 1914 Britain took nearly 30 percent of Africa's population under its control, compared to 15 percent for France, 9 percent for Germany, 7 percent for Belgium and only 1 percent for Italy."[7] 184.147.117.34 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the key, without which the colors are undefined. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Union of South Africa was independent by 1913, having become a Dominion in 1910 with the same status as countries such as Canada and Australia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although its Dominion status meant that it was still part of the British Empire even if not under the control of London. "The Union of South Africa was tied closely to the British Empire, and automatically joined with Great Britain and the allies against the German Empire" according to our History of South Africa (1910–48) article. Alansplodge (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is any US government agency allowed to lie to the public?

Re [8], I know it is a crime to make intentional false statements to a federal investigator [9] so why do the Feds let local police departments get away with it? What recourse do citizens have when government agencies lie in a news broadcast that goes out to the general public, which certainly includes federal investigators? Does the mere fact that a reporter accurately parroted the lie absolve the government agent of lying to investigators? EllenCT (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is not, has not ever been, nor is there likely to ever be any law that requires police in the U.S. to tell the truth all the time. You are not allowed to issue false statements to them because the state has an interest in finding the perpetrators of crimes and bringing them to justice. Police can lie to you as much as they want, so long as they don't cross the line into entrapment, that is getting you to comit a crime you would not have otherwise committed. Lying is central to undercover work, it would be pretty impossible for an undercover officer to do their investigation if they were required to tell you they were a cop. The FBI can lie to you as well, as a police force they do what other police do. I am not aware that any police agency anywhere in the world is proscribed from ever lying. This and this explain it well. The second, from findlaw.com, a pretty reliable source, says clearly "The police, however, can use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect." Of course, you are not required to give any self-incriminating evidence to the police. Even if they lie to try to get you to confess, your Miranda rights ensure that you are under no obligation to answer them. Also, though police are required to give the Miranda warning before charging someone with a crime, even if you haven't been warned, you still have those rights. The rights do not exist because of the warning, the rights exist regardless of the warning. The warning is merely a required courtesy. --Jayron 32 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And with regard to your second questions: No, lying to the press is not the equivalent of lying to federal investigators, merely because a federal investigator may read a news paper or watch the 11:00 news. You are not required to tell the truth to a person 100% of the time merely because they are a federal investigator (for example, it is not against the law to throw a surprise birthday for someone who is employed in that job!). Also, it is not forbidden that lies are never heard by a federal investigator in any context. What is forbidden is lying to a police officer or investigator who is asking questions in the course of an investigation. The proper legal term in the U.S. is called Obstruction of justice, and only covers giving false statements to investigators during the course of an investigation. Not merely saying falsehoods that happen to be overheard by an investigator. Public officials can be penalized for lying only in certain specific circumstances: lying to investigators (Obstruction of justice), lying under oath (Perjury), lying to Congress (Contempt of Congress) are a few; lying in general may not be a specific crime, but can be used as evidence for removal from office under general concepts such as censure or impeachment. There is, however, no specific crime for lying to the press. What can happen is that such officials can be called to testify before Congress, at which point there would be specific penalties for lying. --Jayron 32 16:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that government officials lying to the public ought to be illegal, except perhaps in a few special cases like national security. For example, if the police claim they didn't arrest somebody who they did arrest, and who subsequently disappeared, that very much seems like it should be a crime. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is malformed. Agencies of the federal government don't talk to the public. Their officers may be called to testify before congress, which is comprised of the people's representatives. Lying under oath before congress is a crime. Agents of the government may not lie under oath, and perjury in a criminal case is a huge deal. Statements not made under oath are not governed by any standard, just look at the fact that fewer Americans have jobs now than since the beginning of the Reagan Administration, but that unemployment numbers are quite rosy. Such reports are political, not scientific or evidentiary--they have no epistemic value. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 1981, there were roughly 91,000,000 Americans with jobs. Today there are roughly 140,000,000. Demonstratedly a false statement. Use this tool and change the date ranges. If you have a different source of data, or wish to qualify your statement, that'd be fine, but you shouldn't make a statement of numerical fact like "fewer than" without an actual reference. I'd be glad to see a different reference you may have to provide that says differently than those numbers. --Jayron 32 02:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, Jayron, Amen. Hit 'em with solid data and watch the rapid retreat!DOR (HK) (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not even understanding what I said. I said the jobs numbers haven't been this low since the beginning of the Reagan administration. I didn't claim they were better at the beginning of the Reagan administration. I might also mention that you have to give percentage of population numbers in full-time work, not absolute numbers including part time jobs as "jobs", but I fear your heads might explode. μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis may be essentially right about that, where essentially = starting from 1984, and ignoring post 2009-years that were obviously even worse. See graph here (didn't bother to restrict to full time employees). For interest sake, I also plotted the employment population ration for prime-aged workers (25-54 yo) to compensate for increased years of schooling and increase in senior population; by that standard US is doing almost as well as the best Reagan years, but not as good as the Clinton era. Abecedare (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In February 2015 the official US unemployment rate was 5.5%, yet labor participation is at a 37 year low (so actually the Carter administration, not Reagan) but unemployment numbers reached 12% under Reagan, and meantime there's a record number of people on foodstamps, and a record number of people on disability. The problem with the 5.5% statistic is that it is gamed, it excludes people with part time jobs, and people who have given up looking for jobs (not reported a job search in the last month). My point is not about specific years, but the fact that every other indicator belies a 5.5% unemployment rate, and that these numbers are basically propaganda. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May be that's the point? Statements not made under oath like the above are often not governed by any standard except a person's personal standards. Most of us try to speak what we believe to be the truth, to the best of our abilities on the RD or wikipedia in general, except when making clearly indicated jokes etc. A few people may not. Unfortunately there's still a slight flaw in this logic. Statements on wikipedia are also governed by the communities standards, and making crap up isn't something that's allowed under those standards. Nil Einne (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

μηδείς, Show any shred of evidence that “job numbers haven’t been this low since the beginning of the Reagan administration.” In the first quarter of 1981, the US had 100.2 million civilian employees; in the first quarter of 2015 it was 148.3 million, an increase of nearly half. Unemployment then was 7.4%, now it is 5.6% (Q-1 average). In the first three months of 1981, 43.8% of the population had a job; now it is 46.3%. In 1981, 67.1% of the 15-64 year-old age group were employed; in 2014 it was 68.1%.

Those who cannot imagine an economic recovery are using all sorts of statistical nonsense to make it look worse than it is. The fact is that the US economy has grown, year-on-year in real terms, for 21 straight quarters, at an average rate of +2.2% p.a. Weekly unemployment claims have fallen, year-on-year, in 272 of the past 286 weeks. U-6 unemployment, if that’s your favorite, has fallen faster and further than at any time in its history.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for Western dominance?

Many Westerners believe that Western dominance is because they have freedom and human rights. To what extent is Western dominance (including problems in Africa, Middle East and Asia) actually caused by Western colonialism, racism and exploitation? There should be existing research on this topic. --Jangan Perkauman (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, and then see if you have any questions. --Jayron 32 19:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could start with British Empire. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this recent thread on Why is Europe much wealthier than Africa? Abecedare (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This ridiculous trolling bigotry (when did the West stop beating its wife?) was brought to you by a single purpose account with no edits except at this page. I suggest he be starved, not fed. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

islamic countries vs western countries

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why are the islamic countries so backward compared to the western countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatterboxer100 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backward how ? Technologically ? Politically ? Economically ? Socially (such as women's rights) ? Part of it may be the curse of oil. StuRat (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Troll. Delete. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence of this ? StuRat (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Eh..."backward"? Not a neutral term. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

socially backward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatterboxer100 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Female political leaders in Islam and in Muslim-majority countries is an area where they're doing better than the US. Iran's treatment of homosexuals is absolutely horrible, but their treatment of transsexuals is way better. More information here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason is extremism. The West is partly to blame for the rise of extremism. During the Cold War, the Americans supported the mujahideen. Iranian Revolution is because the Americans forced a brutal secular leader on Iran and destroyed the zakat system. Now Western racism, Islamophobia and blasphemy, plus Western presence in the Middle East, is used by terrorist groups to gain support from angry young Muslims. --Jangan Perkauman (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are also murderous "Islamic" organizations like Boko Haram that don't seem to have much to do with the West. Even ISIL seemed content to just massacre people in their part of the world, initially. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why I said partly. But Boko Haram aims to reduce Western influence in Nigeria. --Jangan Perkauman (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Reduce Western influence" is quite the understatement. They murder or enslave anyone different from themselves. Also note that "western influence" is far more benign these days than in the bad old days of colonialism, yet Islamic fundamentalism is worse now. That would tend to disprove your theory. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps Boko Haram will help to stop the huge influx of emails from so-called Nigerian princes asking for money. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 19:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the British promoted Wahabism in order to undermine the Ottoman Empire. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because they write from right to left. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Majority Islamic nations are as varied as majority Christian nations. 173.32.72.65 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 6

Does an adopted child change the line of succession to the British throne?

The birth of Princess Charlotte of Cambridge changes the line of succession to the British throne. This made me think of the following question. If a royal adopts a child, does that child then "sneak into" the line of succession? Let's say that, hypothetically, Prince William adopts a child. Would that child follow in succession? Or is he completely left out of the picture? Would that adopted child "bump" Prince Harry down one further step? Or no? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, adopted children cannot normally inherit titles under British custom. See, for example, Baron Haden-Guest; the current holder, actor and comedian Christopher Guest has only adopted children. They cannot inherit his barony, the heir presumptive in this case is his younger brother Nicholas Guest. --Jayron 32 02:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only way around it that I can think of (other than a change in the British laws) is if it could be proven that the adopted child is descended from Sophia of Hanover. That wouldn't necessarily put the child very high up the succession list, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such a person would qualify for that place in the list, in their own right, by virtue of their descent from Sophia, regardless of any other events such as being adopted by a parent who was also in the list. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would it differ, if any, if they had known before the adoption or if not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't make any difference. If some plague wiped out everyone above the adoptee in the succession, they'd find out then that they were an heir even if they hadn't known before. Unless and until that happens, it's a moot point. The adoption doesn't change the order of succession, whoever the adoptee is. (NB: The law could be changed to change this. I believe the Wittelsbach family, former rulers of Bavaria, changed their own house law a while back to permit a title to pass to a distant relative who had been adopted, and thus unite two titles.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are: Prince Max, Duke in Bavaria is the heir of his childless elder brother, the Duke of Bavaria, but also inherited the title Duke in Bavaria from their great-uncle, who adopted him. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In medieval Japan however, it was not unknown for an emperor to be persuaded to adopt a prince from another branch of the royal line and then be persuaded to abdicate in favour of the adopted son. In this way, the powerful Samurai families competing for high status could manipulate the imperial court in their own favour. Probably why it's not allowed here. Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compare that with the Adoptive Emperorship, which worked quite well for Rome until the adopted Marcus Aurelius maid the terrible mistake of naming his son Commodus his heir. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with a bachelor’s degree in political science and an MBA teach undergraduate courses in Political Science?

I've read that it's quite common among students to take a graduate program which is different from the bachelor's degree. I was wondering if it is possible for someone with a bachelor's degree in Political Science and Master of Business Administration to teach Political Science subjects.49.144.249.71 (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will be up to the establishment who gives the course. Some colleges might publish their required qualifications for teaching, but in general you'll need to contact the institution in question. --ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undergraduate courses are frequently taught by people who are not particularly expert in the course subject. A common attitude is "I don't know enough about X, I'd better teach a course in it" - in my experience the only way to really learn something is to try to explain it to others. If someone has managed to get a decent MA or MSc they should be able to explain the contents of their undergraduate degree well enough, irrespective of the content of their master's degree. As always, though, whether they get to do this will depend on the particular institution employing them.

The MBA, however, seems to me to be a special case. My own view is that it's not really an academic degree (have you read the Harvard Business Review?), but simply a rather clever piece of marketing by its originators and an attempt to create a guild-type qualification, maintained by signalling behaviour by its holders. The same, more recently, seems to me to be obviously true of the CFA qualification, the history of which is a comedy of rent-seeking behaviour. I've no doubt that the holders of such qualifications are highly competent in their fields, but I've yet to meet anyone whose MBA has contributed to their academic fitness. RomanSpa (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the answer would be yes, if the MBA were now pursuing a PhD in Poli-sci. Otherwise you're going to have to ask the department head, and I doubt he'll want to be bothered giving a committed answer to a hypothetical question. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

Reference to Halle Berry

I read the following statement in a news article (about Deflategate). The article states: "This is a circumstantial case, to be sure, but it is the Halle Berry of circumstantial cases". The full article is found here: Tom Brady's Legacy Forever Scarred by Damning Wells Report. What does the reference to Halle Berry mean? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rather non-PC reference to Ms Berry's ethnicity - the implied analogy is "circumstantial evidence:direct evidence::black actresses:white actresses". Ms Berry is a very good black actress, and this case has very good circumstantial evidence, but Ms Berry is not white and this case has no direct evidence. (Please feel free to substitute "female actor" for my own non-PC language in the preceding). Tevildo (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is this a "well known" reference? I have never heard this, or anything remotely close, before. I know that Halle Berry is biracial (as are millions of other people). Any reason that her case is so "special" and "note worthy", such that it would create a well-known or well-recognized reference such as this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a well-known reference at all. What's going on is that lots of sports columnists develop peculiar references that they use to build their "brand." You know it's a Rick Reilly article, for example, if there's a gratuitous reference to how flossing is boring. Mike Freeman just really, really loves Halle Berry.[10][11][12][13] --M @r ē ino 15:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy Tevildo's racial analogy; it just doesn't ring true to my ears. It sounds to me as if Freeman is simply using her name as a idiosyncratic superlative, and that "the Halle Berry of circumstantial cases" just means "the strongest of circumstantial cases". Our article on the writer is at Mike Freeman (columnist). He no longer works for CBS Sports, so our external link to his biography there is broken, but here is a link to his Bleacher Report profile. -- ToE 16:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tight, super-sexy, kick-ass, circumstantial case rather than a flabby, unattractive, weak one. I doubt this has anything to do with Ms Berry being a black actress rather than a white one. Paul B (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very confused by the entire thread, but see Ilex opaca. μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get it now. "Halle Berry" is a synonym for "top notch". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schumann's stranded repeat sign

I have a technical music notation question that has stumped both my music teacher and myself. It concerns how to interpret an opening repeat sign with no corresponding closing sign. It appears in the 4th piece, "Grillen", from Robert Schumann's Fantasiestücke, Op. 12.

If you go to page 9 of this score, the final measure in the top row starts with a repeat sign. But there is no closing sign anywhere, just some double bar lines. There's another opening repeat in the second row on page 10, and its closing repeat is on row 5. The answer to the question of where the closing repeat of the original repeat sign is, is never answered. It surely cannot mean that the entire piece from the repeat sign to the very end, is repeated, can it?

This stranded repeat is in every edition of this music that I have been able to track down, yet nowhere is there any commentary on what it means. These editions include those edited by Schumann's widow Clara, who was a virtuoso pianist who knew more than anyone what his intentions were, and was renowned for her attention to detail, so that sort of argues against this being just a misprint. The recordings I either have or have tracked down on youtube all seem to just ignore this repeat sign. How do they know this is the appropriate course of action? Any clues, anyone? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is pure speculation, but as the 8 bars after the opening repeat sign are repeated further down the page, maybe an earlier version (or the MS) had an end-repeat sign where there is now a double bar in the fourth system on the page, and omitted the 8 bars that now come after that double bar, with a first- and second-time set-up around the double barlines on the second system. Then in a later version the repeat was written out in full, but the opening repeat sign wasn't removed. I agree that a reasonably careful editor would notice the discrepancy at once, but in the days of hand-engraving (as memorably depicted here) it wasn't easy to correct errors. It's conceivable that there should be an end-repeat mark at the double bar on the fourth system, and that seems to be the only possible way to make the start-repeat possible. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If my counting is correct, that would be where the key signature changes from 5 flats to 6 flats? I might try repeating that whole section and see if it makes musical sense. (I'm playing this in an eisteddfod soon, and I'm limited to 5 minutes, so I'd better get out the old stop watch.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Music Theory Q & A.—Wavelength (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I might ask there if Andrew's suggestion doesn't work. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing international or interstate borders by car

I have watched a documentary that reports that the Mexican-American border is heavily guarded. However, I am not sure if the Mexican government is as vigorous as the American government in keeping illegal immigrants out. How heavily guarded is the Canadian-American border? I have heard that some Canadians take advantage of the American "Black Friday" and cross the border to buy things. For safety and legality in traveling by car, do people generally collect a valid passport and tourist visa before hitting the road? 140.254.226.191 (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few years since I've done so, but basically crossing the U.S. - Canadian border is much easier than the U.S. Mexican border. When I did it, you stopped for a second, showed the requisite documents, and were waved on. Going from the U.S. into Canada was easier than the reverse, but neither was particularly hard. I used to regularly drive from Chicago to New Hampshire and back again, and the best route is actually across Southern Ontario (it is almost exactly 1000 miles using either the Canadian or American routes, but the tolls in the U.S. are quite pricey!). I never had to speak to a border agent longer than about 60 seconds at either border. One time, going into the U.S., they made me open the trunk of my car, but didn't look more than a few seconds, and then told me to go about my business. That's about it. This article and this article and many others I can find note the difference. The reason for the difference in security levels would likely be a lively discussion, but is outside the realm of this board. --Jayron 32 16:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used to do the same trip (Detroit to and from Connecticut). Back then no passport was required. Now it is, or you need to have an "enhanced drivers license", which is essentially linked to an online passport. I haven't bothered going to Canada since they added that requirement. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I drive into Canada from the United States (and back into the United States) roughly once per year. The border is under surveillance, and crossings are restricted to guarded checkpoints, but it is not as intensively patrolled or fortified as the Mexican border. No visa is required by either country for the other's citizens, but the United States does require passports (or the alternative document that StuRat mentions, which is not much easier to obtain than a passport). I have never had any trouble crossing the border in either direction. I've had my car trunk searched maybe 4 times out of 10 crossing into the United States, never crossing into Canada. (I suspect that this is mainly to prevent drugs coming from Canada to the United States.) Typically, the guard asks a few questions about your destination in the country, the purpose of your visit, your occupation, and how you know any traveling companion. I've taken my dog with me. In that case, they want to see proof of a valid rabies vaccination. It is certainly true that Canadians make shopping trips to U.S. border cities, because prices are often lower south of the border. Canadians who live near the border even cross just to buy (cheaper) gas for their cars. Marco polo (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing the Detroit River by private boat requires a once a year inspection or calling the U.S. on a official video phone on the Canadian side.[14] On the Great Lakes you are required to call the Canadian border patrol when you cross into Canadian waters (must be tricky in parts of Lake Huron and Superior).[15] It used to be common to cross the Detroit River for the nightlife but since 9/11 that has lessened. The enhanced ID available in some states is cheaper than a passport or Pass card but neither the ID nor Passcard is good for international air travel. Rmhermen (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I live, in Vermont, about a couple hours from Montreal. I've made the crossing probably half a dozen times and it is much like what Marco says above. Though, I've never had to open my trunk. I thought I might point out a thing or two though. Canadians don't just come down during Black Friday but come down quite regularly when the exchange rate benefits them. Some stores here know some Canadians and will hold things behind the counter for a couple days if Canadians call to say they're coming down and don't want to find that the item is sold out when they get here. Also, people in Derby Line, Vermont used to be able to cross the border quite freely to visit friends down the street, which also happened to mean crossing the border. See that article for more on the particulars including a library where the border actually crosses through the building. Dismas|^(talk) 19:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if you were a US or Canadian citizen it used to be true that you could cross the border with nothing more than proof of identify (usually a driver's license) and proof of citizenship (usually a birth certificate)—documents that most people would have, so no advance planning was required to cross the border. And in practice, if you seemed like an American or Canadian to the border guards, they often wouldn't even ask for that. (One time in 1997 a US border guard at the Rainbow Bridge started by asking me "Bringing anything in?" in such rapid speech that it came out as about three syllables. I said "Huh?" or "What?" and he said "Okay." Elapsed time, less than 5 seconds.) The US started requiring passports (or other documents that most people who don't travel regularly won't have) for all travelers only in 2009, and I think they've generally gotten stricter about checking things than they used to be. Returning to Canada, I haven't noticed any such changes, but I don't know if visitors have a different experience. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it pretty easy going back and forth now. I guess now that we have to use a passport, they are actually less strict. I did get pulled aside once and they went through my car, but that was in early 2002, when they actually did have armed soldiers patrolling the border. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are banks able to loan out more money than they receive in deposits?

I barely have any economic or financial knowledge at all, but am trying to learn more and have been reading through this article [16] about banks on the How Stuff Works website. The third page of the article says "that while people are putting money into the bank every day, the bank is lending that same money and more to other people every day."

I've been struggling to figure out what the word "more" is referring to in this context. The previous page of the article explains a process that I believe is called fractional reserve banking, in which banks are able to loan out more money than actually exists in physical form. However, it seems that within this process, all of the money that banks are able to loan out still has to be deposited first, whereas the quote seems to imply that banks are loaning out more money than actually gets deposited.

I'm aware that banks don't loan out the entirety of what they receive in deposits, because of the reserve requirement. But is there some other way that a bank can loan out money, other than just relying on the deposits of clients? --Jpcase (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best article on Wikipedia to start you off is capital adequacy ratio; banks and other financial institutions typically have liabilities (which includes the repayments of deposits) and assets (which includes stuff the institution owns, like mortgages). Banking regulators impose capital requirements, with the idea that the bank will be able to meet any practical call on its liabilities. The financial crisis of 2007–08 was, in part, caused because those requirements were inadequate, and because assets the banks owned (in the form of mortgage-backed securities) turned out not to be worth nearly as much as the banks thought they were. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 17:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All very good, but I think Fractional-reserve_banking is the better place to start. In short, OP is is correct that for most banks, the total amount loaned out at any given time is more than the sum of all deposits. Leverage_(finance) is also good background reading. When there have been insufficient regulations, and banks become over leveraged, they risk defaulting through a bank run, which has happened several times in history, and is a related but somewhat simpler situation than the 2007-8 financial crisis. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a bank might lend out more money than it has received in deposits. To understand why, think of the bank's balance sheet: it has assets and liabilities. In a very simple bank, its assets might consist entirely of loans, while its liabilities might consist not just of deposits, but of the bank's capital. For example, consider a bank that has taken $50 of deposits and has $50 of paid-in capital. Its total liabilities are $100, which means that it must also have $100 of assets. In this simple example these might all be in the form of loans to customers, so in this case the bank has lent out more money than it has taken in deposits, but not more than its total liabilities.

In real life, bank regulators require that a certain fraction of the bank's assets be held in cash (or certain other special assets). This is so that the bank can usually repay the deposits of anyone who has a current account with the bank, without running out of money. Suppose, in our example, that the regulators require that the bank keep 25% of its assets in cash in case a few borrowers come in and take money out of their current accounts (the bank doesn't need to keep all its assets in cash, because it knows that not everyone will try to take money out of their current account at the same time): then in this example the bank has to keep $25 of its assets in cash. This means that it can still lend out $75 as bank loans. Again, the volume of loans made is greater than the deposit base, but, again, it has not lent more than its total liabilities. The general point should now be clear: banks have more than one kind of liability, and thus may be able to lend more than they have taken in deposit. RomanSpa (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) I think we need to be careful with the terminology here.

Fractional-reserve_banking does not mean that an individual bank can lend more than the deposits+equity. As far as I know regular banks cannot do that, but I stand ready to be corrected.
Leverage_(finance) is again not applicable, since leverage involves using borrowed money (aka deposits, in case of banks) to make investments, and the leveraging advantage arises from the ratio of this borrowed money to equity.
Not directly relevant to the original question but we also need to distinguish between regular banks, and the shadow banking system, since the latter is the one which is much more loosely regulated and played a large role in the financial crisis.

As I said above, I believe the answer to the OP's quation is that a bank cannot lend more than their its combined equity and deposit (and because of CAR requirements the amount it can lend is strictly less), but there may be nuances I am missing. Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Though Roman and I have worded our answers in the form "can" and "cannot" respectively, we both are in agreement! Abecedare (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should be careful with terminology, and I can see how "fractional reserve" is not quite what the OP is asking about (though I do still think it's good background). But now I'm confused about leverage. You claim that "leverage is again not applicable, since leverage involves using borrowed money (aka deposits, in case of banks) to make investments." So, are you saying that banks do not use deposits to make investments (e.g. loans)? Because if they are not investing that money in some manner, then they'd have full reserves equal or greater to deposits, and that doesn't seem to be the case. Indeed Leverage_(finance)#Bank_regulation seems to indicate that leverage does apply to banks, and that reserve requirements do not, by themselves limit the extent of leverage. So instead, capital requirements are mandated in many places so that "these institutions do not take on excess leverage and become insolvent." SemanticMantis (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both Fractional-reserve banking and Leverage (finance) are indeed goodbackground material, but I was just pointing out they do not answer the OP's question of whether banks can lend more money than their deposits.

With respect to fractional-reserve banking in particular, it is commonly understood by laypersons to mean that "banks can create money out of thin air", or "lend more money than they have". While the former is arguably true, the latter isn't (afaik) since fractional-reserve banking essentially means that banks can loan out at least some of their deposits (ie not all loans financed by owner's capital). And as soon as you allow banks to loan out say even 1% of their deposits , you'll have a fractional reserve banking system, and by itself it has nothing to do loans exceeding deposit. In their question, the OP already indicated that they understood this point.
And as for financial leverage: a bank can in theory have infinite leverage ratio while still lending out less money than its deposits. And it can have a leverage ratio infinitesimally above 1 and still lend out more money than its deposits. So again this factor alone doesn't say anything about the loan/deposit ratio.

That's the reason I was calling for care. Abecedare (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That clears a few things up for me at least. But now I'm left wondering if the claim "loans can exceed deposits" is directly supported by any of the links above? I've tried to find something to that effect, but have so far come up short. I suspect that the claim is derivable as a logical implication of some of the details in the CAR and capital requirement articles, but to see that, a reader would have to be fairly familiar with the material already. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has to clarify himself based on the above questions. Fractional reserve banking would be the apparently relevant issue, but Jpcase would need to clarify himself in regard to the above answers. When Alan Greenspan asked Ayn Rand if FRB was moral, she advised him it was, as a considered risk. 100 Voices. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Finlay McWalter: @Semantic Mantis: @RomanSpa: @Abecedare: @Medeis and Μηδείς:

O_O

Woah. Hehe...I knew that whatever answer I received was likely going to take some work on my part to understand, but this is a surprise. I have to say, I was a little bit stunned when I saw the sheer number of replies that I've received on this question... both stunned in gratitude and just stunned by the sheer complexity of it all.

I feel like I should reiterate the point that I led my original post with - I really don't know much about economics or finances at all. Hence why I was reading "How Stuff Works". ;) I'm only 21. I've taken a single basic economics course in college, and I can't say that even fully understood that. It seems like the question that I'm asking is somewhat advanced, probably above my head a bit. I really do want to try to understand this, but to borrow a quote from Denzel Washington's character in Philadelphia, you might have to "explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old", haha.

SemanticMantis - when you talk about leveraging, are you saying that banks will receive loans themselves and then take that money and loan it out to others? If so, where are the banks receiving these loans from? The Federal Reserve?

RomanSpa - I think I follow what you're saying. By "paid-in-capital" are you referring to the money that has been invested into the bank by stockholders?

Abecedare - perhaps the biggest enigma for me out of everything I read above would honestly have to be the meaning of "after ec", haha. Is this an economic term or is it just internet shorthand?

--Jpcase (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, but my only barely relevant knowledge here is the relation of FRB to ethics. The problem in the US is that the FDIC and the implicit political promise of bailouts for too big to fail companies creates a huge moral hazard. We'll see how this works out over the next couple of years, depending if there's a crash or a Federal Reserve audit. μηδείς (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Type of social dance shown in Pride and Prejudice

What is that dance called? I'm talking about the dance that has barely any touching. It just doesn't look like waltz to me. What is that dance? 164.107.182.34 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might it have been a Morris dance or a Country dance? --Jayron 32 18:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to a description in the novel, or to a specific film or TV dramatisation of it? Paul B (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Film dramatization. 164.107.182.34 (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This film, or some other version? Paul B (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this page for some possibilities. A more specific answer will depend upon the exact adaptation, although it's likely to be a variant of country dance that Jayron linked to. Abecedare (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ah, you are referring to this scene. It's supposed to be a country dance, possibly based, I'd guess, on Hogarth's country dance from the Analysis of Beauty. It's probably created specially for the film, to give a suitable air of elegant distance. The music (Bach!) is completely anachronistic. That would never be played at a dance in the 1810s. Paul B (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That music is a minuet (and is not by Bach - it's the tune from Abdelazer by Purcell that Britten used in his "Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra". Even less likely to be used at that date than Bach, I fancy). But I suspect the question is about the following scene, which very likely is a country dance. --ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gangs and cars

Although I do know that gangsters in cities may be involved in violent crime and purchase cars to show off their status, I wonder whether they actually turn themselves in in order to receive a driver's license. Wouldn't the driver's testing centers be suspicious of the illegal activity or the high-profile criminals? Do gangsters have legal, valid driver's licenses? 164.107.182.34 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the gangs don't get caught by the driver's testing centers, do they have to go to jury duty or get drafted into the military? Or do they somehow try to evade those responsibilities of being a citizen (in the United States)? 164.107.182.34 (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the US you have to register for the draft, but there hasn't been any actual conscription for decades. The penalties for not registering are fairly small for a criminal, too, like becoming ineligible for student loans. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's basically 3 approaches taken by criminals:

1) Maintain their own "legit" public presence. That is, have a registered mailing address, phone number, etc. This only works if they aren't wanted by police.

2) Go underground. For those who are wanted by police, they can have a fake driver's license, steal one from somebody who looks similar, or just run whenever the police try to stop them.

3) Set up a new "legit" identify. They can do an identity fraud to completely set up under a new name. This works better if the person whose ID they steal is dead (of natural causes, to avoid police scrutiny), or else that person will find out somebody else is using their ID when they apply for credit, file their taxes, etc. It's also best to move to another city, so any policeman who pulls them over won't recognize them. StuRat (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious whether Stu's got any references, or if he's going on personal experience here. :)

I have never once been asked whether I was a gang member when applying for a driver's license, even though I lived in Fort Apache, The Bronx. I am not quite sure I understand the question. If the implication is that information that might implicate someone in a criminal matter would be shared with the authorities, I am not sure that that's the case. I'd suggest reading the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that anybody at a testing center would dare to make a citizen's arrest of a dangerous fugitive. (I can just imagine the driving test: "Turn right at the light and parallel park in front of the police station.") Also, they would not be accepted for a jury by the prosecuting attorney. Finally, there is no draft currently, but if there were, it would depend on how desperate the situation was, I'd imagine. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several decades of growth

In the 1970s Ireland was ranked 37th in terms of GDP per capita. Today, they are 11th per capita. Is the phenomenal growth a result of the end of the war? 78.146.102.221 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "war" was just in Northern Ireland, wasn't it ? StuRat (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(It is 2015, so 1970 was 45 years ago, right? tempus fugit) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's still ongoing. Unfortunately. Some people who grew up with guns, just can't put them down, just like drug addicts. There will always be war until these people are put away and not left to teach their children to fight with lethal weaponry. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 23:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My mathematics is pretty shit. But back to the point. Why did their per capita outlook grow so much? 78.146.102.221 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly in northern Ireland, yes, but a bit of killing in Ireland republic too. 78.146.102.221 (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 2008 European Commission article "The economy of Ireland: whither the Celtic Tiger?" discusses how "over the last two decades, Ireland achieved a remarkable economic transformation". There's also this paper titled "The Irish Economic Boom: Facts, Causes, and Lessons". From briefly skimming them, neither seems to attribute it to a cease in fighting. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

How long does a British general election campaign really last?

The following appeared on The Washington Post's website today:

The British campaign season began after the first American presidential candidate announced his campaign, and it will end before most U.S. candidates even launch their bids. The U.S. election season, from when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) announced his candidacy until Election Day 2016, will have lasted more than a year and a half, compared with the 38 days between the queen's dissolution of Parliament on March 30 and Thursday's voting. [17]

Is this really an accurate description of the way that the UK conducted its election? It seems that if the parties start selecting their parliamentary candidates months in advance of the general election, and polling starts years before the general election, then the "campaign" is going on well before the previous parliament is dissolved. Would British Wikipedians agree with the Washington Post's description above? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nonrenewables

Are commercial passenger planes likely to run on electricity at the end of this century or something else? 84.13.54.10 (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]