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.

August 1

Why are the Big Four all private companies?

In almost every other industry, the largest players are all public companies, with most of them listed on the stock exchange. So what's special about the accounting industry that makes their largest companies private instead? My other car is a cadr (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since they audit public companies, there could be conflict of interest problems if investors had a piece of both sides, especially a 51% piece. I know I'd go easier on my own company, if I had the chance, and I'm barely even greedy or sleazy. Not sure if there's a law or policy against it, just seems to make sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, August 1, 2015 (UTC)

Also, as the "Legal structure" section says, these companies aren't companies, but professional services networks. And that's where this layman gives up. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, August 1, 2015 (UTC)

Don't give up, don't give up, don't give up. --Askedonty (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As InedibleHulk suggests, selling public securities would risk compromising the firms' independence. Auditors are required by Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X, promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, to maintain independence of their public audit clients. In addition, accounting firms do not really need to sell securities to raise capital. Their main outlays are for employee compensation and rent, and both of these are current expenses. While they do have some capital costs, such as for computer systems, they are able to raise funds for these without selling public securities. John M Baker (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a practical example, see Arthur Andersen and what happened to it when the Big Four was the Big Five. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the private ownership of a big four company has less to do with conflicts of interest and more to do with the fact that it's a professional service firm - it has very little assets beyond its employees and is thus owned by its employees (or, rather, a small part of its most senior employees). Thus they don't need capital and the costs associated with it (shareholders, after all, require return on equity). In a lot of countries, where non-compete clauses are not enforced, it is very easy for these senior employees to get up and leave, taking the clients (and even junior employees) with them, and they would do it if the profits that they make were to be "eaten" by passive shareholders. The same structure is typical for other professional service firms, especially law firms.No longer a penguin (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in most jurisdictions law firms are legally required to restrict ownership to lawyers who currently provide or previously provided legal services at the firm. John M Baker (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Differences and similarities Quebeckers and Acadians

What are the differences between the Quebeckers and Acadians? What are the similarities they share? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.249 (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia will not do your homework for you. Read French Canadian and Acadians. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not homework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.249 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also has an article titled Québécois (word) which may lead you interesting places. --Jayron 32 23:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Quebecers were three-time champions. "The Acadian Giant" and "The Canadian Earthquake" were just odd together. That's the main difference, anyway. As was said, there are others in the articles.

As for similarities, they're all required to help pay for the longest election campaign in Canadian history instead of useful things. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

Historic map of Acadia in Canada

Is there an actual historic map of Acadia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.249 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. There are many. You will find one in the Acadia article here. You might also look at Historical Maps of Canada or this article by Library and Archives Canada or this article about a recently-discovered 1699 map or the very thorough Lloyd Reeds Map Collection, especially Chapter 4. 184.147.133.47 (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Left-handed people

At the time of this posting, Wikipedia does not have Category:Left-handed people. What are some examples of notable left-handers, past or present?
—Wavelength (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there are people for whom their handedness is of substantial importance, then a category for such people might be interesting. On the other hand, a list of any sort of people who happen to be left-handed is simply trivia at best, and a great idea for a "clickbait" page for sure. We also do not have a category for polydactylia, etc. but they are listed where the fact is notable for the person in the Polydactyly article. The idea of categories is not "make them because we can" but make those which are likely to be of use to someone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can be very significant in sports. Warren Spahn, Sandy Koufax and Steve Carlton come to mind as famous lefty pitchers. And of course Lefty Grove and Lefty Gomez. President Obama is left-handed, and he's fairly famous. There is a Category:Handedness, for what it's worth. And just to confuse the issue, Brooks Robinson batted and threw right-handed, and wrote left-handed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southpaw boxers is one where it matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:57, August 2, 2015 (UTC)

Marie Curie. Bill Gates. M.C. Escher. Monica Seles. Mozart. Napoleon. LeBron James. Queen Victoria (and several of her descendants). Stan Lee. Van Gogh. Oprah Winfrey. See [1] [2] [3] [4] and many more such lists. (BTW, this was the latest deletion discussion about having the category on Wikipedia.) 184.147.133.47 (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a job for Wikidata. This query could be a start. Gabbe (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't trust any of those lists, as names tend to be added to them on flimsy or no evidence.

rightleftrightwrong.com seems to be a Snopes-like site for these claims. Of the people on your list, it says there's no evidence that Marie Curie, Mozart, Napoleon, Prince Charles, or van Gogh were/are left-handed, and that Queen Victoria wrote right-handed. Those claims aren't sourced either, but I'm inclined to believe that site over the lists.

One of the lists you linked ([5]) is better since it shows pictures of many of the people writing with their left hands, but it's still possible that the images were inadvertently mirrored. -- BenRG (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Handedness of Presidents of the United States and List of musicians who play left-handed--Pacostein (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are those musicians whose left-handedness was enforced through injury, such as Category:Classical pianists who played with one arm, for which a whole sub-repertoire has emerged (see List of works for piano left-hand and orchestra, for example). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can add Jon Stewart to the list. Dismas|^(talk) 09:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2

22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry during Maryland Campaign

Were all members and companies of the 22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry present at the Battle of Antietam and Battle of Shepherdstown? Especially Company H.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The regimental band was dismissed by general order sometime in August. Private Robert G. Carter of Company H is mentioned as the major contributor to chapter XI of Henry Wilson's Regiment covering Antietam and Shepherdstown.—eric

Pedigree collapse

Are there any known examples of people whose parents are siblings of each other? Such people would have only 2 distinct grandparents. Also, their fathers are also their uncles, their mothers are also their aunts, and their siblings are also their cross cousins. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty common in Ancient Egypt, Hawaii and many other cultures in history especially among royalties. Kameʻeiamoku and his twin brother Kamanawa comes to mind. Also Ptolemaic dynasty#Ptolemaic family tree--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fiction, you of course have Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella who were children of Jaime and Cersei Lannister, twin siblings, as well as many of the Targaryens, in A Song of Ice and Fire series by George R. R. Martin. Wikipedia has an article and section Sibling relationship#Sibling marriage and incest which could lead the OP interesting places. --Jayron 32 00:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a Pedigree collapse article. Rmhermen (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples might include the grandchildren of Adam and Eve. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The etymologies of "Adam" and "Eve" are interesting.[6][7] Also, Genesis contains two different creation stories, the first of which does not suggest that there was a single male and a single female to start the human race, but rather that the human race was created in one stroke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More information on Bugs's note on Genesis creation story can be found at Documentary hypothesis and Genesis creation narrative. The two creation stories in Genesis are by the "P" source (the first story, which is Genesis 1 and the first part of Genesis 2) and the "J" source (covering the rest of Genesis 2 and forward). --Jayron 32 16:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, do people here consider biblical stories to be "known examples"? EllenCT (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP did not indicate if the examples were known from literature or known from history. --Jayron 32 15:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 3

How many country's currency have Braille and/or tactile features on them?

I could only find Canadian currency tactile feature. There's also the two commemorative euro coins[[8]] celebrating the 200th anniversary of Louis Braille’s birth. Is there any other country in this club? My other car is a cadr (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently US is catching up in 2020[9] with a new bill. A little late, but good for them.My other car is a cadr (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India is planning it as well, but doesn't look as yet like they have produced any. --Jayron 32 02:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banknotes for currencies such as the Euro, Indian rupee, Chinese renminbi are sized differently for different denominations, which makes them quite easy to tell apart by touch (at least for an experienced user). US and Canada are two exceptions to this. Abecedare (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euros are also printed with a thick, rough ink for the numbers, and some notes (old €200s and €500s, and all next generation notes) have additional tactile elements - see Euro banknotes#Features for people with impaired sight. Smurrayinchester 08:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South African banknotes have some tactile features - though not exactly Braille. https://www.resbank.co.za/AboutUs/PublicAwareness/Documents/A5%20all%20banknotes%20poster.pdf and http://www.sancb.org.za/faq/living-sight-loss 196.213.35.146 (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish banknotes have different sizes for different denominations and intaglio print which you can use to tell the difference. [10] [11] Sjö (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In one country that I visited in 1975 – I think it was The Netherlands – notes could be distinguished by a number of textured dots. —Tamfang (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Malaysian ringgit#Third series (1996) article doesn't say, but I believe Malaysian bank notes since the third series in 1996 have generally had braille. They also have other tacticle elements I believe primarily intended for security reasons but which would probably also help the sight impaired. See e.g. [12], [13], [14]. (I'm pretty sure I remembered reading stories at the time, but finding stories from circa 1996 in Malaysia for more obscure stuffc like this from a Google search is difficult.) Whether these elements ever suffered any flaws like for the Brunei dollar, I have no idea. Note that Malaysian bank notes are different sizes depending on the denomination, as with most currencies as Abecedare mentioned above. I found [15] which mentions a Cash Test device used in the Euro to make it easier to determine the size of the bank notes. OT but that also includes some examples of portrait design bank notes which I've never seen before. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British notes and coins all vary in size in a predictable way which makes them recognisable by touch, as well as paper with a distinctive texture, and raised print. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found Australian banknotes about to change thanks to a 13-year-old boy who campaigned for a year to have a tactile feature added. Also a website that Wikipedia won't allow me to link to (but search "Banknotes for the visually impaired") which states: "The Bank of England has this to say about Braille on notes: '…on the advice of The Royal Institute for the Blind the bank has not included this because very few blind people now read Braille; it is also regarded as a feature that may well wear out over the life of a banknote and therefore only serve to mislead if a tactile feature of this type became incomplete.' But it does incorporate a few things to help the visually impaired (different-sized notes, with each using different coloured shapes — similar in many ways to the design of euro banknotes)." Also Banknote design for the visually impaired which supports the comments above about the old Netherlands Guilder notes. Alansplodge (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, intaglio printed currency has generally been "readable" by the blind in the first place (from experience with a person blind since birth as a fellow student many years ago) - the use of Braille by fire exits and at drive-up ATMs has generally amused me, alas. Braille used in normal printing is about .5 mm high - while studies indicate that on fine paper, a height of .15mm is sufficient[16]. Unfortunately this adds 15 mm to a stack of 100 banknotes, and (worse) makes the stack uneven if the notes are aligned. [17] notes that normal wear can make the discrete dots unusable. Canada offers a special banknote reader for the blind, as one other measure (same cite). Thus the use of sufficiently raised Braille or other insignia may be more for image than for practicality. For large denominations, rfid may be practical - the tags can be under 20 microns thick - or .02 mm, about 1/7 the thickness of the "raised dot" system, and the tags do not get worn down. Cost would be under $.01 per tag ([18] noted a price of 20 cents per tag back in 2004) - noting that the production cost of a US$100 bill is 12.5 cents with the new features just added, this is not a major problem. [19] notes the printing of such tags on paper - reducing the cost still further. Providing each blind person with an rfid reader for such a tag is likely far cheaper than the C$300 Canada spent (some appear to be on the market for about $5 per reader - likely cheaper in the long run than using Braille.). Collect (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden's central bank is about to issue new banknotes and have released a smartphone app where you can scan a banknote and have the denomination (and expiration date) read out, specially aimed at the blind.[20] I thought it sounded silly at first. However,a little googling showed me that apparently blind people can use smartphones and that Apple has put a great deal of work into making them useable without seeing the screen. Sjö (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to drive-up ATMs, there is nothing amusing about making them available to car passengers who are blind. --65.94.50.73 (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A more general article is Counting on Currency Accessibility WHICH discusses a number of countries and their solutions to this issue. Apparently, "the American Council of the Blind won its lawsuit against the [US] Treasury Department claiming that it is discriminatory and in violation of the Rehabilitation Act not to provide paper money that can be identified by blind citizens." Alansplodge (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot everyone for your contributions. That was very helpful. My other car is a cadr (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Donduk Kuular

Could someone point me to any references that deal with Donduk Kuular in any degree of detail? Hack (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read Russian? Both the German and Russian versions of the article list sources and perhaps they are better. In everything I'm finding in English he's just a mention or a footnote. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"VERMIS 40·PE·LŌ" on Carta Marina

On the Carta Marina from 1527-39, just off the coast of Norway across from Hetlandia, there's a sort of worm or snake being pinched by a crab. They are accompanied by a legend that looks like "VERMIS 40·PE·LŌ". Does anyone know what this means, and in particular, how the "40" fits in? --Amble (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a German book which says it means "Schlange von 40 fuß Länge" - snake of 40' length. Google books result DuncanHill (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thank you. --Amble (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant headwords on Wiktionary are "vermis", "pedes" and "longus". Gabbe (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As in "vermin". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But curiously, when we hear "vermin", we don't usually think of worms. I think of fast-moving little critters with legs, which worms don't have. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gabbe, those would be the ones. I had convinced myself that someone writing at that time wouldn't have used Arabic numerals along with Latin text, so the "40" must be a misreading on my part. However, DuncanHill's source shows that it really is just "40" after all. It's interesting to see how the author chose between Arabic and Roman numerals for different purposes. It looks like Roman for countable things like populations and numbers of islands; Roman for years and hours; Arabic for latitudes and longitudes (including extents); and perhaps a preference for Arabic with other units(?). --Amble (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian border fence and Asian immigrants

Has any notable paper or individual noted the irony in the fact that, of all European peoples, it is the Hungarians who are building a fence to ward off Asian immigrants? Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irony? The fence is apparently on the Serbian border. The UK, inter alia, is not on that border. Serbia is not within the "no border control" zone of the EU, and from independent accounts, significant numbers of underdocumented workers from troubled areas mainly in Asia have used it as a route into the EU zone. Collect (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, the former Soviet Bloc countries built fences to keep people from leaving their country... for one of them to now build a fence to keep people from entering is indeed somewhat ironic (and somewhat refreshing). Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

It isn't ironic at all, other than in a sense of history repeating itself. This from Chapter 12 of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

Instead of reducing the warlike natives of Germany to the condition of subjects, Probus contented himself with the humble expedient of raising a bulwark against their inroads. The country which now forms the circle of Swabia had been left desert in the age of Augustus by the emigration of its ancient inhabitants. The fertility of the soil soon attracted a new colony from the adjacent provinces of Gaul. Crowds of adventurers, of a roving temper and of desperate fortunes, occupied the doubtful possession, and acknowledged, by the payment of tithes the majesty of the empire. To protect these new subjects, a line of frontier garrisons was gradually extended from the Rhine to the Danube. About the reign of Hadrian, when that mode of defence began to be practised, these garrisons were connected and covered by a strong intrenchment of trees and palisades. In the place of so rude a bulwark, the emperor Probus constructed a stone wall of a considerable height, and strengthened it by towers at convenient distances. From the neighborhood of Newstadt and Ratisbon on the Danube, it stretched across hills, valleys, rivers, and morasses, as far as Wimpfen on the Necker, and at length terminated on the banks of the Rhine, after a winding course of near two hundred miles. This important barrier, uniting the two mighty streams that protected the provinces of Europe, seemed to fill up the vacant space through which the barbarians, and particularly the Alemanni, could penetrate with the greatest facility into the heart of the empire. But the experience of the world, from China to Britain, has exposed the vain attempt of fortifying any extensive tract of country. An active enemy, who can select and vary his points of attack, must, in the end, discover some feeble spot, on some unguarded moment. The strength, as well as the attention, of the defenders is divided; and such are the blind effects of terror on the firmest troops, that a line broken in a single place is almost instantly deserted. The fate of the wall which Probus erected may confirm the general observation. Within a few years after his death, it was overthrown by the Alemanni. Its scattered ruins, universally ascribed to the power of the Dæmon, now serve only to excite the wonder of the Swabian peasant. 83.9.223.102 (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I am unhatting my question. This is a reference desk and I was very specifically asking for a reference. What does the UK have to do with any of this? It seems that I have to be more specific about my question as well. I am asking for an article (preferably in a reputable paper, or an opinion of a notable individual) in which a connection is made between the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin (i.e. the Magyars storming in from Asia and settling in Europe only about a dozen centuries ago) and the 21st-century Hungarian authorities taking it upon themselves to ward off Asian immigrants. Surtsicna (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having searched Google, I did not find any published pieces remarking on that particular historical irony. (There are pieces pointing out the irony that Hungary recently had border defenses to keep its citizens from leaving for Austria, whereas now the country is putting up defenses to keep people from entering.) Marco polo (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tumblr is that way Asmrulz (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did Tumblr become a reputable paper? Surtsicna (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the question is when did WP:RD become tumblr Asmrulz (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wouldn't know about that. How is that related to this thread, though? Surtsicna (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a comment on your style of question. Phrasing of the kind you used is common among people who want to soapbox about something, but want to mask their true intent by phrasing it as a question. "Has any long term Wikipedian noted that Jimmy Wales is ugly?" kind of thing. At best, the person has already formed an opinion and is now looking for validation. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

Existentialist ideas in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Are following quotes allusions to any classical existential philosophical work? Can someone cite the work where I could find the original idea?

•"Benjamin Button: Some people, were born to sit by a river. Some get struck by lightning. Some have an ear for music. Some are artists. Some swim. Some know buttons. Some know Shakespeare. Some are mothers. And some people, dance. "

•"Benjamin Button: You never know what's coming for you. "

•"Benjamin Button: You can be as mad as a mad dog at the way things went. You could swear, curse the fates, but when it comes to the end, you have to let go. "

•"Benjamin Button: [Voice over; letter to his daughter] For what it's worth: it's never too late or, in my case, too early to be whoever you want to be. There's no time limit, stop whenever you want. You can change or stay the same, there are no rules to this thing. We can make the best or the worst of it. I hope you make the best of it. And I hope you see things that startle you. I hope you feel things you never felt before. I hope you meet people with a different point of view. I hope you live a life you're proud of. If you find that you're not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again. "

•"Benjamin Button: Our lives are defined by opportunities; even the ones we miss. "

•"Benjamin Button: It's a funny thing about comin' home. Looks the same, smells the same, feels the same. You'll realize what's changed is you."

•"Mrs. Maple: Benjamin, we're meant to lose the people we love. How else would we know how important they are to us? " --Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When is your homework due in by? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks no homework. Why would it be?--Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blazon for the University of London#Coat of arms ?

Please help me find a source for blazoning text for the shield of the University of London#Coat of arms.

This is written in the en.wp article without a source:

Argent, the Cross of St George, thereon the Union Rose irradiated and ensigned with the Imperial Crown proper, a Chief Azure, thereon an open Book also proper, Clasps gold

There is a fuzzy, unreadable photo of the 1838 grant of arms at http://www.london.ac.uk/history.html This reference to a 1953 Campbell and Evans Book of Flags may also help research my question: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-lond.html#uni

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I can source blazon to the same book (Harte [21]) as the grant of arms . I'll add it to the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Median wealth of single African-American women

In 2010, the median wealth of African-American single women was five dollars.[22] White households had 13 times the median wealth of black households in 2013, compared with eight times in 2010.[23] So, how much was the 2013 median wealth of African-American single women? Here is the corresponding raw data. EllenCT (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The study of Mariko Chang does not refer to African-American women in particular, but to women of color (including Hispanic). And although I believe in the disparity between men-women, single-married, white-non-white, I don't believe Chang's data to be accurate. --Yppieyei (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The headline refers to black women. Do you think they misrepresented the Fed SCF data or that the data is flawed? EllenCT (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! At http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin36/hsda?harcscfcomb+scfcomb

("Analysis" / "Comparison of means") 
Dependent: NETWORTH, NFIN, VEHIC
Row: RACE
Selection Filter(s): married(2), hhsex(2); year (2004) through (2013) separately
TABLE OPTIONS: Additional statistics in each cell: Median

Year	White NETWORTH	Black NETWORTH	Hispanic NETWORTH	White NFIN	Black NFIN	Hispanic NFIN	White VEHIC	Black VEHIC	Hispanic VEHIC
2004	67650.17	13539.90	3329.48	97418.22	13564.56	5179.20	6412.34	2959.54	3576.11
2007	102208.08	6557.13	3705.23	112279.56	10778.84	5950.82	6624.40	4154.34	3031.55
2010	65051.93	8037.72	5572.82	102882.79	11788.65	9645.26	6644.51	4179.61	4822.63
2013	63300.00	7500.00	5310.00	83800.00	12000.00	6900.00	6500.00	4400.00	4200.00

NETWORTH: Total net worth of household, 2013 dollars

NFIN: Total value of nonfinancial assets held by household, 2013 dollars

VEHIC: Total value of all vehicles held by household, 2013 dollars

Filter MARRIED(2): Marital status of head of household(=neither married nor living with partner)

Filter HHSEX(2): Gender of household head(=female)

EllenCT (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to anti-Semites, how does the Jewish conspiracy to control everything actually work?

When an anti-Semite says the Jews control the banking system or the media or the entertainment industry, etc., how does the conspiracy actually work, according to them? Does it have a headquarters? Is every Jew involved to some degree, or only the elite Jews? How does one gain admission to the Jewish groups that control stuff? Where do they take their orders from? Are there secret clubs and handshakes that meet underneath the synagogues?

I am looking for nuts and bolts description of how the conspiracy works; I am not interested in supposed *evidence* that the Jews do control stuff (such as a list of powerful people who happen to be Jewish); I want to know *how* they think Jews control stuff.

I am aware of The Protocols of Elders of Zion and, while I am aware that some people still believe that document is real, it is very old. I am wondering if there are any newer descriptions/depictions of the Jews' nefarious dealings.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you also are aware that a very large percentage of your edits are places at the RefDesk ... so I shall treat this as a serious question as much as possible.

No one has a magical mechanism for Jews to collaborate in controlling the banking system, etc. It is true, moreover, that many years ago, money-dealing was one of the few occupations available for those who were banned from land-ownership, etc. The infamous "Protocols" is rightly derided at this point in time as being basically and nicely absurd.

No secret cabals of which I am aware, or which anyone has shown, and asking such a question shows a naivety which is quite rare. Indeed there is an oft-quoted saying that if there are two Jews, they will have three political parties <g>. Collect (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it naive to ask for details on stupid things that stupid people believe? I'm not asking for anyone to demonstrate that the stupid beliefs are true; I just want to know what they are. Reading comprehension: it's underrated.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section about it at List of conspiracy theories#Antisemitic conspiracy theories with references that I guess could have the answers. There's also The Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory and Jew Watch at whose website you can find many articles about Jewish infiltration and organization. I refuse to read all that dreck to try to form an opinion about how they think the conspiracy work. My guess would be that there are different and contradictory opinions, even within the same organization, about how Jews conspire to control the world. But you're welcome to study it! Sjö (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the ZOG stuff is pretty interesting.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will be useful to read about Confirmation bias. Dolphin (t) 14:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like hate-speech, with which they sometimes (and in this case do) overlap, conspiracy theories don't need to actually have substantive foundations. They just need to rile ignorant people. NB watch out for hate sites that have lists of powerful Jews, mostly stuffed with the names of people who aren't actually Jewish. --Dweller (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conspiracy. Very few people think a top-down system such as you describe actually exists or is necessary for the system to sustain itself. Not every Jew is involved (I aren't.) Asmrulz (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of wilful misunderstanding, I would suggest that the conspiracy theory works like this: firstly, a Jewish person joins a company or other organisation and works diligently in it, eventually rising to a position where he is able to recruit and/ or promote other workers. At that point, more Jews are recuited/ promoted, in a form of entryism, until they are in a position to determine the direction of the company or organisation. I just pause at this point, to make the observation that a friend of mine, who worked at a well-known insurance broker, used to claim that exactly this sort of 'giving each other a leg-up' occurred in that company. Anyway, once the nefarious Jews have control of the organisation, they are able to influence its direction. I suppose examples of this would include the Hollywood studios' opposition to Nazi-ism in the late 1930s and this chap's campaigning and influence on behalf of the state of Israel.

|::Again, in an attempt to give a comprehensive answer but at the risk of turning myself into an Aunt Sally, I would make two other observations; firstly, that Jewish people are perceived as clannish, which probably feeds into a conspiracy 'justification'; and, secondly, that American support for the state of Israel is widely viewed in Europe as being influenced by a 'Jewish lobby'. 79.185.3.229 (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those not part of the British conspiracy to run the English language, Aunt Sally is indeed a thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:15, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

That's what "they" call Rene Goulet. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

Who I might add legitimately did run the World Wrestling Federation behind the scenes, under fellow Frenchman Pat Patterson. It wasn't the world, but it was "what the world is watching" for a while. Also the first man to beat the worldiest world champion in world history. Conclusive proof that the Jews don't run the world, because the French used to. He's not just a straw man, it's an ignoratio elenchi. A double negative is a positive, therefore a double logical fallacy is a perfectly reasonable argument (on the Internet, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:13, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

This is just anecdotal but I have found Jews to be people who are curious about various subjects and openminded about those subjects, so that when one of those subjects pique their interest, they delve into it afresh, with minimal preconceptions and without a vested interest in preexisting received wisdom pertaining to that subject. These are of course cultural qualities in distinction from religious qualities. But of course religion itself is cultural regardless of the religion under consideration. As to the mechanism by which Jews may come to "control" any area of activity, there simply is no such thing. There are Jews excelling in realms of activity—whether it be business or academia or any other area in which Jews are found to have a foothold. But this is not by design and the "mechanism" is nonexistent aside from the aforementioned innate curiosity about intrinsically interesting subjects and the fresh approach that Jews bring to reevaluating received wisdom. In other words the open-mindedness of Jews is misperceived by antisemites as a willful design to "control" something. Bus stop (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard a story about Jeremiah turning the Stone of Jacob into the Stone of Scone. Whether by magic or just superstition, that thing certainly has made men (and women) very powerful. I'm not aboard this particular crazy train, but if I were, I'd definitely try to convince gullible people that's the general foundation of the imaginary condition. Stones make excellent symbols for truth, and some even keep tigers away. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:53, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of stones, there's also a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

"This is one of the most interesting volumes we have read in many a day and we confess that the arguments produced by Mr. Allen seem to be unanswerable." InedibleHulk (talk) 12:13, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood funding

I was just reading this article about a possible government shutdown over funding of Planned Parenthood, in the amount of half a billion dollars yearly. But the most important distinctions are not clear here.

The funding to Planned Parenthood is under Title X, and our article briefly mentions "grants and contracts". Are these competitive? If someone outlawed the funding to Planned Parenthood, are there other organizations bidding that can take the money and fulfill the same tasks?

Are the proposed funding changes solely to ban Planned Parenthood from receiving funds, or do they nix any federal funding for whatever they were doing, no matter who does it?

Are there critiques or defenses of the funding that go through the things funded item by item, looking at each on its merits, rather than saying that all funds promote an organization that does abortions or an organization that helps women? Wnt (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any evidence that Republicans favor any kind of public health support for women, I'd like to see it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might be prone to share your bias, but right now it seems more useful to understand the system that is in place better. Let's try not to get sidetracked on the more obvious politics. Wnt (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do rapists consume more porn than non-rapists?

Do rapists consume more porn than non-rapists?--Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to answer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "hat" here (marking the question as unanswerable) because there are clearly many studies that try to address such questions one way or another. We can certainly answer it to a Humanities standard of evidence! See [24] [25] which address the issue peripherally (after all, if rapists did not view porn, then porn viewing could not reduce the rate of rape!) We have an article Effects of pornography in the same vein. I just did a little web searching .. please leave this up for someone who knows a little social science to get a chance. Wnt (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add: The question whether porn encourages or inhibits rape and sexual violence has been well-studied but there are no simple agreed-upon answers. At a societal level, the two have moved in the opposite direction recently (but remember the dictum about correlation and causation). On an individual level, you can find studies making either case, eg see this review. For a detailed argument of porn's negative effects, see Dangerous Relationships: Pornography, Misogyny and Rape; for the opposite argument, see Porno? Chic!: How Pornography Changed the World and Made it a Better Place. Abecedare (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On an individual level, you can find studies making either case. That's exactly what I meant with my first response. I assessed the question as seeking a single answer that fits all cases, and of course there is no such answer. If the questioner wanted a more nuanced answer, perhaps next time he/she can pose a less simplisticly-worded question, setting out in slightly more detail what they would like to know. Otherwise, such questions are frequently indistinguishable from trolling. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe those contradictory studies employ the old axiom that "any data which does not support the hypothesis must be disregarded." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, did you consider that the questioner didn't know that the question was not black and white? Children often ask where people go when they die. Just because we don't have a solid answer does not make it a bad question. After all, they know that when mommy/daddy leave the house, they go to work. Or that when grandma/grandpa leave, they go back to their own homes. Etc. From a child's perspective, it's easy to think that people "go" somewhere and the answer should be rather clear. So, why not give the questioner a little more leeway? Dismas|^(talk) 03:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP is a child, then I'm a little worried about the things they're showing interest in, on the internet, presumably without the knowledge and permission of their parents. I would MUCH rather assume such questions are from adults, and treat them accordingly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It always strikes me as odd to hear people talk about "consumption" of porn. When you consume something, you use it all up: after consumption, it's not available to use again. You consume food and drink, you consume resources, a fire consumes homes, and afterwards, the food, the drink, the resources, and the homes are gone and cannot be used again. If you're consuming porn, you're using it wrong. - Nunh-huh 03:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lehrer said, "I would devour where others merely nibbled."[26] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the thing I was looking for but didn't find in a quick search was data as to whether rapists are intrinsically more sex-crazed than other people. There's this whole idea of "psychogenic" rape versus "sociogenic", I think it is, and whether rape is a sex crime or a crime of violence, and I have the sense the latter has had the upper hand. But things like [27] don't tell me if rapists studied report viewing porn more than others, or better still, whether surveillance of rapists and other criminals in a prison setting with available porn revealed more interest in it, more wankage etc. Wnt (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a prison setting, there are usually no available female sex partners, so comparison of behaviour during incarceration to the non-imprisoned would be rather pointless. Wanking to porn may well be a prisoner's only sexual outlet, given their situation. There might be a point in comparing those imprisoned for sex offences to those imprisoned for non-sex offences, however. I would be looking for the type of pornography viewed as much as the quantity. But this would rely on freely allowing the prisoners access to any sort of porn they choose, even the violent sort, and letting them make their own choice as to which they choose. I strongly suspect any attempt at such an experiment would receive a firm veto.

On a possibly related note, child molesting pedophiles are known to occasionally keep large records of images of children, both pornographic (sometimes horrifically so) and non-pornographic (i.e. otherwise innocent images). Even in that situation, the link between viewing child pornography and "contact" offending against children remains very unclear, from the studies I've seen. Remember, correlation does not equal causation. But that involves a rather different dynamic, so I'm not sure it's of any relevance to the OP. 110.149.165.69 (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the OP merely asked about the correlation, and getting into causation therefore is something of a sidetrack; it was just the low-hanging fruit. It would be unfortunate indeed if it is viewed as unacceptable to give prisoners who will perhaps soon be released the rights they would effectively have after release, even for purposes of experiment. To wander onward, the first strawman that it would be socially useful to disprove would be Dylann Roof's notion of "testosterone" crazed blacks raping white women (which was based on irresponsible speculation in print [28] that was not confirmed [29]). But more generally, in a society where treatments for "low T" seem to be very common, it would be useful to know whether rapists have an overall higher sex drive than non-rapists, without even getting into the precise picture they like best. Wnt (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly find your view to be odd. Prisoners, by virtue of their status, are routinely deprived of "rights" that free citizens take for granted. Prisons are by nature governed by strict rules (though exactly how strict may vary). A prisoner does not lose their human rights by going to prison. They do, however, lose their freedom, and that may well include the freedom to view porn. For example, racist material is generally protected by the first amendment, but I'd be surprised if a single U.S. jurisdiction would knowingly allow it in their prison system. And the courts have generally upheld such restrictions. If the prison governor were to take the view that porn, or particular kinds of porn, are not conducive to the good order of the prison, or the rehabilitation of the prisoners, they will likely ban it.

Ted Bundy famously spoke of violent pornography as somehow connected to his crimes, but this is only anecdotal. Also, high testosterone levels are common in elite athletes, particularly those in competitive or combat sports, but I don't know of rape being any more common amongst this group. Mike Tyson being an obvious exception. Personally, I seriously doubt high testosterone alone turns men into rapists. Androgen-suppression regimes in treating sex offenders are considered a very blunt tool, which don't really address the source of the problem. 110.149.165.69 (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but people will complain if I get into an off-topic political debate. Perhaps my "unfortunate" already strayed into that, but partly I meant that in the sense that it is unfortunate we don't have that data on hand to answer this question. Wnt (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 5

Songs about Lucifer in Latin during Mass

There are a lot of videos circulating about the Catholic Church allegedly singing songs worshipping Lucifer during various ceremonies such as canonization and Easter Vigil. What is the correct translation of these songs, and what is implied? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a not native speaker of English, years long when my radio set fixed to AFN instead of the Norddeutscher Rundfunk, all I mostly got between any pair of two country-music songs was always "Marijuanaschreeweekschreeescree, marijuana shrriiii and so on. German is almost easier to understand. Listening to the BBC hat you get is "whaps woe, whaps woe, woap?". --Askedonty (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples? I've never encountered them. I general, I would suspect the interpretation to be a hoax, or a form of uninformed Anti-catholicism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz: I'm not sure if they are hoaxes, but they are easy to find using search engines and typing a few key words like "Lucifer worship in Vatican" and there are YouTube videos in which such songs are apparently sung loud and clear. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for "moon landing faked" you find a bunch of stuff too. People claim all kinds of things. But as Nanonic notes, 'lucifer' means 'morning star', and is used in that sense in the Exsultet. I speak decent Latin and own a Latin missal; I hope I don't need to tell you this, but for the avoidance of doubt: there is no Satan-worship whatever in the Latin Mass. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Exsultet and the article Lucifer which comments on 'morning star'. Nanonic (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a Catholic myself I wonder why the Latin word sometimes means both things and yet sometimes is completely irrelevant to the devil. When should the distinction be made, and how should I distinguish between the two meanings depending on context? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is in the article Lucifer. Go ahead. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's when they start invoking Beelzebub that there might be a problem. Nothing wrong with exalting the light. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

If I didn't think somebody already linked Paschal candle, I'd have put that where I put the matches. Much clearer. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:20, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

In protestant churches, if they are of a high church and liturgical sort,(Anglican or some Lutheran) the Latin term "crucifer" is used for the person who carries a cross, from the Latin words for cross and bearer, "thurifer" is the person who carries the thurible with incense, and the "lucifer" carries the candle or taper to light the candles. The latter is sometimes bowdlerized to "torchbearer" or the Greek "acolyte" to avoid frightening the dimwits who might hear "lucifer" and think the kid with the candle is the Devil. One pastor joked that the person carrying the communion wine should be called the "jucifer."Edison (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember having heard the remark about the flame bearer. There was no question of a joke however, just a short whisper about the fact. --Askedonty (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was not the usage of being smart back then, neither of holding postures. Backward in the country, everything unsure deserved being observed with its amount superstitious candor, if the incense perceptible or enough of yellow moss on the battered and greyish stone. --Askedonty (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of "Lucifer" may prove illuminating.[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=lucifer&searchmode=none ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two Sardinian Archbishops were weighing the pros and cons of an official Saint Lucifer when the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition "imposed silence" on them. Apparently, that was that. For the night is dark and full of censers. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

Satan has been raging 'gainst the dying of the light for a lot longer than that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And long before him, Azor Ahai stood against the darkness. Or maybe it was Atar. Whatever it was, it was always burning since the world's been turning. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

Of course, there would never be a case of two persons and/or places and/or concepts from the bible with the same name. Like, there has only ever been one Mary in the bible, and one Joseph, and one Salome and one Place called Antioch and so on ever mentioned in Religion or the Bible, and therefor all uses of those names refer to just a single person, place, or concept. Or maybe, they don't, because names are repeated and used by different people. --Jayron 32 16:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's like "Mick" says in "Sympathy for the Devil". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Lucifer goes into detail about the term, which is basically a metaphor applied to a king of Babylon, and thence extracted to create a sort of metaphor about Satan. Given that it was simply a name for the morning star (not even 'Lucifer', except in translation) I doubt those present at the first reading would have been surprised to see it applied to various things. Wnt (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

d. aft

What does d. aft. mean? As in this page: Philibert de Chandée, 1st Earl of Bath

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:FA00:6:10:F838:34A8:DBB7:B549 (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It means "died after". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent the silly abbreviation to its own demise. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean "d.aft abbreviation"? Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really hate you for coming up with that. In my declining years, I'm not as sharp as I used to be. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the second reference on that page is completely worthless as a source, and the claim (which seems quite bogus) that is referenced to it ("He is an ancestor of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, through her father Bruce Shand') isn't even mentioned on the page. In fact, he isn't mentioned on that page!! - Nunh-huh 10:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a look at the Complete Peerage, and it states that nothing further is known of him. Therefore it is unlikely that anyone can trace a valid descent from him. (As the surname would seemingly have to pass in male line, and no male inherited his peerage, the claim seems additionally dubious.) I'll make the appropriate adjustments to the page. - Nunh-huh 10:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

41st Regiment Infantry U.S. Colored Troops

Can anybody help me find some detailed information about the 41st Regiment Infantry U.S. Colored Troops during the American Civil War? Were there any famous soldiers in this regiments? Who was the commander? What state was it from (Pennsylvania???)? What action besides the surrender at Appomattox Court House did this regiment see during the war?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a start. The page says the data is from this book, which isn't available online but might be from a library. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of Pennsylvania volunteers, 1861-5 pp. 1066-1081.—eric 02:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks. I think that is one of the more detailed sources about this regiment that I've seen.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a short bio of Lewis L. Weld, the commanding officer, at Yale library[30]. Connecting places and dates, he might have been tried by the Kansas District Court for ("...with force and arms, towit, with a club, knife, pistol, and other hurtful weapons...") violating the Fugitive Slave Law.—eric

Wikipedia has an article for him apparently as well Lewis Ledyard Weld.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 6

Missouri Civil War monument

Can anyone discover anything about this monument beyond what's in the image caption? I quote myself there:

Northern and western sides of the Civil War monument in the public square park in La Grange, Missouri, United States. "1864" seemingly is not the date of the monument's placement: Lewis County was strongly pro-Confederate, making it unlikely to be a Union monument (especially because Union monuments typically refer to "defense/preservation of the Union", not "defense of their country"), and the first Confederate monument was placed in 1867.

As I read it, the inscription is Erected to/the memory of the/soldiers/of Lewis County/Missouri/who fell in defence [sic]/of their country/1864, although it might be 1884. I think the circular figure is File:Seal of Missouri.svg, so that doesn't particularly help us. The article on Monticello, Missouri, the local county seat, is my source for claiming that the area was strongly Confederate. I've tried Google searches for <"La Grange" Missouri monument> and similar combinations, plus parts of the inscription, and I've checked the usually helpful waymarking.com, but I found nothing. Below the monument (not visible in this picture) is a plaque calling it the "Lewis County Civil War Monument" and noting that it had been restored in 2005 by the Sons of Union Veterans. I forgot about that when writing the caption. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, there's something wrong with the rotation. If you have any clue what's going on, please chime in at WP:VPT, section "Image properly rotated and not properly rotated". Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I downloaded it and looked at it, and it needs to be rotated 90 degrees clockwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original was uploaded sideways. The other sizes were all uploaded correctly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the separate entry with the same size as the original, appears to be corrupted. I can't view it or download it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the square is the Union Soldiers Monument, a marble shaft bearing the great seal of Missouri, erected in 1864 to the memory of those soldiers of Lewis County who fell "in defense of their country."

Missouri: A Guide to the Show Me State.—eric 05:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican-American War

Are there any African-American, Asian-American, Pacific Islanders combatants of the Mexican-American War which history knows of? Not interested in European or South American adventurers who may have enlisted though. Asian and Pacific Islander combatants would have been interesting.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Asian Americans makes no mention of the Mexican-American War; but if there were already Asians fighting in the War of 1812 and later the Civil War wouldn't there be at least a few known Asian soldiers in the conflict.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of African Americans#Mexican–American War.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how little there is about the subject.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Invisible Men: Blacks and the US. Army in the Mexican War"--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of Native Americans, I am looking more for ranking officers or even enlisted soldiers/privates within the Mexican or American army instead of border tribes who fought independently like the Comanches who often could be considered a third party in the conflict.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian immigration to the United States was really minimal. The first few Asians to settle in the United States came as part of the China trade during the early 1800s, but according to our article Chinese American, their number totaled just 325 before the California Gold Rush (which postdated the Mexican-American War). If any Asians fought on the U.S. side, they were unlikely to number more than one or two dozen, and even more unlikely to have been historically notable. Likewise, Asians had almost no presence in Mexico at the time. While there had been some movement of Asians to New Spain during the 16th and 17th centuries, if these migrants married, their descendants merged with the Mexican population. Marco polo (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... What about Asians and Pacific Islanders serving on US ships?... In the age of sail, ship captains found crewmen in many different ports around the world. Not sure if these would have been counted in immigration records, unless they settled in the US after leaving the ship. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a record of a Chinese sailor in Boston as early as 1798[31], but their numbers would have been tiny. Marco polo (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Americans can also mean Filipino American or "Manilamen" and there were already evidence of them in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. . --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lascars were South Asian sailors on European ships. This seems to suggest that there were Lascars aboard American ships in 1847. I can't find any reference to them coming ashore or settling in the US or fighting aboard war ships though it is probably likely (in albeit relatively small numbers).--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 22:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repression and dissent in USA.

This is a tricky one as I am based in the United Kingdom, but I am looking for stories, articles or examples that convey the importance today of dissent in a free and democratic society from any period in U.S history. Could anyone (perhaps U.S based) help point me in the right direction? Kind regards, --Bonisklegga (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is rather a lot on this, since freedom of speech is considered a core value in the U.S. and freedom of speech is largely about protecting the right to dissent, inasmuch as popular speech does not need a whole lot of protection. You might start with our articles on First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Freedom of speech in the United States, and Freedom of the press in the United States and the linked sources. Our article on Freedom for the Thought That We Hate looks to be pretty good and links to several important Supreme Court decisions. John M Baker (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The American Civil Liberties Union often takes unpopular stances in defense of the right to dissent; famously defending the rights of groups like the Ku Klux Klan to assemble and demonstrate. --Jayron 32 15:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The big things to look at would be the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, HUAC and recently the NSA, the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, and comparisons of Nixon's and Obama's abuse of executive powers against political opponents. That's a good month's worth of reading. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women suffrage in pre-1795 Poland?

Both in the article Women's suffrage and Feminism in Poland there I found this phrase: "Prior to the Partition of Poland in 1795, the tax-paying women were allowed to take part in political life", with no reference what so ever. This phrase need to be specified. What does it mean? In every country in the world, women "took part in political life" in one way or another, for example in France were women did so through political debates in political salons. Does this phrase mean that they had some kind of formal, legal, political rights? Some kind of suffrage rights? Does any one know if women had some kind of suffrage in Poland prior to 1795? It would not be impossible, since other countries, such as Sweden, did so in the same century. Thanks!--Aciram (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book states that women in the 1600s (17th century) participated in the Sejm, which was the Polish equivalent of the House of Lords; that book also notes other instances of women having direct political influence, either de facto or de jure. --Jayron 32 15:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, an interesting book! But did the women had some sort of voting right or seat in the sejm, or did they simply participate in the political debate in informal level? Because of the participation was merely informal, the it does not belong in the article Women's suffrage.--Aciram (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly were women in pre-partition Poland who were rich, ambitious and influential, but there was no such thing as female suffrage in Poland before 1918. Women did not hold offices and could not be elected as members of parliament. In this regard, Poland did not differ from other European countries of the time. "To take part in political life" can mean a lot of things; in this case, it may only refer to behind-the-scenes scheming, not official power. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there were a limited suffrage for women in Sweden and Corsica in the 18th-century, so I wondered if the phrase intended something of that sort: perhaps some female magnates were allowed to vote to the Sejm? But if not, the phrase should perhaps be deleted from the Women's suffrage-article, since there is no reference...--Aciram (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about cursive handwriting

Back in the "old days", when I was in school, we had a specific course in school that was devoted to penmanship. In the younger grades, you would learn printing and, as you progressed through to the older grades, you transitioned over to cursive writing. We all used standard penmanship books, in which the "models" of letters typically looked like those seen here, at this page: D'Nealian. So, my curiosity brings about this question. If we are all taught from the same basic principles of cursive handwriting, and we all use the same "models", how is it that everyone's cursive handwriting is so wildly different from everyone else's? I mean, oftentimes, it's not even close. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you assume that, after 20-30-40 or more years, people wouldn't slowly change the way they write? Your assumption, that a process taught to a bunch of people when they were 10 years old would, after 30 years, be reproduced perfectly by every one of those people in exactly the same way, seems the more outrageous. --Jayron 32 16:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Re-read my question. Where did I say that, exactly? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I see samples of my own handwriting at age 10 or so, I can see that it's mine, but I'm not so sure anyone else would. One factor is that we tend to write slowly and carefully in elementary school, but over time practicality has a way of forcing you to write in the most efficient way you can, rather than trying to go slowly and carefully. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The eye is very capable of discerning small distinctions. The premise that our handwritings differ markedly is flawed. In fact our handwriting is remarkably the same. But we have the ability to discern relatively minor visual distinctions. It is by this means that we distinguish for instance the difference between the handwriting of different people. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, we were given models to use--but after that, what was stressed was legibility, rather than absolute conformity to the model. For what it's worth, here's a site for the Palmer method which more than once mentions individuality....the implication is that you could both use this method, but display individual style: http://palmermethod.com/ Herbivore (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little like how a class of students are all taught the same material, but when asked to write an essay on a specified topic, they'll all produce unique essays. Not one will even start with the same sentence as any other. Handwriting is also governed by individual factors. Graphology claims that personality traits etc are revealed in our handwriting. Whether that's true or not, it's undeniable that signatures of notable people have been collectors' items for centuries and are very highly prized. If we all wrote the same, the signatures of George Washington, Adolf Hitler and John F Kennedy would be worthless scratchings that nobody would want, because a computer could be programmed to produce exact replicas of them, from the template set down by our teachers. Also, signatures are almost as good as fingerprints for ID purposes, which is why they appear on passports, drivers licences, bank notes etc, as corroborative evidence, and why people are sometimes asked to re-sign some document because the first attempt was too dissimilar to the sample signature. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are references in the Handwriting article. And google brings up this which quotes a US government report that taps such factors as visual perception and motor abilities, plus a tendency to individualism and subconscious habit. It seems that since writing is a form of expression it becomes a form of self-expression too. P.S. See also Regional handwriting variation. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It varies with time through laziness? We all seek to save time and in doing so we find different abbreviations. See Teeline Shorthand. I'm only 26 and I learned to handwrite in elementary school with a book as the OP describes, but in adulthood I've incorporated parts of Teeline into my normal handwriting, for example looping a letter d from in, curling out. The loop on my g's now go to the right. --81.145.165.214 (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider affectation: conscious adoption of features that make one's writing distinctive (or conform to an in-group). I soon dropped most of the goofy quirks I tried on in adolescence, but at least two things had permanent effects: some time overseas and some study of calligraphy. — On another hand, I can't tell my mother's hand from her sister's, and their mother's (who was a schoolteacher) is recognizably similar. —Tamfang (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was Leonardo da Vinci Italian?

Even if today someone born in ~~Pisa~~Vinci would call himself Italian, wouldn't it be the case that he would have defined himself as florentine (or fiorentino) back then?

Does Wikipedia has a policy for such cases, and similar cases of people who lived in a place before a nation was founded?

Should we call them by the present national denomym retroactively?

The same applies to Vivaldi, Galileo Galilei and many others, not only in the Italian region, but also in present day Germany. For example, Beethoven died in 1827, Germany exists since 1870.

Or would you say that Jesus is Palestinian too?

--Scicurious (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone from Pisa would typically identify as Pisan or Italian; unless I'm mistaken, Florentine would have been an unlikely identity for anyone not from the city of Florence or its very immediate environs (such as Vinci).
I personally would call Leonardo Florentine or Italian. We go with "Italian" in the lede in that case, presumably because it is better understood by more readers.
The terms "Italy" and "Germany" were in wide use in the periods relevant to Vivaldi, Galileo, and Beethoven: it's just that they weren't nation-states. But in that era there simply weren't nation-states. I can't speak to Vivaldi in this respect, but Galileo wrote in Italian at a time where almost all other scientists wrote in Latin, which shows a strong attachment to Italian identity, and similarly I would say that Beethoven's identity as a German is not in doubt.
Clearly the term Palestinian is anachronistic when applied 2000+ years ago, just as we would not call someone from that era Israeli, Saudi or Jordanian.
The policy gets murky before the age of nation-states and the modern notion of citizenship. There is a certain extent to which you have to use common sense. - Jmabel | Talk 23:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Leonardo was from Vinci Republic of Florence (therefore, he's called da Vinci). Galileo was from Pisa. The question remains the same.--Scicurious (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia policy on this issue, there's WP:OPENPARA, which states the criterion as "the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." However, this goes on to use Petrarch as an example, listing his nationality as "Italian" (not Tuscan or Florentine). The general guideline probably therefore should be to use (a) what reliable sources use for a person's nationality (which gives us "Galilean" for Jesus), or (b) the results of discussions on individual talk pages. This question might be better at the Village Pump (WP:VPP). Tevildo (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course just because there is a guideline to cover it doesn't mean that there aren't disagreements. Nikola Tesla, Nicki Minaj and George Bernard Shaw have all been subject to disagreements over their nationality. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate answer is "We do what reliable sources do, and don't make our own judgments on decisions on what we think should be done, merely because we have "reasons"." If the preponderance of reliable sources call Da Vinci Italian, we do too, even if we have reasons we could list why we think those sources are wrong. --Jayron 32 01:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Jayron said. It's worth also echoing what was said earlier: the word "Italy" (or more accurately, "Italia"), has been in use for far longer than the nation of Italy has existed. The Italian peninsula has been referred to as Italia for over 2000 years. Roman historians also began referring to the area of modern Germany and the people who lived there as Germani since the time of Julius Caesar, even though there was not a nation called Germany until the late 19th century. It may seem strange to us now, but there was absolutely a time when most Europeans did not tie their identity to the state of which they were subjects. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation before 1806. —Tamfang (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...Which never included all of Germany, and also included many non-German areas like Northern Italy and Bohemia (Czech). It was far from a nation state, and for many centuries before it folded in 1806, it was a shell of an organization, weakly held together by historical tradition, and having no real power over the constituent states which by-and-large managed their own affairs as independent principalities for several centuries before it's abolition by Napoleon. During the Habsburg Empire, any power held by the Imperial office came more from the territorial and financial power of Austria than from imperial institutions themselves. After the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, any remaining vestiges of imperial power itself became quite meaningless. --Jayron 32 14:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question was about nations, not about nation-states. (I'm one of those cranks who do not accept the latter's claim to be synonymous with the former.) I mentioned the Empire, which named itself in part after the German nation even if it did not encompass the whole, in snarky support of the proposition that there existed a German nation. —Tamfang (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Mozart and Mozart's nationality. There was a huge amount of debate over this on his talk page.--Phil Holmes (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No because Italy did not exist when he was born. Erunaquest (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta wonder how someone got the idea to unify something that did not exist. —Tamfang (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of a virgin-martyr in Christianity

What is the significance of a virgin-martyr in Christianity? Why would the blessed saint be venerated as a virgin and as a martyr? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most organized religions (and nations, and many movements) have one or another degree of cult around their martyrs. Most forms of Christianity strongly associate virginity with innocence of sin. I'm not sure what more there is to say.
But I'm not sure I understand the question, and you may wish to expand on it. Are you asking how/when this came to be? If not, then what are you asking? - Jmabel | Talk 23:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was something special with treating "virgin" and "martyr" as one term: "virgin-martyr". Since when did Christianity strongly associate virginity with innocence of sin, or did this association predate Christianity? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily with innocence of sin, but celibacy as an ideal; in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul notes that celibacy (refraining from all sexual activity) is the highest state, but concedes that as people find sex a strong drive, that it is allowable to be married for the purpose of having sex. --Jayron 32 01:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the current teaching (thanks to Tertullian and later like minded "fighters of heresy"), but many early sects of Christianity (before the 66 books were canonized) demanded celibacy and eschewed marriage. See for example Acts of Paul and Thecla and, especially, Acts of Thomas in which Thomas (or his twin brother Jesus) get into a series of predicaments as a result of preaching celibacy even in the context of marriage. "If you refrain from this filthy intercourse you become temples holy and pure, released from afflictions and troubles" (Acts of Thomas 12). Jesus himself was said to appear to a king's daughter and her husband on their wedding night(!) and convince them to remain celibate. "I have had no conjugal intercourse with a temporary husband, whose end is repentance and bitterness of soul, because I have been united to my true Husband", i.e. God. (Acts of Thomas 14). The idea of remaining celibate to maintain purity has strong roots in historical Christianity. The Acts of John also taught celibacy and contains the story of Drusiana, who was raised from the dead after a miraculous snakebite prevented a necrophiliac from ruining her chastity (read it, you can't make this stuff up lol). This may also be interesting to the OP.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that assumes mainstream living Christianity is the heresy, and that true Christianity is the historical one suppressed by the ancestors of mainstream Christianity? My question is concerned with mainstream living Christianity, regardless of whether they are holding the truth. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of those works are Apocrypha, which are excellent works for understanding early Christianity in historical context, but do not hold relevance as theological or dogmatic guidance for any modern, mainstream, or significant Christian sects, and have not for many, many centuries. --Jayron 32 14:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to remember when this place became so adversarial, or has it always been so? One wouldn't expect to be sucked into a debate by posting references at a reference desk, but this is the internet, I guess. @71.79.234.132: No, that assumes no such thing. It means that before one book or another was declared heretical, they all contributed to early Christian thought. You asked "Since when did Christianity strongly associate virginity with innocence...", I pointed out that such a belief has been present since the earliest days of Christianity. @Jayron, I didn't claim that the Apocrypha hold relevance as theological or dogmatic guidance for modern Christianity, in fact, my very first sentence implied I'm well aware that they don't. Although the Docetic/Gnostic/Arian/etc. theologies found in some of these books were declared heretical and the books themselves subsequently denounced, the traditions/myths/histories/etc. remained in the consciousness of Christians and were part of the development of what today is mainstream. I admire the variety of knowledge you demonstrate through your excellent posts here, so I'm sure I don't have to tell you, Christianity didn't develop in a vacuum--in fact, there were many Christianities and in order to understand modern ideas (such as the "virgin-martyr"), we need to understand their history...all of their history. The apocrypha remained popular long after they were excluded from the canon. For example Thecla is considered one of the very first virgin-martyrs. She is still venerated to this day, with all the major orthodox churches giving her a feast day. And, in the 14th century, Giotto painted "St. John Raising Drusiana" from the dead in the Peruzzi Chapel. While not valid as modern sources of official theology, these books may be the source of many beliefs (doctrinal or otherwise) we adhere to today and have, at the very least, served to perpetuate and reinforce ancient ideas such as the one about which the OP has inquired.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 20:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made no statement that any reasonable person could interpret as being adversarial. --Jayron 32 22:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links! Oh, boy! Lots of links and reading! 71.79.234.132 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk had some good background on virgin martyrs recently: Humanities Reference Desk archives: virgin martyrs -- 02:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Tampico Affair?

I'm trying to put better categories, description, date, etc. on Commons:File:1A1182101XVIII001 (15248753605). I'm guessing this would have to be a photo from the time of the Tampico Affair in 1914, leading to the occupation of Veracruz. Does anyone think otherwise? Does anyone know anything more specific? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

USS Plunger (SS-2)

Got another one here. The chronology of the sub itself limits this to 1902-1921; does anyone have any ideas for narrowing it further? - Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~There's lots of detailed info in this article by a retired USN commander. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Hmmm, seems to be basically the same info as what we currently have. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did China learn about America

When did China first learn about the existence of the Americas (post 1492; I'm not looking for theories of Zheng He and his fleet beating Columbus)? When did they first recorded it down or mention Europeans finding/mentioning lands to their far east beyond Japan? What was the first/oldest known Chinese exonym for this region of the world?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found a direct answer to your question, but our article on Foreign relations of imperial China mentions that trade with Portugal began in the early 1500s. Tuen Mun was in fact home to Portuguese settlers as early as 1514. Given this I'd say it's certainly possible the Chinese found out about the Americas not long after everyone else. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the Chinese would have known about the area indirectly through the Spanish China trade in the Philippines. The Spanish paid with silver and gold from the New World, so what would the Chinese have called the land from which this wealth originate or did they thought it came from Xiyang (Europe).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that someone at the language desk could answer the language part of the question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We may never know for sure because early voyagers may have been undocumented. Erunaquest (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not interested in if theories and assumed the Chinese learn of the region from Europeans after Columbus' discovery.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a name that you might take to the language desk. According to The Economist, this map File:1763-1418ChineseMap.jpg might be dated 1418 (an alternate date is 1763). There is a label (in Chinese) on the Americas. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And see Kunyu Wanguo Quantu, made in 1602 and said in that article to be the first Chinese map showing the Americas. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

more links for 184's answer see: De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas and Yee, Cordell (1987). Traditional Chinese Cartography and the Myth of Westernization. In Harley, J. B., In Woodward, D., & In Monmonier, M. S. (1987). The History of cartography. (Vol. 2, Bk. 2) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.—eric 14:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty here is in treating "the Chinese" as a unified entity. There is little doubt that some individual Chinese people learned about the American land mass in the early 1500s. But how far did that knowledge propagate? It might be worth pointing out the the Norwegians knew from around 1000 A.D. onward of the American land mass down to the latitude of the Saint Lawrence River -- but that knowledge was not communicated to southern Europe. So when did "the Europeans" learn about America? Looie496 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals who funded the American revolutionary war

Trolling

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

Does Wikipedia have a list of individuals who provided funding for the American revolutionary war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soft skin (talk • contribs) 06:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the funding for the American Revolution came from the issuance of paper money by Congress, rather than collected from individuals. Some wealthy colonists did provide loans to help fund the revolution, but our article doesn't list any by name. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This site gives more details about the loan program, but doesn't name any creditors. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King Louis XVI probably tops the list.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 08:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the mainstream media, it very well may have been aliens. On the other hand, this guy from the far corners of the Internet seems rather more certain it was Americans. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:21, August 7, 2015 (UTC)

I read an article of a patriot who spent most of his money for the cause and tried (unsuccesfully) to get reimbursed after the war, but I can't recall the name. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Category:Financiers of the American Revolution, but it's only got seven entries, and my guy isn't one of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thaddeus Kosciuszko and Casimir Pulaski, who fought for the American cause, are household names in Poland. Haym Salomon, a Polish Jew included in the category mentioned by Clarityfiend above – not so much. I have long wondered why. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it is ethnic prejudice. With few exceptions, military leaders become more famous than financiers. - Jmabel | Talk 17:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1939, Americans have been told to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Marcus Loew and Samuel Goldwyn were two Polish Jews behind that curtain. But you don't have to be Jewish to oppose the Bush administration, and that Bush's great-great-great-great-great grandfather was a Revolutionary War Captain who is an exception to the fame rule. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

Well, how many of the financiers were Jewish, since we all know that many of the founding fathers were Freemasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soft skin (talk • contribs) 08:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured you were asking. The reliable sources and rest of the Internet seem to agree there was only Solomon. Notably, anyway. If you check the census records from around that time, you'll find a list of taxpayers, some probably with Jewish sounding names. Like the guy in the "certain it was Americans" link above notes, even the European loans had to be paid back, somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:55, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

You mean Chaim Solomon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soft skin (talk • contribs) 09:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim, Haym, Solomon, Salomon, yeah. Not Solomon. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:04, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

So far, The people here have mentioned two financiers who were Jewish. What were their reasons to fund the American revolutionary war? Were they collaborating with Freemasons in a conspiracy to undermine traditional white society? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soft skin (talk • contribs) 09:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His investment bought him the clout to help strike down the religious test in Pennsylvania. That's sort of like undermining tradition. If he was more in it for the money than the ideals of freedom, like the typical human, he got burnt by the time-honoured tradition of not paying bills and his family was left penniless.

Here are the ravings of a lunatic on the Freemason stuff. I just skimmed through it, but it seems to be the sort of answer you want.

Who's the second Jewish banker you see here? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:43, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

I misread. Also, are you the guy who tried to claim that holocaust revisionism is false? Anyways, the global elite Jews have you brainwashed into thinking he's a lunatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soft skin (talk • contribs) 09:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions are real, what they claim happened are usually false. Are you one of those accounts that wants to turn its question into an anti-Semitic soapbox? If so, go to YouTube. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:53, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

Supreme Court: Decision in Shelby County v. Holder, Doc. 12-96

A preclearance provision (Section 5) of the Voting Rights Act. The Case was brought as a Facial Challenge, which I thought meant the Decision had to either accept "all" or "nothing" of the challenge. The Decision, however parced out only part of Section 5 (taking out the teeth of Section 5...or at the least sending it back to Congress), which felt like the Case was being decided as if AllynFuller (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)it had been an As-Applied Challenge. What am I missing in my understanding of Facial v. As-Applied? Thank you![reply]

See Shelby County v. Holder and Facial challenge. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 4(b) of the act was unconstitutional (that is, the facial challenge to that section was upheld; there are no circumstances in which it can be applied in compliance with the Constitution), but upheld the constitutionality of Section 5; or, at least, "issue[d] no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage formula." Tevildo (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal issues arising from withheld information

What are the possible criminal implications arising from withholding information from police to the extent to which the protagonist in Nightcrawler (2014) withheld information from police according to California law? I would have some serious difficulties finding criminal liability. --91.64.67.98 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a very unsafe thing to make assumptions about, and we can by no means give legal advice, but it's worth considering obstruction of justice and accessory after the fact, also contempt of court if a court order for the tape and equipment is given (wouldn't they?). I wouldn't be confident about destruction of evidence either, even if what they did was to make a copy of the tape, stop, then go back and tape over part of it, because after all, isn't the temporarily more informative copy "evidence"? Prosecutors seem to have carte blanche to write their own rules of logic as they go along. If they want you in jail, you're going to jail... and this would really tick them off. Wnt (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though if the prosecution wants to send you to jail, but knows of exculpatory evidence the police have, they must not bury it. Sort of the opposite of defending yourself by burying inculpatory evidence, but opposites are sort of relevant to each other. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

The plot summary in our article says the protagonist tampers with crime scenes to make better pictures. That goes beyond withholding evidence. —Tamfang (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing down the shop. A big shop.

Many large companies have gone bankrupt over time - for instance, Kodak, but do large companies ever decide to sell their assets and dissolve themselves the way a small business person might? I'm thinking of companies that think they can't innovate enough to survive, but it could be for other reasons. 188.247.76.211 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes—Lehman Brothers and Woolworths Group are probably the most spectacular recent bankrupt companies to close the doors and fire all the staff because they were unable to find a buyer or provide a credible restructuring plan. I assume from the fact you mention Kodak that you're asking about the US, in which case Chapter 7, Title 11, United States Code explains the actual process of dissolution. – iridescent 19:55, 8 August 20188.247.76.211 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)15 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have formulated my question clearly. I am wondering about big companies that voluntarily, while liquid, just decide to stop trading. (And I'm Canadian, but interested in any huge company anywhere.)188.247.76.211 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tipping

Why is it considered common practise in certain countries to expect people to tip poorly paid staff. Why are more people not annoyed by the fact that they're coerced into subsidising low pay? Also, are there campaigning efforts in countries such as the United States to ensure that the wage paid to waiting staff is sufficient for them to live on. In the UK, where I'm from, the expectation is that you tip a job well done - in other countries, and some very high-end restaurants in the UK, it doesn't seem to be optional. This article suggests that service industry employment in restaurants, in the US at least, is a huge burden on American taxpayers, so I don't understand why more isn't being done. --Andrew 19:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More being done by who? GregJackP Boomer! 21:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]