Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 31

America/Boise

When did the America/Boise time zone area take its present existence? Presumably it switched from Pacific Time to Mountain Time (it's in two states, so changes in daylight saving time probably aren't responsible), but I can't find anything (even unreliable sources) addressing when and why this change happened. Anything reliable would help with expanding our article. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This 2008 article in The Oregonian asserts that a portion of Oregon being on Mountain Time "grew out of a 1923 federal decision to uncomplicate service by the Oregon Short Line Railroad, which served the region during the Jazz Age." This 2009 blog discusses the time zone border in Idaho but says nothing about the history. A comment to this article says "If I recall correctly, North Idaho WAS once on Mountain Time about 40 years ago which sure made it confusing for doing business in Spokane or listening to newscasts or inviting Spokane friends for dinner"; another comment implies that Shoshone County (which is in the north of the state though not on the Oregon border) used to be on Mountain Time decades ago. Mathew5000 (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The key year seems to be 1974, when "Southern Idaho and eastern Oregon (Mountain time zone) began DST Sun February 3 02:00" - a month later than neighbouring areas. These particular zones, used in computing, are designed to show areas which have varied, even slightly, from their neighbours. 86.191.126.192 (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the original question was asking about 1923 (when part of Idaho, including Boise, switched from Pacific Time to Mountain Time), not 1974. Mathew5000 (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I found an article from 1966 about the time zone in Shoshone County (northeast Idaho). The article says "Shoshone County has been on permanent daylight time for the last 30 years". The IANA tz database does not reflect any different time historically in Shoshone County as opposed to other counties in north Idaho. Mathew5000 (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The tz database only pays attention to time changes that occurred after 1969, and America/Boise is specifically a tz database entry, so the 1974 change is much more relevant than anything in the 1920s. Thank you! Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And there is a comment in the database posted by Paul Eggert on 2013-08-26 reading: "Southern Idaho (Ada, Adams, Bannock, Bear Lake, Bingham, Blaine, Boise, Bonneville, Butte, Camas, Canyon, Caribou, Cassia, Clark, Custer, Elmore, Franklin, Fremont, Gem, Gooding, Jefferson, Jerome, Lemhi, Lincoln, Madison, Minidoka, Oneida, Owyhee, Payette, Power, Teton, Twin Falls, Valley, Washington counties, and the southern quarter of Idaho county) and eastern Oregon (most of Malheur County) switched four weeks late in 1974." Boise, of course, is the largest of those places; hence America/Boise. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Wealthy people

Forbes rich list indicates that Bill Gates is worth around $75 billion USD. What does this number encompass, is it money in the bank, or does it take into account things such as stocks, shares, assets, et? Is the number at first more complex than it initially appears? The list seems quite vague and non-specific. --Andrew 20:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I googled "forbes rich list methodology". "To estimate billionaires’ net worths we value individuals’ assets, including stakes in public and private companies, real estate, yachts, art and cash–and account for debt."[1] The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oh right, so its their total asset portfolio, as opposed to how much readily available cash they have? Interesting --Andrew 21:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No filthy rich people keep all their assets in cash, not even drug kingpins. (Warren Buffett would have a fit.) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Even the "cash" is liquid sellable short term bond-like instrument(s) with very little actual cash. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And that's why we say he's "worth 75 bn", and not "he has 75bn in the bank". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Heck, even the moderately unclean rich don't do that. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

When my dad turned 60, he said that if he won the "mega millions" lottery, he would take the payment as a "lump sum" (where they give you about half the advertised amount in one payment, instead of the full amount in installments over several years)... and put the money in a non-interest bearing checking account. His rational was that once he paid taxes on the lump sum, he would have plenty to live on for the rest of his life... And never have to file a tax form ... ever again! Blueboar (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That's an irrationale, except for the bank (which would be laughing all the way to ... where it is now, I guess). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Cutting off the nose to spite the face. Since taxes are usually less than 100% of income, you still end up with more money if you make money, even if you pay a portion of that money to the government. --Jayron32 02:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

But he didn't say it was about paying taxes, he said it was about needing to file a tax form. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That's why one has minions. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust a Minion anywhere near a tax return. 86.191.126.192 (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Your dad, if he wins the lottery, needs to learn about tax-free municipal securities. Well, if he lives in the United States, anyway. John M Baker (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No, his Dad needs to go to a professional financial adviser to get the best advice, and not pay regard to anything he reads on the internet. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2

What was the relative proportion of Scots to English in the American South?

I have often read about the influence of the Scots and Scots-Irish on the American South. As opposed to the entirely English settlement of early New England. Steven Pinker even traces the blue state North and red state South to this origin.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/why-are-states-so-red-and-blue/

The Confederate flag's St.Andrew's Cross and the Klan's crossburning was also influenced by Scottish tradition.

I was wondering if there was any hard data on the proportion on Scots and Scots-Irish in the American South and how it compared to the rest of the country both in 1860 and today. In 1860 for instance were there more whites of English or Scottish descent in the states of the Confederacy?

--Gary123 (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Just in case anybody was as outraged as I was at the suggestion that the Klu Klux Klan had any connection with Scotland, an account written in 1742 describes the preparation of a Fiery Cross during the Dundee's rising of 1689: "A goat was slain, a fire was kindled, the points of a small wooden cross were seared in the flame and then the sparks were extinguished in the blood of the goat... It was a signal for arming and assembling at a given place". [2] Not the same thing really. Alansplodge (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

But/And, there's an important distinction to be made between, for example, the KKK being a natural outgrowth of American Scots culture, with its symbolic roots in seventeenth-century Scotland, and such an organization drawing on Scots culture and intentionally transforming (read: perverting) conventional symbols within a novel context. The mid-19th century was, after all, the era of the Celtic Revival, which in many cases was more of a rewriting than a recovery of historical ethnic roots. While I don't know much about the KKK, I'm sure an interesting study could be written comparing it to other (usually less malignant) examples of romantic nationalism in both the US and Europe. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, Malcolm Gladwell has written on the connection between rural feuds in the US (such as that between the Hatfields and the McCoys) and the Scots Highland "culture of honor." I find arguments such as Gladwell's plausible in broad terms, though I for one doubt that any "cultural memory" related to cross burning not part of an ethnically self-conscious reconstruction (= an already polemically oriented ethnic self-conception) persisted among Scots families in the American South. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a map that has been linked to from the ref desk a couple times in the past. It is, as far as I can tell, completely useless, both because it does not contain historical data, and because it seems to think it's okay to count "American" as a valid ethnicity. To establish a correlation like the one you're looking for, you would need to find US Census data from 1860 and 1870, arranged by county, and determine whether or not counties with white inhabitants of a predominantly Scots background were more likely to birth early branches of the KKK than were counties with predominantly German or English populations. I'm not sure even census data will be of much use, though, as "white" has typically been the sole identifier in official records for people in the US answering to that description since (approximately) forever. Prior to 1920 the Census Bureau didn't even distinguish between Anglo-Saxon-Americans and Mexican-Americans, let alone between people of English and Scots descent. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Washington's Business and occupation tax and Boeing

I was reading about Washington's Business_and_occupation_tax#Washington and was wondering whether this tax affects Boeing or not? Most of Boeing's customers are out of state or out of country and the article doesn't say whether the Business and occupation tax affects out of state and out of country sales or not. Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Does Lviv hold the record?

I can't find the exact quote, but I remember reading about a man who was born in Country A, married in Country B, had children in Country C, and died in Country D, yet he never left his home town, Lviv, aka Lvov and Lemberg. The key is that international borders changed a lot in that area of the world, and he kept on being told he was now part of a different country.

So, to my question. Which city or town has the record for being part of the most countries, as a result of border changes? It may well be Lviv, but it may be some other place. And not necessarily in Europe. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that Gdansk beats that record by a whisker, though not within a single life span. A few places also equate Lviv´s record. One example: Sarajevo (Osman empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, Yugoslavia, now Bosnia-Herzgovina).

Going further back, even London should count (Londinium / Romans, Lundenwic / Mecia / Wessex / Vikings), Normans, England, Great Britain. Possible to be continued in case of a BREXIT. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Brexit (though foolish and idiotic) would not change the nationality of London. It is now, and will remain in either case, a British city, never mind what the Bexiters say. Fgf10 (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to a possible follow on from Brexit, i.e. a separation / the independence of Scotland / possibly Wales. A United Kingdom / Great Britain would cease to exist. --178.191.68.193 (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ooops, not logged in. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

PS: Even my late parents top the Lviv record. Born in Vienna (Austro-Hungarian Empire, 1919 Austria / 1st Republic, 1934 Federal State of Austria, 1938 Germany / 3rd Reich, 1945 Austria / 2nd Republic). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The US amusement-park chain Six Flags takes its name from the fact that Texas was at different times controlled by Spain, France, Mexico, the USA, the Confederate States, and was an independent country. It was never actually considered part of Spain or France as far as I know, just colonial territory, but I think it's fair to count all six. And that's only after white people started moving in there, too; I don't know if any native towns or villages from an earlier era still exist. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "country". If the 1919 Austrian Republic and the 1934 Federal State of Austria are regarded as different countries, then there are parts of China that have been ruled by a dozen regimes. For example, starting from the time that the Chinese arrived in the area in about 500BC, Nanjing was successively ruled by the State of Wu, State of Yue, State of Chu, the Qin Empire, the Western Han Empire, the Xin, the Eastern Han Empire, Eastern Wu (capital form 229AD), Western Jin, Eastern Jin, the Liu Song, the Southern Qi, the Liang, the Chen (these six collectively the Six Dynasties), the Sui Empire, the Tang Empire, the state of Wu, the state of Southern Tang, the Northern Song, the Southern Song, the short-lived Jurchen Da Chu, the Mongol Yuan Empire, the Ming Empire, the Qing Empire, briefly the British Empire, the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, then back to the Qing Empire, the Republic of China, the Japanese Empire, back to the Republic of China, and now the People's Republic. The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom was defeated in 1864 and the People's Republic established in 1949, so the last 5 changes could have all happened in one lifetime. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

A slightly better example also from China for somewhere that has actually changed hands between different nation-states within a lifetime, is Port Arthur in northeast China: until 1894 it was part of the Qing Empire. It was occupied by, then ceded to, Japan from 1894 to 1895. In 1895 it was returned to the Qing Empire. In 1898 it was leased to Russia, until the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, at the end of which it was again taken by Japan (from 1937 nominally held by Manchukuo, though in reality controlled by Japan), until the end of World War II, when it was returned to the Republic of China but immediately leased to the Soviet Union, until 1955 when it was handed over to the People's Republic of China. So that makes at least 6, possibly 7 or 8 changes within a lifetime between different countries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

But these responses are about different regimes in more or less one country. Lviv surely takes the cake for being in one spot as different nations' borders swept by.Hayttom (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is the point that we are talking about four different countries? So in the case of Lviv, Russia, Germany, Poland and Ukraine? So we are looking for a place that has belonged to four or five different nation states? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Lviv was never actually in Germany or Russia - it passed from Austria-Hungary to Poland, then to the USSR (but part of the Ukrainian SSR, not the RSFSR), and then finally to an independent Ukraine. 86.191.126.192 (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Winchester, Virginia was captured dozens of times (50-60 I think) in the 4 years of the American Civil War. The Confederate States of America were illegal but they were de facto independent for a few years. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Was the Confederacy ever recognized by any other nation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hayttom would probably object and say that's at most two "different" countries, possibly one.

Here's an obvious one: Singapore was part of the British Empire, conquered by Japan, returned, became part of Malaysia, and then its own independent nation, all comfortably within a lifetime. So that makes four different nations - which is equal to Lviv. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• If you aren't constrained to a single lifetime, there's lots of places in Europe that have been parts of more than 4 sovereign states. Take the convoluted history of Limbourg, for example. It's been part of a) the Burgundian Netherlands, B) the Holy Roman Empire, c) the Spanish Netherlands, d) the Dutch Republic, e) the Austrian Netherlands d) France, e) Prussia f) the German Confederation g) the Kingdom of the Netherlands h) Belgium. Lots of Europe was like that for a long time, especially in places near the boundaries of various nations; Limbourg, located at the junction of 5 modern nations (and with historical connections to several others) is not atypical. --Jayron32 03:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If we're going to count military occupations that widens the scope considerably. Some areas of Syria must have changed hands dozens of times during the civil war. 151.224.163.159 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

How about Trans-Carpathian Ruthenia (capital Uzhhorod) - Austria to 1919, Czechoslovakis to 1939, Hungary to 1945, USSR to 1991, and now Ukraine. 86.191.126.192 (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Ruthenia was actually independent for one day between its secession from Czechoslovakia and its occupation by Hungary. In the middle ages, Lemberg (Lviv) was the capital of a greater Ruthenia. Paul Magocsi's Atlas is the go-to source for this. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

See Jerusalem#History.—Wavelength (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton will not release her transcripts of speeches on Wall Street.

Hillary Clinton will not release her transcripts of speeches on Wall Street. I have a question about that. Where exactly are these transcripts and who has them? Surely, not Clinton herself. Or -- even if she did have them -- certainly other people out there also have copies. No? Perhaps, for example, some of the people who work on Wall Street or some who attended the speeches, etc. If we can't get these transcripts from Hillary herself, why can't we get them from someone else? And, if they are in the hands of some Wall Street employees, wouldn't they have been leaked by now (by some "rogue" employee or some "whistle-blower" type)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

According to this article, Clinton routinely insisted that a stenographer record her paid private speeches, and maintains personal control of the transcripts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

it's all carefully controlled...who can be there, who can record, who creates/controls any transcript, how much she's paid, how many photos she has to pose for etc...a long carefully crafted contract is involved...(Original research but obvious)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

She also presumably holds the copyright - why should she giver away her work for free? 86.191.126.192 (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, presidential candidates also hold the copyright of their tax returns, but they make them routinely available. 151.224.163.159 (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous comparison. I'd like to see you try to stop the government photocopying your tax forms on the basis that you own the copyright. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think copyright would apply there. Politicians release tax forms so they can appear to be "transparent" about their money. Trump won't. Unless he decides it will help get him some votes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Certainly government forms are Crown Copyright but copyright law permits copying for specified purposes. If the government were to publish people's tax returns I guess they would be breaking the law (Data Protection and all that). 151.224.163.159 (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

US copyright law is a little different. In the UK there would be crown copyright over the forms but unlikely to be any copyright in the contents filled in by the form filler. It would be quite difficult to argue that filling in some factual numbers satisfies the requirement that the relevant "work" is the expression of the author's own intellectual creation. The situation might be different of course if it is a very creative tax return. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in the U.S., some creative expression is required for something to be eligible for copyright (see sweat of the brow). As such I'm pretty sure tax returns aren't copyrightable in the U.S. As for the original forms, U.S. federal government works are public domain. For state government works it's up to each state. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Norway, Sweden and Finland are of course famous examples where part of the tax return are made public although not everyone is happy about it [3] [4] [5] [6]. As mentioned there and [7], Italy also tried once but did hit data protection snags. And as mentioned there or [8] in the US initially the data was public and for some brief periods later some info was also public. Incidentally while this isn't legal advice I agree with the IP and PalaceGuard008 that trying to assert copyright over a tax return in a number of jurisdictions including the US seems difficult unless you're trying to tell the government something you probably shouldn't. Even if you aren't simply filling out a form but have some leeway in the way you present the data, at most this would seem to limit direct copies, but not other presentations of the same data. Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether or not presidential candidates in the US should make any transcripts they have of speeches they've given available, it's worth considering that while the level of control demanded may be somewhat less common, the lack of other transcripts probably isn't that uncommon. Perhaps the OP is attending different speeches then the kind I've attended or heard people discuss, and I admit my experience doesn't include the sort of speeches you need to pay a many thousands or more to attend, but in a lot of cases you simply go and hear the speech. You don't take a transcript and most of the time you even if there is on it's not the sort of thing you're likely to seek out or expect to be handed out. I guess thousands of dollars speeches may be different but then again if people are willing to pay me thousands of dollars for my speeches I'm not sure if I'm going to be willing to allow access to then willynilly anyway. With cheap small and easy to use digital recordings devices or simply mobile phones, and also similar for video cameras; it may be some people would choose to record the speech and could theoretically make a transcript. But if you did that why not just release the recording? Likewise while some speeches may have some sort of official recording (perhaps including video), whether you'll obtain access to this is often quite variable and again often isn't something people will necessarily consider much since they're going there for the live speech. Definitely it doesn't seem that surprising to me if in many cases no one else would have a transcript or recording even without the rules. (Lectures for university courses are an exception for obvious reasons.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Syedlitz

What other spellings exist for the Russian jurisdiction known as "Syedlitz" in the 1909 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia? Virtually all Google hits are misspellings of SMS Seydlitz or of its namesake and his relatives; there isn't a single result when I go to Special:Search/Syedlitz. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This blog says: "...the “Syedlitzer” pogrom (ie, taking place in Syedlitz, actually spelled Siedlce)". We have an article, Siedlce (now in Poland but in the Russian Empire in 1909) which also gives "[Polish pronunciation: ['ɕɛdlt͡sɛ] ^ⓘ] (Template:Lang-yi, Template:Lang-ru)". There are several other places called Siedlce at Siedlce (disambiguation). Seydlitz may be the Germanic name for the town, because it is also used in this account of the 1812 Invasion of Russia by Napoleon. BTW, the successful Google search term was ["Syedlitz" russia town], after several other unsuccessful variants. The inverted commas tell Google to look for that exact term only. PS: Apologies if that last comment was a statement of the bleeding obvious. Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Created that as a redirect. Thanks! No complaints about the final comment; I was already using that technique, but you didn't have a way to know that. Nyttend (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay; it sounded rather pompous when I re-read it. Alansplodge (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Our article is incorrect about the Russian pronunciation. Седльце is not Sedlets but the more awkward Sedltse. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Italian units in the Generalgouvernement

The Siedlce article (see previous section) pointed me to Home Army, which article notes that some of its arms were bought clandestinely from Italian and Hungarian soldiers stationed in Poland. Hungarians I understand, since Poland was adjacent to 1940s Hungary, but Italians? Why were Italian soldiers stationed in Poland (rather than being farther south); were they just leftovers of the Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia perhaps, or were they there for unrelated reasons? Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Repubblica Sociale Italiana (RSI) - The post-1943 Italian Fascist forces of WWII describes the Italian troops who joined the pro-Axis Esercito Nazionale Repubblicano after the Armistice of Cassibile in September 1943. Four divisions were "trained in Germany by German instructors" which I suppose could include Poland. One Blackshirt unit "joined the SS-Polizei-Bataillone "Gorice", (Named from the Polish town where they were trained)". Note that the "Polizei" designation only signifies that some Waffen SS units had been originally recruited from the ranks of the national police force in 1939. Alansplodge (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"Gorice" is most likely a misspelling of "Gorlice". — Kpalion^(talk) 22:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Most likely. Alansplodge (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

June 3

Why aren't World's Fairs as big as they used to be?

They overshadowed the 1900 and 1904 Olympics. They used to build enormous monuments just for them like the world's tallest structure (Eiffel Tower). I wonder if most first worlders have a clue where the last one was (Milan, Italy). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It depends on where it is held. Countries which have already seen two or six of them (e.g. the US) don't tend to see them as a big deal, but for countries that have not had one before, it still is. Expo 2010 in China, for example, was a huge deal for China, involving the relocation of many people, the leveling of whole neighbourhoods, the building of new metro lines, and generally a huge amount of lead-up propaganda throughout China for years beforehand trumpeting it as marking a patriotically significant moment when China takes another step onto the world stage. According to our article Expo 2010, the homes of 18,000 people were confiscated, the historic Jiangnan Shipyard, employing 10,000 people, was leveled, $48 billion was spent - amongst other ridiculous/astonishing statistics. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1) There are many other options for people who want to get together for a big event, like sports events, such as the Superbowl or the Olympics (back then the Olympics were no big deal).

2) There are other options for permanent entertainment venues, like Disneyland/Disney World, theme parks, etc.

3) There are travelling shows, like car shows, and bands.

4) Many of the things which could previously only be viewed (well) in person at a world's fair can now be viewed on video, anywhere.

So, with all this added competition, the losers seem to be world's fairs/expos, and also include state fairs, camp meetings, and circuses; at least in the US. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. No more Space Needles and Unispheres and Flushing Meadow Parks then maybe. I've never actually heard of camp meetings before. Is it a regional thing? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

They used to be widespread in the US. If you like The Grapes of Wrath or Elmer Gantry, you will read accounts of them in both books. There was also a Simpsons episode where Bart became a faith healer in a tent, which is reminiscent of the old camp meetings. StuRat (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that for some time there have been two categories of World's Fair: see World's Fair#Types. The larger ones used to be called "universal", though according to the article that designation is no longer official. The Milan fair was of that type, and according to Wikipedia its grounds covered about the same area as the 1900 fair, although it's true that some others have been a lot larger. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Comparative Prices at Burger King

When I saw the menu, I did some quick mental math calculations to see how much money I would spend if I had swapped out the soft drink in the veggie burger meal for a bottled water. If I did that, I would have to purchase the veggie burger, fries and bottled water separately. Compared to the veggie burger meal, which includes a drink, small fries, and veggie burger, I mentally computed that I would spend about 60 cents more for separates. So, I just ordered the veggie burger meal and went to the soft drink dispenser to deliver Dasani fruit-flavored, carbonated water. Why is it cheaper to order the veggie burger meal than order the separated veggie burger with French fries and bottled water? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a quantity discount. They want to sell food in quantity so they can sell more, and getting people to buy combo meals is one way to do that. Of course, you could buy more food À la carte, but most people don't, so they don't offer a quantity discount for that.

Also, for some reason they seem to offer junk food cheaper than healthy food, even when the junk food seems like it should cost more. They have constant sales on fried sandwiches, fries, and soft drinks, but you almost never see sales on salads, bottled water, veggie burgers, etc., at Burger King. I've wondered why this is myself. Logically bottled water should cost less to produce than soda, as soda is water plus sugar and other additives. Presumably the brand name costs money, but the same is true of Coke an Pepsi. Bottled water is marketed as coming for "mountain springs" and such, but much of it is just tap water, so I don't see why it's so expensive to make. BTW, you can save money by just asking for a cup for water (there's a tiny lever on the side of one of the spouts for that), or better yet, bring your own drink. StuRat (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Te junk food really is cheaper (for them to produce) - partly because of the much greater volume they handle, which discounts the costs, and partly because many of the healthier foods (like salads) are more labour intensive to produce. 86.191.126.192 (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

At least in the U.S., agricultural subsidies are a very important factor. The single biggest subsidy goes to corn, which is used as livestock feed and for making HFCS. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Inheritance of government by blood

When an individual inherits the power to rule over a country simply because s/he is directly related to the previous ruler in the main line of descent, what justifies his/her power to rule? Why do people value inheritance-by-blood in the first place in government? Why was this form of government so common? Are the people ever worried that the next ruler, who may be intellectually handicapped or morally questionable, may be unfit to rule? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

See divine right of kings. People used to think that kings and queens were a different, better type of person, handpicked by God. Of course, this all seems quite silly today. And, as a practical matter, if there weren't strict rules of inheritance of the throne, you would get a civil war every time the old ruler died, with each side supporting their candidate. And they still had civil wars when the next person in line for the throne wasn't clear or wasn't up to the job. There were (and are) some few places with an elected monarch, which is an interesting hybrid with democracy. StuRat (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Although that doesn't explain modern examples such as Bashar al-Assad, Kim Jong-un and Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan (the President of the United Arab Emirates). Gamal Mubarak of Egypt nearly pulled-off the same trick. I found Modern cases of inherited dictatorships, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article about this. Alansplodge (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

When there's a heir apparent, that heir apparent tends to get groomed from an early age to assume the mantle of leadership. Doesn't mean this person is cut out to be the ruler, as we've seen far too many times in history, but I suspect that's a big part of the reason. Especially in more traditional societies, when a blacksmith's son became a blacksmith, and a butcher's son became a butcher... it just becomes too easy to assume the ruler's son becomes a ruler. As to whether the people would worry about the ruler, they probably didn't know enough about the high-level workings of their society to worry. Feudalism complicates this a lot, of course. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The notoriously inbred Habsburg dynasty produced some rulers that were definitely unfit to rule, I'm thinking here of Charles II of Spain. TammyMoet (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

We have a redirect on Habsburg lip. Another monarchist argument (besides the half century of grooming by the best tutors) is that monarchs are well bred (like Secretariat). But really they were so obsessed with royal blood like they were a superior species that they inbred till the king was too deformed to chew. At the very beginning the king may have been an exceptional leader (like George Washington) but they probably had no clue that a gene pool of under like 1-4 thousand people will become inbred even if you're not screwing your cousins (which they did sometimes). Only the upper number is for random marriages I believe. Also that was from such a violent period that what made a leader exceptional was mostly military skill, they even lead the combat themselves. This is less relevant now (especially in constitutional monarchy). It seems like the genes of men who lead armies in combat would make it easier to have cruel tyrant kings like Vlad the Impaler or overconfident idiots pop up later in the dynasty. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I am reminded of a memo, allegedly written by Prince Charles, which was read into the public record during an employement tribunal a decade ago. The heir to the throne expresses his astonishment at people reaching beyond their station.

"What is wrong with people nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far above their capabilities?" the prince exclaims. "This is all to do with the learning culture in schools. It is a consequence of a child-centred education system which tells people they can become pop stars, high court judges or brilliant TV presenters or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having the natural ability. It is a result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically engineered to contradict the lessons of history.[9]"

Irony does not appear to be his strong suit. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The frequency with which stereotypes and rumors dominate this area is evident even here, where supposedly respondents are trying to give objective answers. You will hear endless citations of the Habsburg inbreeding problem attributed to Charles II of Spain or the would-be Dauphin of France François d'Orléans, due to a few generations of cousin and uncle/niece marriages, as proof that "inbreeding" rendered royalty exceptionally grotesque, degenerative, shortlived and unfit for the roles history assigned them. Those who give such cites conveniently forget the numbers of living cultures in which marriage to a cousin is the desired norm, or that the intellect, ingenuity, fecundity and allure of Cleopatra, descended from seven generations of brother-sister marriages, would argue far more strongly in favor of intra-marriage than against, if we're going to substitute anecdote for analysis. So take these old wives tales with a grain of salt. It is not that they are never true, it is that genetic variety seems to require relatively little distance in consanguinity between relatives for recessive genes to be sufficiently diluted to obviate deleterious outcomes. The real rule is: garbage in, garbage out. If your near ancestors tended to be healthy, intelligent or long-lived, you are likely to benefit from that tendency. If not, not. But tendency is not destiny. People have historically tended to ascribe leadership qualities to the relatives of leaders because it seems intuitive to do so: we tend to assume that people's salient traits are more likely to be inherited by their relatives than at random, so we tend to bet on those relatives more often than on others when seeking leaders. We do it very often in politicians (and film stars, singers, athletes, etc), not merely royalty. We are often wrong. FactStraight (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

All I did was give a link to our article on Charles II of Spain. Perhaps you would like to amend said article to put the record straight, if you're saying that what is in there is not the case? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

June 4

Absentee voting in a US general election

I am a US citizen, but have lived - and continue to live - outside the US for 30 years. As a citizen, I certainly have the right to vote in a general election. As we know, the President is not elected by the popular vote, but by the Electoral College vote - state-by-state. Therefore, each vote needs to be assigned to a state. If it isn't - or cannot be - the vote is worthless; it would not be counted. How would my vote be counted?88.130.204.190 (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Voting requirements are here[10] and here.[11] You have to be registered in a specific state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act is the relevant Wikipedia article. Loraof (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about Social Security in the USA

Throughout a person's working life, they contribute to Social Security in the USA. Then, theoretically, when they retire (or reach a certain age), they can start collecting Social Security. Let's say that we have a person (John) who, throughout his working life, has contributed $100,000 to Social Security. (This is just a hypothetical number to make the conversation easier.) John dies before he starts collecting Social Security. What happens to "his" money (that is, "his" $100,000 contribution)? Does it just stay put in some general Social Security fund? Or does the deceased person (and his estate) have any claim to recoup their own money? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User is blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
there is no money accumulating in an account..the fed govt is broke...they just pay out what they have promised via tax revenue/borrowing money from china etc..nobody gets money that would have been due to a dead person had that person not died..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC) That's not correct. See the comments below. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC) it is exactly correct in practice...govt language, however, can try to disguise it as something else by calling it "insurance" or something and using other fancy legal language...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC) Your statement, "nobody gets money that would have been due to a dead person had that person not died" is not correct. Read the links herein. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC) the OP was wondering if there's some kind of individual saving account that is accumulating for each person..there is not..people aren't due money that would otherwise go to the dead person had they lived...they may be due some other benefits depending on special circumstances..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC) Your statement remains incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It's an insurance program. If you meet certain conditions, such as living to a certain age or becoming disabled, you get paid certain amounts specified by law, which depend in part on how much you've paid in. You're not paying in to an account of your own; you're paying in to the general fund. And the payments you receive are from the general fund. It's how insurance in general works, and it's how defined benefit pension systems at companies work (except with more complicated payout rules). Loraof (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The SSA has something called "survivor's benefits", which you can read about here.[12] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Social Security is funded through payroll taxes called Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA) or Self Employed Contributions Act Tax (SECA). The money no longer belongs to any individual. Persons who have paid into the system have certain entitlements. A person's spouse is entitled to benefits after the death of a spouse, but it is not otherwise inheritable. older ≠ wiser 17:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There are people other than spouses who can receive benefits based on someone's Social Security record. For full details see the article or the SSA website. I understand what you mean, but no Social Security benefits are "inherited", under law. The program is designed to pay out benefits to certain people. What benefits can be paid out, and to whom, are determined by the laws governing the program, and can be changed by new laws. Social Security could pay benefits to your dog if the public decided it was a good idea. I'm being pedantic to underscore what others have said: there's no "account" with your name on it that your Social Security tax gets paid into. All the money goes into one pot, and benefits are paid out of that pot. This is how pensions in general work. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at the article Social Security (United States). Loraof (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that private defined benefit schemes are funded in the same way as National Insurance. If a company employee defrauds his employer they sometimes collar his superannuation contributions. 151.224.132.45 (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Roster for 5th United States Colored Cavalry

Is there a complete roster of the 5th United States Colored Cavalry? Similar to this for the 41st USCT but for the 5th USCC. There is a partial list that I've found but they are only for the members from Kentucky and I need the most complete list. A book source would be preferred but if not online works as well, although please don't suggest using the National Park database (since I'm not looking to stitch a roster together; I need to find a published one in existent).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

June 5

Ukraine

Whether the English Wikipedia community believes that after 1917, when the Ukrainian People's Republic proclaimed the country's independence 4 generalist and was soon captured by Bolshevik troops - in fact, there was the occupation of the territory of Ukraine? Then the whole period of 1917-1991 years (before the independence of Ukraine in 1991), you must call the Soviet occupation of Ukraine. Sorry for the bad english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manefon1989 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

That is very much POV. Whatever your opinion about this may be, articles here must represent the generally accepted historical situation - and Ukraine was universally accepted as an integral part of the USSR. 86.191.126.192 (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Functional representation

What is functional representation, and how do pressure groups contribute to it (in the UK)? I only found a couple of things, and I didn't properly understand them-I have a reasonable grasp of politics, but would appreciate a reasonably simplified answer. Thank you! 109.151.89.228 (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Civil war (boards with holes in)

In this photo you see 4 of those boards (3 standing up, one lying in the ground) - What were they good for? How are they called? Dr. Phlox rocks! (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)