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.

June 23

Historical Co-Development of Bread & Beer

I'm looking for sources on the co-development of bread and beer using yeast fermentation processes during almost any historical time period - the ancient world, medieval Europe, or early modern Europe. The "History of Beer" wiki article contains a statement about ancient beers saying: "These beers were often thick, more of a gruel than a beverage, and drinking straws were used by the Sumerians to avoid the bitter solids left over from fermentation". How similar would these ancient thick beer drinks be to fermented bread doughs? Any sources appreciated - books, articles, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sockferret (talk • contribs) 00:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this get you started? --Jayron 32 00:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a great little book called A History of the World in Six Glasses by Tom Standage that goes into some detail on this. A semi-companion work called An Edible History of Humanity might also have something on it. Matt Deres (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Then and Now

Although I was a child way back in the 1970s, I'd like to find out some things. Did Trans World Airlines and Pan Am World Airways fly to and from San Francisco International Airport and Orlando International Airport? Did United Airlines fly to and from the same destinations back then? 2604:2000:7113:9D00:94BE:7934:7013:2E5E (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have any from the 1970s, but I found scans of timetables for all three airlines from 1968 or 1969 under www.timetableimages.com. In each case there is a separate link for each pair of pages; you can't just page through the timetable. Apparently, in that period all three airlines served San Francisco, but not Orlando.

For TWA, here is the list of scans (from 1968); here is the system map; and here is the list of ticket offices; and here is one of the timetable pages showing San Francisco.
For Pan Am, here is the list of scans (from 1969); here is part of their list of locations; and here is one of the timetable pages showing San Francisco.
Similarly for United, here is the list of scans (from 1969); here is the system map; here is their list of ticket offices, here is one of the timetable pages showing San Francisco; and for good measure, here is an East Coast schedule confirming that Orlando was not served.

Note incidentally how all these timetables are styled like train timetables, rather than the style that became familiar not many years later, with many separate point-to-point schedules. --69.159.9.187 (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a person has immunity, how could (and why would) they plead the Fifth?

If a person has immunity, how could (and why would) they plead the Fifth? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plead the Fifth, for un-Americans. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not an American, not a lawyer and no sources here, but if you have immunity from prosecution for crime A and by giving evidence you might implicate yourself in crime B, you might choose to plead the Fifth. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An American but not a lawyer and no sources here, but: (1) I would think that the immunity you're given would mean that nothing you say during your testimony could be used against you in any court proceeding, even one on another charge. (2) I don't think it necessarily gives you immunity from prosecution, but simply prevents them from using your testimony against you, either by following up on leads suggested by your testimony or by using your testimony while you're on trial. I think. in general they could still charge you based on other evidence. But many immuniy agreements may be broader and rule out any prosecution. (3) If you have immunity and still refuse to testify, you could be jailed for contempt of court. Loraof (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Plead the fifth#Grants of immunity. Loraof (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing this query is in reference to Bryan Pagliano's 'immunity deal' which is currently 'sealed' because "The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential"^[1]

--107.15.152.93 (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So, according to your post, his immunity is limited. Perhaps that's the answer to the question? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and even if his immunity was unlimited, it's still only to federal prosecution. He could still be exposed to civil liability for criminal acts that the feds don't prosecute. So he took the 5th. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Are you sure that's true? A person can plead the fifth (essentially saying, "I don't want to assist in any criminal prosecution against me"). But they can do so in a civil litigation, when they are being accused of some civil wrong or tort (but not a crime)? Are you sure? That doesn't seem right? If that's true, couldn't OJ simply say "I want to plead the fifth and not have to testify in my civil trial for the deaths of Nicole and Ron"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exposure to civil liability is not sufficient as a basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege. There needs to be a genuine basis for concern over exposure to criminal liability. The Supreme Court also held a few years ago that fear of self-incrimination for a crime under foreign law is insufficient; there needs to be a basis for concern over incrimination under U.S. criminal law (either state or federal). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So, I am confused. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with 50.0.121.79 above? He stated, He could still be exposed to civil liability for criminal acts that the feds don't prosecute. So he took the 5th. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Brad is saying I'm wrong, and he's certainly much more knowledgeable about this stuff than me. But I had read about civil liability regarding Pagliano someplace. It also surprises me that if a drug dealer or mafia member commits murders and gets criminal immunity in exchange for turning in higher-ups, he or she could then be made to confess the murders in a subsequent wrongful death suit. Brad, are you really saying that? 50.0.121.79 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that makes a lot of sense, no? The government can offer immunity and "shield" the murderer from criminal liability (on behalf of the government). But, when you are dealing with a civil case, the plaintiff is just some average everyday individual private citizen (that is, not the government). So, let's say that I (as a private citizen) am the plaintiff bringing a wrongful death suit against your hypothetical mafia member. I will be damned if the government is going to stick its nose in my case. And give the murderer immunity in my lawsuit. And shield him from civil liability that he owes me. No way. Makes sense, right? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously if you can establish without the person's cooperation that they did the murder, you can use the info. That's much different from being able to sit someone in a chair, ask them whether they did the murder, and require them to say yes or no. That's self-incrimination even if they weren't prosecuted. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, in the civil case of wrongful death, you are not asking: "did you commit the crime of murder?". You are asking: "did you commit the civil tort of wrongful death?". Two different things. You can't "self-incriminate" yourself in a civil case, I don't believe. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the federal govt does have a scheme for shielding murderers and other bad sorts from civil liability and everything else: see United States Federal Witness Protection Program. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The federal government cannot shield anyone from civil liability owed to a third-party private citizen. That would make no sense. And just think of the corruption that would lead to. Dear God, as if governmental corruption weren't bad enough. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that link you gave (United States Federal Witness Protection Program) says absolutely nothing about the federal government shielding anyone from civil liability. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of the WPP is they relocate the person under a new identity so you can't find him or her. That's a de facto shield. I suppose that wouldn't stop you from going after any assets you can find associated with the old identity, but in the Pagliano case we're talking about requiring the person to answer questions in a deposition, which would be difficult if nobody knew where he was. Anyway, I'm shocked if it's really true that you can take someone into a civil proceeding and force them to confess to a murder. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first point: It may be a de facto shield. But it's certainly not a program whereby the federal government seeks to shield people from civil liability. My second point: Nobody can force someone to confess to murder. Not sure why you are stuck on that point. I guess, in your words, they can be "forced" to "confess" to wrongful death in a civil case, yes. But, that's really not the issue. Remember that we are required to tell the truth when under oath in court. So, if you caused a death -- and you intend to fulfill your obligation to give truthful testimony when under oath -- then, yeah, you need to state that you caused that death. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were the US ships in the Revolutionary War part of the United States Navy?

John Paul Jones commanded the USS Bonhomme Richard in the American Revolution, and there were several other ships with "USS" at the beginning of their names. But the article on that ship says it was part of the "Continental Navy," and does not say it was part of the "United States Navy." If so, why wasn't it the "CNS Bonhomme Richard"? The article on the USS Constellation (1797), launched in 1797, says "She was distinguished as the first U.S. Navy vessel to put to sea and the first U.S. Navy vessel to engage and defeat an enemy vessel." United States Navy dates the establishment of the US Navy to 1775, then says it was disbanded after the war, then re-established in 1797. Why then would the USS ships in the Revolutionary War not have priority to Constellation in having "put to sea" and in defeating enemy vessels? Edison (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our Continental Navy article says in the lead paragraph: "The Continental Navy is considered the first establishment of what is now the United States Navy". However, "by 1785 Congress had disbanded the Continental Navy and sold the remaining ships", so there is a clear break between the end of the Continental Navy and the foundation (or "restablishment") of the United States Navy by the Naval Act of 1794. So I think you can have it both ways. Similarly, there was also the Continental Army (disbanded in 1783), which was (or wasn't) the Regular Army (raised in 1792) which evolved into the United States Army. Alansplodge (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Calling the ship John Paul Jones commanded the USS Bonhomme Richard may be a bit of an anachronism. It likely was known as simply the Bonhomme Richard at the time. older ≠ wiser 20:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - see United States Ship which says: 'From the early beginnings of the U.S. Navy there had been no standard method of referring to U.S. Navy ships until 1907 when President Theodore Roosevelt issued Executive Order 549 on 8 January stating that all US Navy ships were to be referred to as "The name of such vessel, preceded by the words, United States Ship, or the letters U.S.S., and by no other words or letters"'. Alansplodge (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted this comment on the article's title. --69.159.9.187 (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is or is not the case... But... Have you considered the possibility that the "USS" was a retroactive addition, officially granted by the Navy in more recent times. If this is the case, then it no longer matters that the designation is anachronistic... It is still accurate. Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article just might be mistitled. I remember reading about the ship and it wasn't called USS and indeed the article, other than in the title, doesn't refer to it as USS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

New prime minister

When the Tories choose a new leader, will he have to be appointed prime minister by the queen, or does he automatically become prime minister since he was chosen without having to form a coalition? Loraof (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When chosen, the new party leader (as leader of the largest party) will see the queen and will be invited to form a government. In theory she could ignore the choice and ask someone else to form a government - but in practice that would lead to a constitutional crisis, and she won't do it. Wymspen (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When he forms a government, does he still have to be appointed prime minister by the queen? Loraof (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He, or she, cannot form a government unless invited to do so by the queen. Wymspen (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. My question is, once the queen has invited him to form a government, and he has done so, does he still have to present that proposed government to the queen so she can appoint him? Loraof (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Cabinet of the United Kingdom. All the cabinet ministers in the new government will be officially appointed by Her Majesty, but, if she were to veto such an appointment, it would create an even more drastic constitutional crisis than an arbitrary choice of Prime Minister would. And, to clarify, the new Prime Minister will be officially appointed before he (or she, conceivably) forms a government - he won't have to come up with a proposed list of cabinet members before he takes up the office. Tevildo (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In May 2010 it happened like this: "The Queen received the Right Honourable David Cameron this evening and requested him to form a new administration. The Right Honourable David Cameron accepted Her Majesty’s offer and Kissed Hands upon his appointment as Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury." [2] Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't another option for the queen be to dissolve parliament and call another general election. In ordinary circumstances I'd say she wouldn't do that, but these aren't ordinary circumstances by any means, and the government's mandate and legitimacy have been dealt a serious blow, given that their entire vision for the British economy was founded on the idea of remaining in the European Union --Andrew 23:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Our royal prerogative article tells us that 'A dissolution is allowable, or necessary, whenever the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation.' I can't think of a more fitting situation for her to use it, although given Elizabeth's desire to retain politically impartial, I doubt she will --Andrew 23:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen doesn't just decide unilaterally to call an election because she thinks it's a good thing to do. She is advised in such matters by her Prime Minister. She always accepts such advice. Ergo, it's essentially a matter for the PM to decide. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, as the quote indicates. If the composition of the current government contradicts the outcome of the referendum, which it does considering that the House of Commons is overwhelmingly pro-EU and the public have voted by over 1.5 million votes that they are not, then the quote is applicable and this is a situation where 'the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation. This situation is unprecedented and if the current government does not pass the outcome of this referendum in Parliament into law, which given the pro-EU composition of the commons is not unlikely, there will be a constitutional crisis, and the Queen would have little choice but to intervene --Andrew 23:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Dissolution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The monarch's power to dissolve Parliament was removed by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Parliament can now only be dissolved early by a vote of no confidence or a vote by two-thirds of the Commons to call an early election. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this will mean that our article on royal prerogative will require an update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrandrewnohome (talk • contribs) 01:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vote percentages

I've read that Scotland voted 62% Remain. Can someone provide a link that says the percentage votes in (a) Northern Ireland, (b) Wales, (c) England, and (d) London? Thanks. Loraof (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All on the BBC news website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results Wymspen (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And in Wikipedia, Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016 Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two great links—thanks to you both! Loraof (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This one [3] is also BBC but a slightly different link, packed with even more data/maps. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian guard uniform

Are the uniform pictured here a common Prussian guard uniform from the 1830s? The first one was described as blue with the order of the Red Eagle from a recent biography of the King by P. Christiaan Klieger.

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a struggle to find, but this is an officer of the 1. Garde-Regiment zu Fuß in 1830; it doesn't bear much resemblance to your images. I think that the first of your images might be a diplomatic uniform, but that's just a guess based on the amount of embroidered foliage. Alansplodge (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have further information from here that it was a uniform of the "1st Prussian guard regiment" and also that it was blue. Is the 1. Garde-Regiment zu Fuß the same thing as the "1st Prussian guard regiment"? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more Googling shows that the 1. Garde-Ulanen-Regiment (1st Guards Uhlans) - uhlans were a German type of lancer - wore this uniform of a blue jacket (kurtka) with a red plastron (a coloured panel covering the chest), which is what we may be seeing in your photographs. This is still a guess, but looks closer to me than the foot guards. Perhaps a German speaker might do better finding sources. Alansplodge (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a name for this style of art?

Is there a specific term for the art style used by cartoonist George du Maurier that uses only black or white (no shades of grey) and lots of close parallel lines?

60.211.209.37 (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hatching is the general term. Tevildo (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which was necessary if your work was going to be reproduced as an engraving. Alansplodge (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are elements to those works that definitely make use of chiaroscuro principles, though I wouldn't say they are altogether typical of the genre of image that term is often applied to, if that makes sense. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EU Referendum Outcome

The national newspapers here in the United Kingdom are telling us that young people voted decisively to remain and that those 45 and over voted decisively to leave the European Union. Consequently the younger generation are reported as blaming the older generation for the result. Given that the referendum was conducted as a secret ballot, how do we know which way anybody voted. If polling is the only indicator, it's been proven time and again to be a particularly sketchy one --Andrew 23:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations like Ipsos MORI just ask people how they are voting. They also note age. Simple as that.--Aspro (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the reporting by media outlets of such statistics is speculative and based on small samples of polling data? That seems very irresponsible, particularly as people are using it as evidence of some sweeping generational divide --Andrew 23:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's called exit polling. It's done all the time, and there are techniques the experts used for polls and surveys to ensure an unbiased sample. In this case, they're saying it's the old and ignorant who voted exit. Which makes sense. On the news tonight they had some not-young / not-old woman who voted exit and is now regretting it. Too stupid to be voting, but that didn't stop her. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on "old and ignorant". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The actual term used was more like "less well educated". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling though has proven to be drastically unreliable, and there is no certain way of saying that the old/young rich/poor educated/ignorant voted any way over the other. Statistics on this shouldn't be published because, like the opinion polling companies, they have no credibility and serve to foster division which is the last thing the UK needs at the moment --Andrew 00:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it.

Meanwhile, y'all may find [4] interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think when polling companies make bold claims that divide the nation, even more, about who voted for what in a secret ballot, the onus is on them to prove that their polling data has any credibility, which it doesn't given that less than a third of the polls accurately saw it coming --Andrew 00:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wealthy of yesterday are wealthier today because they could afford to pay for pre-polling surveys and invest in futures contracts. Do you need any more evidence than that for accuracy? Do you think these companies do these surveys on a pro bono basis? No. This is how they earn their money by providing reliable statistics to those that pay them before the news press can get their hands on the actual post-data or reports of pre-miss-guidance. If their track record was not good enough, no one would pay them. They are very good, so thus, the rich of yesterday are richer today and the executives of the survey companies get paid obscenely high salaries, and the press reporting on just the 'free' miss-guidance feed to them, say the opinion polls got it wrong.--Aspro (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's certainly no evidence, none, that polling the UK is hard. And that was polling in elections, which follow a more regular pattern. Face it, anyone gambling on Thursday night on what would happen was gambling, pure and simple, no matter what private opinion poll they commissioned. Blythwood (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polsters commonly use big issues as a loss leader, making publicity that will attract paying customers who want to plan advert campaigns and the like. Of course, tha won't be so good wahen they get it wrong. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The percentage difference—51.9% to 48.1%—is pretty small. I doubt that it is realistic that anyone could predict an outcome based on such a small difference. Bus stop (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The decision for the UK to leave the European Union was overwhelmingly supported in parts of England with low income and education levels."[5] Bus stop (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is something Nate Silver mentioned on Twitter last night - that even if a lot, or even most, or even all of the polls near the end showed Remain with a lead, it was only a slender one and the next best thing to a toss-up - I've seen experts looking at the drop in the pound saying that in retrospect financial markets trusted the consensus way too much. Blythwood (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polls can most certainly be wrong, sometimes spectacularly. We all need to be critical readers of polls, and to look at the accuracy of the previous results of a polling organization. And when multiple polls are available, aggregations of polls tend to be more accurate than individual polls. That being said, and other things being equal, a poll reporting a 63% to 37% result is far more likely to be accurately predictive than a 51% to 49% poll. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exit polls have generally been extremely accurate, enough that if the official results mismatch the exit polls, it's frequently taken as a sign that something went wrong with the voting process or the vote counting. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were no (or at least no widespread or widely-reported) exit polls for the EU referendum. This (so I read) is because exit polls are typically used in general elections to assess swings between parties since the last election, which can give a prediction of the final result despite regional variations in voting patterns. As there was no previous data to measure swings against (comparing with the only similar vote probably wouldn't have helped) an exit poll would not give much useful information. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly this. In the absence of one, a good proxy nobody's talked about yet was comparing areas' votes against known demographic data - younger areas and areas where more people are university graduates (which would tend to contain younger people, since older people are less likely to have attended university) tended to vote more for remain. The measure of correlation shows % with a university degree is the best predictor of "remain" support. Blythwood (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Nigel Farage is on record as saying that if the split was only 48 - 52 there should be another referendum. 80.44.162.99 (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is very doubtful (although "you were lied to" could be a very powerful message), though another election is more likely. Most major political leaders from most parties (including the Remain supporters) have simply said that they accept the vote and plan to move on - see Liz Kendall, Chuka Umunna, Nick Hurd...and as Matthew Holehouse points out, the EU have simply said that the UK must leave as fast as possible. They're looking for a clear result and a clear plan, even if it's not the ideal one - no uncertainty like the Greece shambles where the government kept changing, calling a referendum, admitting it couldn't get a quorum to do anything concrete either way. Blythwood (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if you were the Independent story carefully, it suggests (or at least did when I read it a day and a half ago) there were almost definitely exit polls, just not public/media ones but instead funded by those hoping to make money i.e. they would never be widely-reported. Whether these are "wide-spread" is I'm sure likewise not public and would depened on your definition anyway. This actually gets back to something Blythwood said above about markets as also mentioned in this story [6]. However the Independent story does/did mention that we should have been cautious about reading too much into market movements. Besides the fact the factors which meant media organisations etc didn't think it worth carrying out exit polls would still apply, it's difficult to be sure how much of the market movements were due to traders influenced by the poll results they had available and how much were due to rumours etc (including of those poll results). In other words, we can't really be sure if the market movements are an indication the exit polls were wrong. And them being wrong wouldn't be surprising and even if they were wrong, it probably doesn't mean much. In particular, it isn't likely to be that helpful in predicting future similar referendums. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Blythwood saying “Face it, anyone gambling on Thursday night on what would happen was gambling, pure and simple,” It is very calculated. If one has assets of a few million, one only has to do a two-way bet to win. What one does is to buy a call option that the £ will rise and a put option that the £ will fall. If the resulting fall or rise is great (and in this case it was) the combined price of all the Call's and Put's come to less than the profit gained from executing one or other options. However, if the market doesn’t move enough to make a profit – neither option is executed and the cost is written off against tax -which the rich can claim because they have complex investment portfolios. The volatility seen just seen, was not down to investors moving their money around (they had already done it) but the floor-traders that set up the deals and were scrambling around to cover their exposer. The markets are now recovering thanks to the floor-traders getting cover from the pension funds of the ordinary John Doe -making him poorer. Do you think Warren Buffett got rich by working hard or by thinking smart? Or Sacco who made a billion in short selling sterling? Again a no loose calculated option – which is why some countries want clamp down on short-selling. This is more complex but it involves deals to sell sterling £ at certain prices. So when sterling fell, the money just rolled in to him. John Doe is at the disadvantage because all he knows is what he reads in the press and the press is always surfing on the back of the wave. When it come to financial information it is better to treat press statements as history i.e., yesterdays news.--Aspro (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of that is certainly true - it is obviously rational to gamble on something if you can afford it and it seems that the odds offered are way out from the underlying probabilities. Let's limit my statement above to the fact that polling in the UK has been unreliable regularly and the result on Thursday night was well within margins of error - if you commissioned a private opinion poll and trusted it as your reason to make a big investment decision two days ago, you were taking a very clear risk. (If anyone made a killing betting on Brexit, they have very wisely avoided making it publicly known.) Blythwood (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

Berkshire Hathaway 2016 Annual Shareholders Meeting

Anybody know where I can get the full transcript to this meeting. The full transcript not the abridged version. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.122.107.158 (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for any company to produce a full transcript of any meeting - minutes record the main issues discussed and the decisions taken - anything said during a discussion is irrelevant. Wymspen (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The meeting was live-streamed, and you can see a (full?) recording of it here (first result of googling the exact text of the question). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Scottish Parliament have the power to legislate referendums, or does that rest with Westminster?

2.102.186.168 (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is a matter within its own competence, no doubt yes. But in a matter reserved to the UK government (e.g. foreign policy) it would be a waste of time because it doesn't have legislative power. The Devolution Act goes into great detail what powers are reserved to the Westminster government. 80.44.162.99 (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the Scottish Parliament could hold a referendum on Sunday trading but not on whether Scotland should become an independent country? 2.102.186.168 (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could hold an independence referendum but the Westminster government would not be obliged to take any notice of the result. 80.44.162.99 (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well technically the Westminister government could try and stop them holding the referendum if they wanted to, like the Spanish government tried with the Catalan self-determination referendum, 2014. How far each would go if this does happen is unclear. That includes what happens if civil servants etc are told to do one thing by the UK government and courts, and another by the Scottish government. (Also parliamentary sovereignty means technically the UK parliament (including Scottish MPs if they desire) can say "Fuck you, Scotland, and fuck your Macsween Haggis?" to whatever they can do under their existing devolved powers even this seems unlikely.) I.E. It can complicated even before you bring up Monopoly on violence and the seeming unlikelihood of either government using force (and getting people to use that force).

Incidently, if this happens after the UK completes withdrawal from the EU, possibly the Court of Justice of the European Union wouldn't come in to play although the European Court of Human Rights may still unless the UK also withdraws from the European Convention on Human Rights (which even Russia is mostly a part of).

The wider issue getting back to what 80 said, is what happens even if Scotland runs a succcessful referendum? Where do the governments go next and how will these work out? Especially if the UK government has already said it's irrelevant which may depress turnout which ends up being low. (There's a fair chance most the points I brought up about the referendum won't be tested until both still can't agree after.) As we've seen in many cases, unilaterally breaking away tends to be complicated.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For purists, though, unilteral action is the only way. If freedom depends on the agreement of another party, what's to stop that party changing its mind? The UK Parliament is not bound by any earlier decisions it has made. And how would its agreement fit with "We Scots are free because we say so"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although in practical terms, if you're going to break-up your country, it ought really to be by mutual consent. There was a legitimate opportunity for Scotland to leave the Union a few months ago and they said "no". Alansplodge (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect things would have been very different had that referendum followed Brexit rather than preceding it. Timing is everything. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everyone knew that the EU referendum was scheduled and that it could go either way. Some people want to keep having referenda until they get the result that they want. Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it even a done deal? There seems to be a move afoot to override the referendum in Parliament. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, Parliament could do that, but then the rioting would be more costly than leaving the EU--Lgriot (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about rioting that might result from leaving? It's becoming clear that the Leave politicians lied about a few things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As did the Remain politicians, for example George Osbourne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said before the Referendum that a 'Leave' result would mean he would have to introduce a (very unpleasant) Emergency Budget, and this morning (27 June) has announced that the economy is in robust shape, can well cope with the temporary fluctuations, and there is no need for any emergency budget.

Of course they all lied, they're politicians. Everyone knew they were all lying, just as they were all lying in 1975 (and later admitted it) when I last voted on this question.

There will be no immediate changes at all, a number of undramatic adjustments over the next several years, and there will be no rioting unless deliberately whipped up by people with an entirely different agenda. What is your skin in this game, Bugs? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading a CNN analysis of 3 key points the Leavers mis-led the public about. There's also Trump pushing the idea that the Brexit will help his campaign (although praising it while in Scotland might not have been the best idea.) And as one with British heritage, it's Kind of sad to see the possibility of England, Scotland and Ireland all going their separate ways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there's a similar analysis of the key points the Remainers misled the public about?

Trump is being as entertaining and clueless as always.

As for a UK break-up, eventual Scottish independence has always been likely since the Scottish Nationalist Party became the governing party in the Scottish Parliament and demonstrated a reasonable degree of competence. As an Englishman (with Scots ancestry) who lived in Scotland for 7 years, I wish them all good luck if that's what they want – after all, they only united with England by their own Parliamentary vote in 1707 in order to be bailed out of an economic crisis. Most of Ireland has been independent since 1922, and most people in England and I dare say Wales would be happy to see full Irish re-unification: the obstacle is the stubborn resistance of a slight majority of the NI populace whom pesky democracy compels us to accommodate, and the private horror of the Eire government at the prospect despite their public constitutional aims. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on the "private horror" business. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly, one of the long-term frustrations of the Brexiters was the loss of the British Empire during the last 70 years or more. Given that, apparently the Brexiters want to take it all the way back, to where there's nothing left but England itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that supposition was made by somebody unfamiliar with British politics. That said, there is growing support for England to be given the same devolved powers enjoyed by the other Home Nations, and especially on the right. Alansplodge (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Process of Brexit

I'm looking for a link explaining what needs to be disentangled between the UK and the EU and why it is expected to take two years or so. Thanks in advance! Loraof (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article 50 sets a two year deadline for Withdrawal from the European Union. What they plan to do with that time, I don't know but at the EU end they've been saying it needn't take nearly that long. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although in all likelihood we will leave by the Article 50 Mechanism in the Lisbon Treaty, some politicians are claiming that it is not the only way we can withdraw, for example Parliament could just repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, although given the need for a negotiated settlement, this is unlikely --Andrew 15:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)Andrew 15:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This from UCL seems pretty authoritative and this too by Adam Lazowski at the LSE. Basically - this is all unknown, and the government will literally need to start hiring experts to tell them how to do it or cutting deals to take them on loan from businesses and universities. Obviously though there are many possibilities not named on here, most likely of all the new prime minister being given a tough deal and deciding to sign it instantly despite the problems in order to give business some clarity on the future, or a global financial crash causing a rethink. Blythwood (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some information (but no estimate of time) at What happens now the UK has voted Brexit - and what is Article 50?. Alansplodge (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. So it looks like there are four main issues: (1) status of EU citizens in the UK and vice versa; (2) tariffs etc. between the EU and the UK; (3) the UK's relationship with the WTO; and (4) approval of the existing members of the European Economic Association for Britain to join (if relevant). Loraof (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you mean the European Economic Association. Do you mean the European Economic Area? Also, maybe by "if relevant" you meant if the UK want to join, but I would suggest this is also a main issue not just an afterthought. I.E. The views of both sides is a main issue. The UK seems to want to join the EEA, but doesn't seem particularly happy (as it's normally suggested it was one of the fundamental issues in the referendum) with what a number of members of the EEA consider a fundamental part of the modern EEA i.e. the free movement of people. Note that this also means 1 could easily become mostly moot if the UK does join the EEA. (I think also most of 2.). The UK would also need to join the European Free Trade Association if they wanted to join the EEA, but I haven't seen it suggested this is likely to be much of a separate problem. (I.E. If they'd have no problem joining the EEA they'd probably be fine joinining EFTA.) Joining the EFTA and aiming for a Swiss style or even less relationship with the EU does seem less clear but the UK is significanly more concerned about their relationship with the EU. P.S. There may be slightly greater latitude to impose restrictions on free movement of people under the EEA but there's no strong evidence these will sufficiently allay the concerns of those who wanted out. Nil Einne (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graveyard plans for 1862 for All Saints Church, Weston, Newark, Nottinghamshire

I would like to see grave yard plans for 1862 for all saints church weston newark nottinghamshire please86.181.235.182 (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried contacting the vicar? Blythwood (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contact details are here. Alansplodge (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

Reference of Liberland page for italian language readers.

As everybody can find looking for the argument "Liberland" in Wikipedia there are a lot of articles in several languages who gives appropriate informations about the matter of Liberland and his battle to achieve the status of nation trough his diplomatic activity. That is effective all around the world except fot the italian localization of Wikipedia. Every attempt to restore the page "Liberland" ends in a frustrating banning withouth any further explication. May be someone from international Wikipedia could suggest a different policy to the italian editorial staff. Any help is welcome. Best regards Umberto Fabbiani — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.70.172 (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly unlikely people in the Italian wikipedia will take kindly to people from any of the other international wikipedia tellings them what to do. We here on the English wikipedia definitely don't. Note that without speaking on the merits of the Liberland article on the Italian wikipedia, continually recreating a deleted article without establishing sufficient reason why the previous deletion was in error or there's now merit to an article when there wasn't before, is the sort of thing liable to get you blocked where you try it. It definitely happens here on the English wikipedia, and I'm fairly sure will also be the case on other major international wikipedias (e.g. Spanish, French, Chinese). Once an article has been deleted several times, you should general discuss first not after. And such a discussion should be based on the wikipedia's own policies and guidelines, not what other wikipedias do. If you've already been blocked, you've likely lost your right to discuss and depending on the circumstances it may be hard to earn it back. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Italian Wikipedia, the article has been deleted several times under their equivalent of WP:CSD (it:Wikipedia:Cancellazioni immediate) but without a rationale being given. This userpage comment might also be relevant. However, this is not an issue that the English Wikipedia can influence. Tevildo (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. I'm not the author of the page but i'm interested in the matter as user and scholar. There is no way to open a conversation in the italian edition neither to get some motivated explanation. So i suppose there is some ideological prejudice. I'll not proceed further and will stay with some doubt in my mind. best regards, Umberto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.70.172 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say "There is no way to open a conversation"? You haven't said anything suggesting anyone has tried to start a proper conversation and my quick look at what happened there doesn't suggest anyone has tried to start such a conversaion. As I said above, a proper conversation would likely be taking about it in a suitable place, explaining with evidence why you think the decision was wrong based on the Italian wikipedia's policies and guidelines and in many cases it may very well be you or whoever believes the article should exist who would need to start that conversation. Continually recreating the article in main space (whoever did it) is definitely not the way to open a conversation and in fact is probably going make it difficult to have a proper conversation. However it should still be possible if someone makes the proper effort and you've said nothing to suggest anyone has even tried. (Note also the way wikipedias handle articles which may have merit but where the current version of the article clearly fails to demonstrate that or worse is clearly unsuitable varies. In some cases deleting the article may very well be the norm. In that case particularly after the second attempt, whoever did it, you may very well have to write the article somewhere other than mainspace although again you probably should discuss first before starting. In other words, start with explaining with evidence why you think there's merit for an article according to the policies and guidelines of the Italian wikipedia i.e. not stuff like "there's an article on the English wikipedia" and if you can convince people that maybe you're right but they can't see it in the old version, offer to create a draft somewhere for them to review.) Notably assuming there is some sort of "ideological prejudice" when there doesn't seem to be any evidence for that doesn't help anyone. Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery of the British stock market only - why?

Most stock markets in Europe lost roughly 7 % due to Brexit; however the FTSE in London then recovered significantly to a minus left of -3.20 %, while markets in continental Europe stayed "on ground". What might be the reason? Is it just the time lag of one hour? When it became apparent that the downfall had stopped, continental European markets didn't have the time to significantly go up anymore, but London did have the time? Or are there probably other reasons? --KnightMove (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did the FTSE lose ground in the days leading up to the vote, over uncertainty ? If so, that might explain why there was less of a net drop after the vote. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, as all other stock markets it had a sharp drop, literally vertically downwards, directly after the vote. But it recovered more than others. Compare the English FTSE weekly chart vs. the German DAX. --KnightMove (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The FTSE 100 and other UK indexes also rose sharply in the days immediately before the referendum, on the expectation of a "Remain" vote, so in a sense the dramatic falls on Friday were just a "correction" to that, but it had also been very volatile in previous days. It was down another 2.5% today. Thanks, Dave... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit and the British Economy

What are the economic implications of the Brexit, and why did the Pound lose value so quickly? Jwilliampomeroy (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

on economic implications, that if it does exit from the European Union then 1) it has to renegotiate trade deals with all the world, creating uncertainty and, until such deals are done, subjecting British exports to adverse tariffs 2) that it has to resolve the basic conundrum that to get access to the European Single Market (i.e. to avoid import tariffs when exporting to Eurpoe) it has to allow freedom of movement and pay contributions to Europe, exactly two of the issues on which Brexit was predicated - and failure to gain access to the market will impact negatively on British exports to Europe and 3) companies making (or having made) inwards investment in Europe are hardly likely to put the UK at the top of the list, if it is no longer a domicile from which the European market can be addressed: so think jobs & companies and tax revenues leaving the UK, or being foregone 4) all of which is exactly the climate in which any investor will think twice about investing: so expect to see decreased capital expenditure from business, which as is the way of these things, creates a negative feedback loop. Eventually all this may lead to some sunny upland, according to the Leave campaign, or not, according to pretty much eveyone else. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the markets are so worried and the pound has fallen is because no-one actually knows what the economic implications of Brexit will turn out to be. No-one thought it would actually happen, and there is no previous experience to base expectations on, so everything is uncertain - and the markets dislike uncertainty. Wymspen (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite true, but we can say more: the price of Sterling, denominated in Euros or Dollars, falls because there is less demand for it as the rest of the world declines to buy Sterling to invest in Britain, and because there is an expectation that the value of Sterling will fall, and so it ceases to be considered a sensible thing in which to hold wealth: holders of Sterling sell, and the price goes down. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where to begin? - 1) the government has collapsed, so any investment plans made on an expectation of stable government in future have evaporated (like Greece), 1a) we face an endless go-around of this, since a rejoin-the-EU movement looks inevitable even if we did quit 2) financial services suspect that they may have to leave the UK, so will soon start to talk about moving to Dublin 3) this will crash the London property market (not necessarily a bad thing tbh) which will lead to cancellations of planned housing developments 4) many businesses selling to Europe are frantically finding a way to relocate to Dublin 5) Scottish independence seems inevitable 6) none of the prospective new prime ministers inspires confidence about their ability to fix any other coming crises, especially since civil servants will be diverted away from other work to trying to patch things up with Europe 7) all imports are now more expensive, so importers will do worse 8) many manufacturers depend on imports to manufacture things, so actually a weak pound may not help them as much as you'd think 9) more positively (?) a declining number of immigrants (or prospect of same, or the UK becoming less desirable to migrants) may push wages up. 10) Tourism probably got a lot more attractive, since the weak pound can help here, but it's mostly too late for people to take advantage of this to book summer holidays in the UK. Basically, nobody knows, but nothing about this sounds good. For a specific case study, let's examine the writings of arch-Brexiteer pundit Allister Heath, who went in two days from "the premises of Project Fear – that Brexit would trigger economic dislocation, a trade war and a recession – are utterly bogus" to "warnings of economic Armageddon...will doubtlessly become partly self-fulfilling in the months to come." Blythwood (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a more speculative assessment, I think the Brexitters in the City of London rather fancied the idea of turning the UK into one gigantic hedge fund, another Iceland - no or fewer treaty obligations to apply regulations, massively reduced regulation, lower taxes, much more financialised. But this is likely not politically possible, since such people (although they have or control a lot of money) are outweighed by the rest of business, which trades heavily with Europe and are broadly OK with the EU - certainly more OK with it than with tariffs on the border and all major US banks quitting the UK for Frankfurt and Dublin. Except keeping that looks difficult too, since we can't keep that if we don't keep free movement of people, and that's not what the anti-immigrant voters thought they were getting. So there now follows a collision coming between about 99% of the 1%, who have much to gain from being in the single market, in coalition with younger people, and a coalition of the 1% of the 1% who don't, the poorest and the oldest (who are often set for life having bought houses at a tenth their current value). This paves the way for decades of internecine political conflict. Blythwood (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

What does this quote from the Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan article mean?

The article (Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan) says: The Titan also sank, more than half of her 2500 passengers drowned. However, only 13 ultimately survived the disaster, 705 of the Titanic's crew and passengers survived. What does this mean? Or, what is it supposed to mean? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The others must have died from something other than drowning. Hypothermia, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I guess that makes sense. It still seems oddly worded. Or designed to confuse. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The full text of the story is available online here thanks to Project Gutenberg. There is no detail in it as to whether people died by drowning, hypothermia, or other ways. The story follows one man who, together with a young child, is thrown by the collision off the ship and onto the iceberg; he sees a lifeboat in the water but they don't see him, and he doesn't get a clear view of what happens to the ship. This is all detailed in Chapter VII. The collision is more violent than in the real-life Titanic disaster and most of the boats cannot be launched. Later, when the man and child are rescued and brought ashore, he learns (in Chapter X) that there were only 11 other survivors, presumably on the one and only boat that could be launched.

In short, the confusing sentence needs to be rewritten. --69.159.9.187 (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. So, I think I figured this out. (Maybe?) Let's say that on the Titan, only 13 people (out of 2500) survived. That means that 2487 (that is, 2500 minus 13) did not survive. If 2487 people died, it is indeed accurate to say that "more than half died". Any number greater than 1250 would satisfy the requirement of "more than half". It just so happens that the actual number (2487) happens to be well above the minimum required number (1250). So, it is indeed semantically and mathematically accurate to claim that "more than half drowned", when 2487 out of 2500 drowned. (Of course, it's a bit misleading. But that's a different question.) I think in this article, they are trying to highlight the similarities between the Titan ship and the Titanic ship. So, it would be an accurate similarity to say that: "More than half died in the Titanic incident, and, similarly, more than half died in the Titan incident". So, it simply reinforces the similarity. The actual article, as I quoted above, stated: "The Titan also sank, more than half of her 2500 passengers drowned. However, only 13 ultimately survived the disaster." The word however is adding to the problem. It makes more sense to remove the word however. It makes more sense to say that: "The Titan also sank, more than half of her 2500 passengers drowned. In fact, only 13 ultimately survived the disaster." Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. Read the story, or at least the chapters I've indicated. (Note, by the way, that the Project Gutenberg page I linked to includes this story and three others; if you start searching for words to find the right place in the story, be careful about going into the other stories accidentally.) I repeat, the story does not say how the victims died. There is no reason to mention "more than half" of them in the first place, and the reference to 2,500 passengers is also wrong. The story says (in Chapter I) that the total passenger and crew capacity was 3,000, but there was only lifeboat capacity for 500, the minimum required by law. So 2,500 is the number of people that would have died if the boats were fully loaded and were the only way anyone was saved. As I said, that's not what happens in the story. The actual number of passengers is given in Chapter I and again in Chapter III as 2,000. Chapters VII and IX mention that there were 3,000 people aboard, so there were 1,000 crew.

(The real-life Titanic, by the way, also had space for about 2,000 passengers, but it was not full when disaster struck. About 1,300 passengers and 900 crew were on board, and there was lifeboat capacity for about 1,100, but many of the boats were launched without being filled to capacity.) --69.159.9.187 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to click the link you provided. For some reason, I could not "download" the short story. In any event, back to my above post. I am not saying that the information is accurate. I am saying that that is what I believed to be the intent of the article's language and the intent of the editors.. To highlight the similarities between the two ships. And clever wording accomplished that. Without worrying about the exact numbers, I believe that the very generic phrase "more than half died" probably is true as a similarity for both ships. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Car brand identification

What brand of card is this[7]? Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's potentially a Jaguar, the badge seems to be a stylised version of the roar/growl symbol similar to this. I do not know the veracity of that image though (I found it on an eBay listing entitled "4x Jaguar J Wheel Center Hub Caps Emblem Badge Decal Symbol Sticker Sport New") and certainly haven't seen an oval shaped jag badge before with no lettering. Nanonic (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The badge is just a generic "tiger head" symbol - see, for example, here, where they're on sale for the Kia Optima, and Google gives us plenty of similar sites (blacklisted here, doubtless for good reasons) where the same design is available for various other Kia and Hyundai models. I can't immediately identify the car in the photo, I'm afraid. Tevildo (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a Ford – probably a Mondeo. Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 10:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derrida and sovereignty

I got into a brief argument recently on another forum, about sovereignty (in the context of the UK vs. EU). The entire argument (or at least, my involvement in it) went as follows:

X: The whole concept of sovereignty is partly magical and theological anyway...
Me: In what way? Isn't it just a matter of where ultimate authority lies?
X: Sovereignty is demonstrably a theological concept. If you're talking about authority, say "authority".
Me: Then demonstrate it. [I also provided a dictionary definition suggesting that Sovereignty is more specific that just "authority"].
X: It's already been done.

Now, I'm not going to spend £55 pounds on a book in order to follow up an argument on a now-locked comments thread, but I'd nonetheless like to know what the actual argument is. I've looked at both our articles on Derrida and Sovereignty, and I can't find either a clear indication of Derrida's view on sovereignty, nor any statement that sovereignty is inherently a magical or theological concept. (That's not to say people haven't invoked such concepts to justify sovereignty, but I would consider that a separate issue). Iapetus (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Sovereign" essentially means "ruling".[8] So I suppose the question is, "Who rules a Brit? The EU or the UK?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original discussion was about that, but the argument I ended up in was about the meaning of sovereignty itself, which (according to the other person) is (according to Derrida) inherently "magical" and "theological". What I'm interested in now is what Derrida actually said on the subject. Iapetus (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From this article (in French) [9], Derrida uses the word "souverain" (sovereign) as a synonym of ruler and "souveraineté" (sovereignty) to mean the power exercised by the ruler, which is not the usual meaning of the word in either French or English. So I'm not sure Derrida's concepts are really relevant to your debate (more likely, the other poster was just making an argument to authority without necessarily being familiar with the content of the book). From the article, Derrida seems to argue that the exercise of power is akin to the dangerous actions of a wild beast; he uses ancient folk tales and other works of literature that feature wolves and other wild beasts as examples that illustrate this arbitrary and brutal use of force by rulers. --Xuxl (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With that terminology, you could be describing a mugging. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Number of people killed at Auschwitz

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

According to Wikipedia, the number of people killed at Auschwitz was 1.1 million people. I thought it was 4 million people. Is the death toll according to Wikipedia correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mental jogger (talk • contribs) 15:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers for The Holocaust are estimates. We'll never know exact numbers for certain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but they're typically fairly nailed down a bit better than that. The link provided has a number of different tables to break down where the killings took place. It might be helpful to provide the source for the 4 million number. Keep in mind that there were a wide network of different kinds of camps in different areas, so the 4 million figure may have been some kind of sub-total. Matt Deres (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The website of the Nizkor Project ("an Internet-based project run by B'nai Brith Canada which is dedicated to countering Holocaust denial") has a brief article called The Auschwitz Gambit: The Four Million Variant which says: "On May 12th, 1945, a few months after the liberation of Auschwitz, a Soviet State Commission reported that not less than four million people were murdered there. This number was displayed at the Auschwitz State Museum until 1991, when it was lowered to 1.1 million. The total death toll for Jews in the Holocaust, however, stayed at about six million".

A Google search does indeed bring up a number of articles attempting to use this discrepancy to discredit all the Holocaust statistics. Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously the latest sockpuppet of our troll friend. Bringing up the erroneous Soviet numbers for the death toll at Auschwitz—which no non-Soviet-aligned scholar accepted—is one of the stock red herrings thrown out by Holocaust deniers. Their next post will be among the lines of, "How do we know all the death figures weren't made up?" --71.110.8.102 (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as if somehow "only" 1 million murdered by the Nazis at Auschwitz is somehow morally acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the argument is that the fact historians are not a unanimous hive mind is proof of a conspiracy (to conceal that no one actually died), because honest individuals never disagree or make mistakes. "This historian says one thing, but that historian says another, therefore alien lizard overlords." It really shows you the kind of (il)logic you're dealing with. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm well aware of that kind of logic. It's called conspiracy theory. Like JFK being killed by an incredibly vast collaboration which those co-conspirators somehow managed to keep secret.

Unless, as you may be hinting, those millions of Jews who disappeared were abducted by flying saucers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Eumenides

Were the Eumenides ever accused of breaking the unity of time?--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, you're asking whether it has been said that Aeschylus' play takes place over more than 24 hours? Rojomoke (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rojomoke: Indeed. If Orestes had to go to Athens from Delphi, to stand trial, it would mean that between the prologue (in Delphi) and the episodes (in Athens) there is a gap of more than 24 hours.--The Traditionalist (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do keep in mind that (to my knowledge) the first attestation of the "three unities" is from Aristotle, who lived a good two centuries after Aeschylus. There are, I would imagine, plenty of Greek dramas that don't adhere to the then-unknown unities, just as there are many post-Aristotelian dramatists (perhaps you've heard of some) who consciously departed from them. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, our article Classical unities#Aristotle's unities says, "Unlike his prescriptive attitude regarding the plot (unity of action), Aristotle here merely remarks on the typical duration of a tragedy's action, and does not suggest any kind of imperative that it always ought to be so. He was writing after the golden age of Greek drama, and many Greek playwrights wrote plays that do not fit within these conventions." Deor (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Johnson

Do we know whom -if anybody- was Boris Johnson named after?--The Traditionalist (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Badenov? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C915:F679:15DB:E494 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Boris the Spider came along 2 years too late to be the inspiration. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity are you referring to all components of his personal name "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel" or just the Boris part, or some other part? Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The de Pfeffel part probably came from [10] the surname of his great grandmother who was a descendent of recent German nobility. Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The given name Boris is first found in written records in the case of the Bulgarian ruler Prince Boris I (852-889), who adopted Christianity in 864 AD and imposed it on his people. AllBestFaith (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) According to The Wit and Wisdom of Boris Johnson by Harry Mount (p. 8); ' “Alexander Boris weighed 9 pounds 1 ounce at birth and is a remarkably lusty child.” Stanley Johnson reports the birth of his son to Boris Litwin, a friend and benefactor who Boris is named after'. Alansplodge (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More detail in Boris: The Rise of Boris Johnson by Andrew Gimson. Stanley and Charlotte (Boris J's parents) "...took the Greyhound bus to Mexico City... where they met Boris Litwin, whose daughter was a friend of a friend of Stanley's at Oxford. When Litwin saw Charlotte's condition and heard that Stanley proposed to take her all the way to Laredo on the bus, he was appalled and the following exchange took place:

Litwin: 'I want to give you a first-class ticket to New York.'

Charlotte: 'Oh, Mr Litwin...'

Litwin: 'Call me Boris.'

Charlotte: 'Whatever the baby is, I shall call it Boris.'"

It goes on to say that Litwin died before he received the telegram quoted above. Alansplodge (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And more: "One night, a man called Boris Litwin and his wife invited us to their beautiful home in San Angel. Boris was a Russian who, like Trotsky, had come to live in Mexico. Trotsky had been murdered with an ice pick, but Boris was still going strong. His daughter, Barbara, was the girlfriend of one of my Exeter College friends. At that first lunch, I mentioned to the Litwins that Charlotte and I were planning to return to the United States the way we had come. By Greyhound bus. All 20 hours of it, barring floods, earthquake, ambush or mechanical breakdowns. Boris didn’t say anything, but he looked accusingly at me. I knew what he was thinking. Two days later the Litwins invited us again, this time for dinner. They showered us with presents. I remember a shawl, a wicker basket, a poncho for Charlotte and some silver ornaments. Just as we were saying goodbye, overwhelmed by their generosity, Boris thrust two Mexico City–Laredo air tickets into our hands. “You can forget about the Greyhound bus now!” he told us. It was Charlotte who, on the spur of the moment, came up with an idea for repaying his kindness. “If our baby is a boy,” she told him, as we gratefully accepted the tickets, “we’ll call him Boris!”. [11] Alansplodge (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: Should all this be mentioned in the article? I suppose that many people will wonder how come ~~the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom~~ one of the most important British politicians has a Russian first name.--The Traditionalist (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do just that when I have a few moments. Alansplodge (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 28

Weston, Newark, Nottinghamshire

What article should I read that would explain why so many place names in Britain have three components? Are these like county/municipality/neighbourhood? For example, we just say Woodbury, NJ or Hempstead, NY and not Woodbury, Gloucester, NJ or Hempstead, Nassau, NY (there are cases of overlap like Washington Township, NJ, of which I used to drive through two or three a day regularly--I think there are six in different counties in the state--but these are still only distinguished by postal code in most cases. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the other way around; neighbourhood/village - town/city - county. Fgf10 (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Place names in this form are usually only used in postal addresses. The second name is the Post town, i.e. one of the main distribution centres for mail. According to Royal Mail it's not necessary to include the county name in an address. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And giving more than one component is the exception not the rule in Britain, μηδείς. People would normally refer to that place as "Weston" to anybody familiar with the region, and as "Weston, near Newark" to anybody who wasn't. Even with places where there is ambiguity, we tend not to use a binomial name: if I needed to clarify, I would say "Richmond, in Yorkshire", in ordinary speech: only if I were giving an address, or dealing with a list of places, would I say "Richmond, Yorkshire" or "Richmond, North Yorkshire". --ColinFine (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that our article has Weston, Nottinghamshire and makes no mention of Newark. If you were posting a letter, as Colin says above, it would be helpful to include the postal town, but if you have the postcode correct, then it will get there without. Alansplodge (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you enter a Weston postcode in the Royal Mail postcode finder, it does return an address in Weston, Newark. As you say, it will likely be properly delivered with just a house number and postcode, but it's not the proper postal address. The correct one will include the postal town of Newark. Old folk like me still add the county by habit, and it is part of the address but not needed in the postal address.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality in Tudor England

Are there are any good reference works that give a history of homosexuality in Tudor England, particularly how it was conceptualised and what attitudes toward it were - I'm doing a research project on how Tudor England perceived the reign of Edward II, an allegedly gay monarch. Thus far, I've looked at Tudor Histories of England and how they describe him, I've started to look at Marlowe's Edward II, but I need more information on the historiography of homosexuality, and how it was perceived in that time frame. Thanks very much --Andrew 14:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some refs and comments at Edward_II_of_England#Piers_Gaveston_and_sexuality, two more at History_of_homosexuality#The_Middle_Ages, also note the historiagraphy section for Edward II. This [12] looks to be a well-curated bibliography. I can't tell how much this [13] book talks about Tudor England, you might be able to skim it on google books. 17:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Assassination attempt on Shirley Waldemar Baker

Can someone help me find an extremely detailed account (available online) of the assassination attempt on Shirley Waldemar Baker with reference to the presence of the Crown Prince of Tonga?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see if the autobiog of Sioeli Nau here which gives a brief overview of events with no real firm information. Nanonic (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also - please do read the footnotes, they're quite interesting. Nanonic (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanoic: Can you link me to the footnotes? I am afraid the preview would end before I reach it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ignotus

Can anybody find more information on a man named Ignotus, who was a traveling correspondent for The New Zealand Herald in 1886; one of his articles here?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ignotus is Latin for "unknown". Was it common back then to use that for articles by anonymous authors, perhaps? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:8909:BFA1:BA09:8D73 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]