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.

July 7

Has there ever been a UK Prime Minister who hasn't held a Cabinet (or Shadow Cabinet) level job?

What with Andrea Leadsom being a contender and everything... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.212.8 (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not the first person to wonder about this - someone posed the question on Twitter yesterday. Candidates mentioned include the Marquess of Rockingham and Henry Addington. And the Duke of Wellington, although he did have quite a bit of relevant experience what with being the leader of the British Army, hero of Waterloo and whatnot.
An additional topic is people made Leader of the Opposition with minimal experience. David Cameron had only been shadow education secretary for a few months when he ran for leader. Jeremy Corbyn, of course, had never been a minister or shadow minister before becoming Leader of the Opposition. But leaders of the opposition of course normally get several years to grow into the role before the next election. In general, though, it looks like it would be fair to call Leadsom becoming Prime Minister more or less unprecedented in modern British politics. Blythwood (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Opposition Leader a Shadow Minister? He'd be primus inter pares vis a vis shadow ministers, wouldn't he? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was offered as a parallel question, not an answer. —Tamfang (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I see now. He's obviously a shadow minister now, but he had had no such experience at the time he became Leader of the Opposition. Carry on. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, yes (made some changes to clarify this). Straight into the top job of his political party. It also looks like Rhodri Morgan went straight in at First Minister of Wales without being in the Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet. This was apparently because while he was very popular in the Labour Party, Tony Blair wouldn't give him a cabinet position. But the FMoW isn't selected by the Prime Minister. Blythwood (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

Ending the Joint Control Commission

What would happen between Russia and Moldova if the latter rejected the agreement that established the Joint Control Commission? No speculation, please; most treaties and agreements of this sort include provisions for permitting a party to withdraw from the agreement, and that's what I'm after. It was apparently a ceasefire, but with the Russians not officially fighting on either side, I'm not clear what de jure changes would occur in Russo-Moldovan relationships. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic stop procedure

In the US, during a traffic stop the police officer usually instructs you to do the following:

1. Stay in your vehicle

2. Roll down your window

3. Keep both hands on the steering where/keep both hands visible to the officer

4. Slowly reach for your license and registration

I'm told that in Europe, a different approach is taken, where the vehicle occupants are told to exit their vehicle. In the US, exiting your car during a traffic stop would be profoundly unwise.

Why the difference in procedure? Approximately when did they start to diverge? (pre-WWII or post?) Are there records on which police departments were the first to pioneer and standardize these procedures? Crudiv1 (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facetiously: The faster runners are American, the faster drivers are European and everyone in America has a gun. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if you have a gun in the car, they want you to stay close to it. —Tamfang (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the few occasions I've been stopped by the police in my car in the UK the policeman has simply spoken through my car window. I have never been asked to get out (or not to). I have lowered the window as a courtesy. I have never been asked to put my hands anywhere but I suppose they would be visible. I have never been asked for my licence or registration (you are not required or expected to carry them anyway). All the "security" aspects simply do not arise (in my experience). I suppose (but I have no references to any of this) the UK procedures have not changed since WWII. I'll look and see if I can find a UK standard procedure and report back (if User:Alansplodge doesn't beat me to it!). Thincat (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt (1) following a stop I have not been accused of any offence (2) I have not been shot at. Thincat (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a challenge (you should have waited until my lunchbreak was over). Here is the official advice:

"The police can stop a vehicle for any reason. If they ask you to stop, you should always pull over when it’s safe to do so. You’re breaking the law if you don’t. If you’re stopped, the police can ask to see your: driving licence, insurance certificate [and] MOT certificate. If you don’t have these documents with you, you have 7 days to take them to a police station. You’re breaking the law if you don’t show the requested documents within 7 days".

This law firm's site says "Wait in your vehicle for the officer to approach you. They may stand just behind where you are sitting, causing you to turn. This is so that the officer can see your hands to make sure you’re not carrying any potential weapons". However. I concur with User:Thincat that the whole procedure seems rather casual. I expect it's different if they think you might be a drug dealer or a bank robber. The police on the other side of the Channel are said to be more aggressive, but I've never been stopped there. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you – I wasn't intending to disturb your lunch! And here is some highly unofficial information for drivers who want to assert their rights. It says in passing there is no "national standard" and there is a huge difference between police forces. Thincat (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I expect we in Britain sound very smug. Things can (and do) go badly wrong here. Shooting of Stephen Waldorf and others. Thincat (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although the risk for police officers of being killed is many times lower here; our List of British police officers killed in the line of duty records about 250 names in the last 116 years, whereas our List of American police officers killed in the line of duty says that the "average from 1990-2010 was 164 per year". Alansplodge (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC I've never been stopped (don't drive much) in NZ nor been in a car that's been stopped except for a breathtest. But from shows like Motorway Patrol and other police reality shows, I think the situation in NZ (or for that matter Australia) is also generally fairly casual. However you're not expected to, and rather you don't exit the vehicle and may even tell you that. Beyond the increased risk of some sort of confrontation, there's also the risk you'll either do a runner or more likely carelessly put yourself at risk before they can stop you, especially on a motorway. If you get out anyway, they'll most likely direct you to a save place and do the interview from there.

If they're afraid you'll drive-off, they'll ask you to turn off the ignition. Maybe hand over the keys too, but I think that's only if they're impounding the car or otherwise you shouldn't be driving anymore that day. However they may ask you to throw the keys out the window if they've afraid of drive-off and fear you may be armed. But even then, I believe they'll still prefer you to wait in the car for the safety of everyone until someone can make an approach to detain you.

In non confrontational situations, they may ask you to exit the vehicle if they want to search it, and also I guess if they want to show you something about the vehicle. (I don't know if they ask or it's just expected if the vehicle is being impounded etc.)

I found this chapter from a police operations manual [1] which seem to confirm a number of these details.

P.S. In Malaysia step 4 probably includes and money and step 5 is putting money under your licence and handing it all over.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at other European countries. For Italy, I found [2] and [3], unfortunately they don't really say whether you're expected to stay in the vehicle or get out although the second one makes met think you probably normally stay in (but it's too unclear). I found even less on France [4] [5]. Northern Europe, didn't find anything even worth linking. But Germany I did find [6] which mentions "You are also required to exit the vehicle if requested to do so" which makes me think you're probably not always expected to exit. I also found [7] which seems to be from a US perspective which says:

Whether to get the driver out of the car is probably one of the most contested tactics during a traffic stop. It’s a black-or-white issue for some and each side will rattle off a list of reasons for his or her preferred method. I am of the opinion that it's safer to get the driver out of the vehicle and conduct your business off to the side

which makes me wonder if it's really universal that you'll always be expected to stay in the vehicle in the US even when they aren't planning to detain you or search your vehicle. Nil Einne (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that getting out of the car at the side of a road can be hazardous for reasons that have nothing to do with violence. There are other cars moving along the road and it's always possible that someone will fail to give sufficient clearance and will cause an accident like this. A person who is hit while standing beside a car is at greater risk than one sitting in a car that gets hit. Of course this is less of an issue in a big city where speeds are moderate and there are curbs and sidewalks and parked cars all over the place than it is on a highway outside of the city. --69.159.60.163 (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Health enquiry

i need to urgently connect commisioner for healthon a deadly hospital in my area41.203.71.178 (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Lagos State Commissioner for Health is in Durosimi Street, telephone +234 8033578492. 80.44.163.165 (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish history t-shirt

I have two questions about historical veracity.

1) I bought this T-shirt on vacation in Israel recently and wanted to run it through the history guys here - are they all objectively true?, thanks.

t-shirt

T-shirt text:

Civilizations, nations and empires that have tried to destroy the Jewish People:

NATION STATUS

Ancient Egypt ✘-Gone

Philistines ✘-Gone

Assyrian Empire ✘-Gone

Babylonian Empire ✘-Gone

Persian Empire ✘-Gone

Greek Empire ✘-Gone

Roman Empire ✘-Gone

Byzantine Empire ✘-Gone

Crusaders ✘-Gone

Spanish Empire ✘-Gone

Nazi Germany ✘-Gone

Soviet Union ✘-Gone

Iran ???

The Jewish People - The smallest of nations but with a Friend in the highest of places! So...BE NICE!

ZygonLieutenant (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like ignorant propaganda to me. There is an Arab - Israeli conflict, but the Persians are not Arabs, nor were they belligerent in what you might call the War of Independence, the Six - Day War and the Yom Kippur War. 80.44.163.165 (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above is a sock of a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The shirt is talking about the Persian Empire, not Iran (except where it says Iran). Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's historical nonsense and modern misinformation. I get the idea of the joke, but the historical errors spoil it for me. "Ancient Egypt" tried to destroy the Jewish people? There was a Greek Empire? The Babylonian Empire arguably was instrumental in creating a Jewish ethnicity (although not intentionally). The expulsion of Jews from Spain was at a time when Spain had only just come together, and before there was a Spanish Empire. And so on... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it's at the very least tendentious to claim that most of these tried to "destroy" the Jewish people. Some of them tried to incorporate conquered peoples into their empire, but that's not the same as destroying theM. --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thinking a bit deeper, there is a sleight-of-hand (or "sleight-of-argument"?) in tracking continuity differently in different cases. Yes, Ancient Egypt is gone (more or less by definition), but Egypt is still around. The Roman Empire has crumbled as a political entity, but the Italians are still around. So are Spain, Germany and Russia. On the other hand, the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) is gone, as are its successor states. So is the Hasmonean dynasty/Herodian Kingdom of Judea, and the short-lived organization of Bar Kokhba. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that is not what the shirt argued.It didn't argue about the Jewish empire or kingdom, it said Jewish people. And yes, many of those on the list tried to destroy the Jewish people for their religion and not just incorporating them into their empire. When an empire, such as the Greek, make a law that it is illegal to practice your religion under pain of death, or when the Spanish expel you or when the Nazis kill you, etc... It's a t-shirt but it is based on truth. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which historical incident you associate with "the Greek Empire making a law that it is illegal to practice [the Jewish] religion under pain of death"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, not "the Greek Empire", but one of the post-Alexander hellenistic empires. And, as far as we know, not an attempt to "destroy the Jewish people" but rather an attempt to suppress the Jewish religion, possibly even on behalf of a group of hellenised Jews. Anyways, back to the larger point. The shirt frames the story asymmetrical, contains simple historical mistakes and mythical stories, and still needs to stretch definitions to a degree that makes it pointless. Compare "List of X trying to destroy the Persian people", including the Babylonian Empire, the Greeks, the Macedonian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire (over and over again), the Rashidun Caliphate, the Mongols, the Regime of Saddam Hussein, and the US(?). Or a "list of X trying to destroy the English people", with Roman Empire, the Great Heathen Army, Harald Hardrade, the Duchy of Normandy, the French Kingdom (over and over again), the Spanish Emire (in this case really), the French First Republic, the French Empire, the German Reich, and Nigel Farrage. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except the Jewish people are the same, more or less, today than they were 2,000 years ago. The same can't be said for the other people and that is the point of the shirt. But whatever, I see that it disturbs you so I won't continue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "more or less" - arguably more than the English, less than the Persians. While the Jewish people have a strong (indeed, unusually strong for people with such a long diaspora) shared tradition, there have also been significant changes in culture and composition, with converts (both ways), changes in language (from Biblical Hebrew to Aramaic and Koine Greek to Yiddish and Ladino), change from a Temple-centric ritualistic religion to Rabbinic Judaism, and so on. Just because we use the adjective "Jewish" to denote elements from a long stretch of history does not mean that the people and culture have not evolved with changing times and locations. But I'd be happy to agree to disagree before I disturb your world view ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point regarding the remarks of @ColinFine at 17:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC): There are particularly devout, messianic and/or nationalistic Jews today and in the past who consider apostasy, intermarriage, and even non-halachic streams of Judaism as "destructive of the Jewish people." -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union, yeah, right. Asmrulz (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, we do have an article called Antisemitism in the Soviet Union, although that's really not the same as "tried to destroy the Jewish People". On the Ancient Egypt claim, presumably that rests on the events described in the Book of Exodus. Alansplodge (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the shirt is that while many have persecuted the Jews throughout history, the Jews still survive, while many of their persecutors are in the dustbin of history - except Iran (and others, but Iran is the most obvious). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted the quoted text to try to match the image better. Call me quixotic. —Tamfang (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When did the Persians try to destroy the Jews? I know Cyrus the Great was famous for helping the Jews (ending their captivity in Babylon, etc). Iapetus (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Esther. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several lines of the shirt's text are inaccurate, anachronistic or completely bloody wrong. However, this is a T-shirt, not a doctoral essay. The overall tenet is cute and fairly accurate, which will no doubt sell T-shirts, which is what it is designed to do. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Detail of the story was posted earlier:

I'm sorry, but it's not obvious at all. The J--- were held captive in Babylon and the Persians conquered Babylon. Now Esther went to Xerxes about a plot hatched by Mordecai to kill all the J--- and the J--- were saved. Mordecai was hanged. Modern - day evidence is equally unconvincing. Persian militia are liquidating Sunnis in Iraq - they're not killing J---. The J--- threaten to bomb Persia, assassinate their nuclear scientists and crippled their nuclear programme with Stuxnet, a nasty virus which has spread to the west. 81.151.101.32 (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the "J---?" Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're being persecuted by an edit filter Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 123#Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2016. 86.168.123.201 (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British history tweet

2) This is a tweet with map that I read, is it also objectively true?

Text:

All the countries invaded by Britain throughout history (in blue). The countries never invaded by the British (in grey): Andorra, Belarus, Bolivia, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo Republic of, Guatemala, Ivory Coast, Krygyzstan, Liechenstein, Luxembourg, Mali, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Mongolia, Paraguay, Sao Tome + Principe, Sweden, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Vatican City.

[[8]]

Thanks again, ZygonLieutenant (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Stuart Laycock. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been commented in 2014 on quora. Belarus was invaded. --Askedonty (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list does not acknowledge that while the UK was at war with Sweden in the generally peaceful Anglo-Swedish War (1810–12) British military occupied the Swedish island of Hanö. Having your military forces on enemy territory while at war with them would seem to amount to "invasion" even if no shots were fired. Edison (talk)

Anyhow, here's the reference; British have invaded nine out of ten countries - so look out Luxembourg, a review of All the Countries We've Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To by an otherwise serious historian called Stuart Laycock, "an expert in late Roman belt-fittings" according to our article, who apparently spent two years researching the list. Alansplodge (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the implication that for several hundred years the inhabitants of a small island nation have felt that most countries in the world needed a little invading by them? Edison (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We 'ave bought 'er the same with the sword an' the flame, An' we've salted it down with our bones. Tevildo (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

now it's someone elses turn... :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question, is it "objectively true" is a firm no.

The map purports to show a comprehensive list of modern countries that have not been invaded by Britain. In reality, it is subject to anachronism and POV issues. Many of the countries listed were arguably not "invaded" by Britain. If you'd like to take an opposing point of view on every one of those arguments, you could construct a less dramatic image. As such, it is definitely not "objectively true". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanliness

When I come out of the shower, I feel fresh and clean, not thereafter I urinate. Of course I can’t have a shower every time thereafter urination, so, what’s the best way to stay clean 24/7? -- Apostle (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some cultures use a bidet. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Sink can be used to accumulate warm water. Then a washcloth and soap can be used to wash body areas needing washing. After the soap is rinsed off with the washcloth and fresh warm water. a towel can be used to dry the area. A Wet wipe can also be used for personal hygiene. Edison (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to stay clean is to use a notion of cleanliness that is consistent with the way your body actually works:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-28934415

"The results were incredible. Like most of us in the Western world, the families had far fewer types of bacteria living in and on them when compared with people in traditional tribes in parts of the developing world. One hunter-gatherer community was found to not only have a higher diversity of bacteria, but only one in 1,500 suffered from an allergy - compared with one in three in the UK."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/magazine/say-hello-to-the-100-trillion-bacteria-that-make-up-your-microbiome.html

"The study of babies and their specialized diet has yielded key insights into how the colonization of the gut unfolds and why it matters so much to our health. One of the earliest clues to the complexity of the microbiome came from an unexpected corner: the effort to solve a mystery about milk. For years, nutrition scientists were confounded by the presence in human breast milk of certain complex carbohydrates, called oligosaccharides, which the human infant lacks the enzymes necessary to digest. Evolutionary theory argues that every component of mother’s milk should have some value to the developing baby or natural selection would have long ago discarded it as a waste of the mother’s precious resources.

It turns out the oligosaccharides are there to nourish not the baby but one particular gut bacterium called Bifidobacterium infantis, which is uniquely well-suited to break down and make use of the specific oligosaccharides present in mother’s milk. When all goes well, the bifidobacteria proliferate and dominate, helping to keep the infant healthy by crowding out less savory microbial characters before they can become established and, perhaps most important, by nurturing the integrity of the epithelium — the lining of the intestines, which plays a critical role in protecting us from infection and inflammation."

"Most of the microbes that make up a baby’s gut community are acquired during birth — a microbially rich and messy process that exposes the baby to a whole suite of maternal microbes. Babies born by Caesarean, however, a comparatively sterile procedure, do not acquire their mother’s vaginal and intestinal microbes at birth. Their initial gut communities more closely resemble that of their mother’s (and father’s) skin, which is less than ideal and may account for higher rates of allergy, asthma and autoimmune problems in C-section babies: not having been seeded with the optimal assortment of microbes at birth, their immune systems may fail to develop properly.

At dinner, Knight told me that he was sufficiently concerned about such an eventuality that, when his daughter was born by emergency C-section, he and his wife took matters into their own hands: using a sterile cotton swab, they inoculated the newborn infant’s skin with the mother’s vaginal secretions to insure a proper colonization. A formal trial of such a procedure is under way in Puerto Rico."

Count Iblis (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and thank you all. Sorry for the delay, I was unwell. -- Apostle (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, unless a person has a urinary tract infection, urine is typically sterile, so not itself a cause of disease. However, a few drops may come out after urination, or at other times, like when laughing (stress incontinence is more common in women), and that can cause underwear to become smelly. Absorbent pads are one option in dealing with these problems. Changing underwear frequently is another. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had diarrhoea -- Apostle (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People criticizing affirmative action

Why do some people criticize affirmative action as being a form of reverse discrimination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.241.181 (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative action#Criticism. clpo13_(talk) 22:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination, by definition. For example, to increase the percentage of minority enrollment in a university, it is necessary to decrease the percentage of majority enrollment. The only question is whether the good it does outweighs this negative. StuRat (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? If redheads get $10/hour and brunettes get $20, is it discrimination to give an additional $5 to the redheads? You seem to be only looking at one single aspect of life, not the overall patters of still-existing structural discrimination, with many blacks earning less money, living in poorer communities, going to worse schools, and so on. I'd rather not call partial compensation for these disadvantages "discrimination" (of course, from the etymological root, the term could be applied - but see etymological fallacy). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the day when the word discrimination no longer means the ability to recognize the difference between things (formally: the cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished) and instead means exclusively "unfair discrimination against", you may accuse educated users of the supplanted definition of their etymological fallacy. Until that day, please respect the wide-ranging valid uses of the word that cover subjects of social prejudices both for and against persons and groups, business, law, science and research. AllBestFaith (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say that context matters, and in the context of reverse discrimination, it's fairly clear that the original discrimination is not simply a distinction of different cases, but implies different treatment of groups. Also see Discrimination, which describes what seems to be the now prevalent meaning. This is also supported by Google results, and all dictionaries I checked have the social component as part of the first, i.e. most prevalent definition. That does not mean that the word does not have other legitimate uses, but since the aim of communication is usually to communicate, not to score points by nit-picking (*), I would avoid using the word with other than the most likely understood meaning in any given context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC) (*) Note that I enjoy picking nits as much as the next person, and indeed have described my profession as "professional nit-pickers", but I try to be transparent about it...[reply]

(ec)If redheads get $10/hour and brunettes get $20 only because of their hair colour, in a context where we accept that hair colour has no bearing on their ability to do the jobs concerned, then one can only conclude that it is because of some sort of unjustified prejudice and that this is unfair or unjustified direct discrimination because the discrimination is disproportionate to the difference, so it is easily justifiable as morally fair to compensate the redheads for their disadvantage.

If, however, the context is such that redheads are generally less skilled at doing a particular job, because for example all the redheads belong to a cult that emphasise book learning over physical dexterity in education and training and in this society manual labour is highly prized, and pay is strictly according to how well you do the manual labour, with the result that the redheads are on average paid less simply because they are less good at manual labour, not because they are redheads as such, then this has the effect of discrimination, but it is indirect and it is justified or fair in the sense that the discrimination is proportionate to their differences. The discrimination, and it would be more difficult to morally justify compensating the redheads for their disadvantage.

In reality, most situations of "affirmative action" fall somewhere between the two, and different groups will argue about whether it falls closer to the first situation or the second situation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox of discrimination

Many people assume that when there is discrimination, one group of people is given more favorable treatment than others. This is not always the case. It is quite possible to have cases there it is not at all clear which group is given the more favorable treatment.

Example:

Your country is under attack during wartime. The war is so ferocious that 80% of the combatants are killed. A law has been passed to forcefully conscript males between 18-24 years of age into the frontline, furthermore females are forbidden to participate.

Question: Who is being discriminated against?

There are three possible answers.

Answer 1: Males are being discriminated against. They are forced to participate in the effort which will result in a high probability of death.

Answer 2: Females are being discriminated against. They are prevented from participation in the war effort to protect their homeland.

Answer 3: Both males and females are being discriminated against.

The key to the paradox is the phrase "more favorable treatment". Different people have different ideas about what constitutes "favorable treatment". To a male who does not want to die, favorable treatment means not being forced to go to the frontline. To a female that wants to defend her homeland, favorable treatment means being allowed to defend her homeland.

Therefore it is not impossible to have a situation whereby two groups of people vehemently oppose each other, both objecting to the same piece of legislation on the grounds that it "gives more favorable treatment" to the other group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.45.116.61 (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 9

Westward ho!

I've downloaded "Westward Ho!" a novel by Charles Kingsley in my Kindle and now am trying to read it. It is a hard going. Paragraphs 3 pages long, etc. I wonder about the "ho" part however. I checked with on-line dictionaries, and also Webster Third International and nothing really fits from what they offered. I personally suspect it was a variant of "go" in Elizabethan time. Am I correct? Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Ho!" is an interjection that's been around for over 400 years.[9] See also Westward Ho. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not sure what online dictionaries you're looking at. Beyond BB's source, see wiktionary:ho#Etymology 1, Merriam-Webster [10] (first definition, I'm surprised that the print one doesn't have it), Oxford [11] (second definition), Collins [12] (first definition), Dictionary.com [13] (first definition and various other places), Freedictionary.com [14] (first non capitalised definition), Google at least for me [15] (second definition, does require expansion to see it), and Bing also for me [16] (second definition, again requires expansion, it's coming from Oxford and actually I think Google is using Oxford too). A number of these even specifically mention westward ho. Cambridge is the only one that seemed to lack a definition, probably because it was only found in the business dictionary [17]. Well maybe urbandictionary too, I didn't look through all 5 pages but wouldn't be surprised if it's absent from there [18]. 01:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk)

Now added to article. Trivia point: it also inspired the town of Westward Ho! in Devon. Only place in Britain with an explanation mark in its official name. Blythwood (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exclamation mark, please! Wymspen (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic license! The subject itself an obvious possible cause of cognitive distortion I'm personally gratefull for those risks the writer's been taking. --Askedonty (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Tally-ho!, a hunting cry dating from thew 18th century in English, but said to be derived from the medieval French taille haut meaning "blades up" (according to Wikipedia) or ta ho meaning "goads halt" (according to Wiktionary; see Wikt:tallyho). Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might be on to something there - that the "ho" could be an English transliteration of the French for "up". That word "up" is often used in connection with horses - I'm thinking specifically of "Giddyup!" which is a slurring of "Get ye up!" Tonto used to say, "Get 'em up, Scout!" after the Lone Ranger would say "Hi-yo Silver!" which was originally "Hi-ho Silver!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a tangent perhaps, but there is a place in Plymouth called the Hoe, which features heavily in the story of Sir Francis Drake. I wonder if the etymology of the two are related? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a tangent; Richard Carew wrote "vpon the Hawe at Plymmouth..." in 1602, see The Survey of Cornwall (p. 2) but The place-names of England and Wales by Johnston, James B, 1915 (p. 306) says its from Old English hoh or ho meaning a spur or hill. Alansplodge (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Land ho !" is another usage, by sailors, meaning land has been spotted. It seems that "ho", used this way, pretty much always requires an explanation mark. StuRat (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean exclamation mark? But I'd love it if someone really invented an all-purpose "explanation mark". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

They have. It's called a footnote. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about a an S on top of an H, meaning "shit happens" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Proof of God's existence is the death of revealed religion

I had argument like this: suppose that science could prove that God exists and that Jesus is God, this would mean the death of revealed religion, replacing it with theology based upon scientific experiments. Are there any WP:SOURCES which made this argument? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look through the ref desk archives, you will probably find a number of variations on this same question. Basically, you can't prove it absolutely, because you can't prove what or who God is. I could say God = Nature. Then it's easy to prove, because Nature exists. But is the original premise absolute and complete? No. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not ask if science could prove that God exists, I have asked a different question: what if science could prove it? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure that our present-day science does not study the supernatural. So, I was not asking about that. However, for science in the future all bets are off. So, suppose for the sake of argument that future science will have proven that God exists. Would that mean the death of revealed religion? I am not even asking if this follows. What I am asking is if there are reliable sources which made this argument before. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there are countless references you can find on Google. The search topic would be something like, "what if we can prove god exists". But keep in mind that anything anyone says is going to be speculation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a very smart Catholic person I know: "Of course you can't prove it. That's why it's called faith." Blythwood (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu your abrupt dismissal of the first response by Baseball Bugs suggests that you do not understand its relevance to your question. Your question uses terms "God" and "Jesus" that are absolutes only within the Christian belief system. There are millions of people with different belief systems with different axioms to whom your speculative question is not a Well-posed problem. However within what appears to be your Christian system, the consequence of "science proving God" would be the loss for humanity of the blessing (see Grace in Christianity) expressed by that religion's founder thus: John 20:29 "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." AllBestFaith (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Christian and I don't think the way science is practiced today could prove that God exists. I only wanted to know if the argument was made before by someone else. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument was made at [19]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a philosophical level, science can never prove anything. Science is empirical and based on inductive reasoning, which is not a sound inference principle. If I see 150 pink penguins in an hour (and no others), I might come to the justified conclusion that all penguins are pink, but I would still be wrong. Science gives us a sequence of (stochastically) better and better descriptions of reality, not absolute truth. That remains in the realm of mathematics and maybe philosophy. See e.g. Simulated reality and Evil demon. If we say "science has proved ...", there is always an implicit understanding that this really means "to a high degree of probability, not absolute certainty", or, as Stephen J. Gould put it": "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, I have quoted myself http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10 inside Wikipedia arguments. However, a valid point can still be made using very blunt concepts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the argument (or something very similar) has been done by someone, see Babel fish (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)--Pacostein (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was: if science could prove that God exists, you would have the scientifically correct religion instead of revealed religion. So it wasn't about God disappearing/ceasing to exist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also coming to mind is the fantasy story Hell Is the Absence of God, wich is set in a world where the existance of God an the afterlife is a proved fact wich results in the concept of faith being quite different. Not exactly what you were arguing either but maybe of your interest.--Pacostein (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

God created the universe ten minutes ago, including Wikipedia and all your false memories of having edited Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is hypothesizing based on Abrahamic religions. But what if it could be proven that all forces of nature actually are caused by conscious entities? Then, all of a sudden, monotheism would be in jeopardy, in favor of polytheism - as if the ancient Greeks and Romans had it right all along. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an example, speaking for myself, I would not bet on Jesus being God (unless we all are God). Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bet on anything regarding religion. Although polytheism is often cited, even by monotheists, when they talk about angry clouds or seas, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polytheism is the wrong word; you mean animism which hold that all animate objects, which usually includes not only people and animals, but also plants, the sun, moon, and other celestial objects, as well as even things like the ocean, volcanoes, and perhaps even gems and swords have spirits. This can develop into or coexist with polytheism, reach refers to a pantheon of personified gods. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either one, or both, if proven, would either demolish or severely alter the monotheistic religions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai International

To whom it may concern, I was reading the articles mentioned above, for months now and again, and could not fail to notice that two editors apparently strongly associated with the matter are editing in considerable frequency. I understand that Wikipedia has regulations in place when it comes to corporations, but what about religious corporations and its members? As a reader these articles somewhat fail to be objective at all.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonisana2 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC) --Tonisana2 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tonisana2 - This question would be better on the Help Desk, but the relevant guideline is WP:COI. I see you've already mentioned the issue at the article talk page, which is the best place to discuss any changes to the article. Tevildo (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to open a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You will need to demonstate why you think there is COI, beyond editors having a different point of view than the view you hold. You should also be wary of WP:OUTING any user. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have no intention to edit the article. I just find the article to be highly biased and somebody might want to take a look at that, which obviously is not the case. Thank you. --Tonisana2 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The normal course of action would be to discuss the alleged biases on the article talk page. Right now you're kinda waving your hands in the air, rather than providing any examples of the said bias. Be clear that the possibility that there is bias on what is, as I vaguely understand it, a fringe religion, is good: clearly those who adhere to or revile the religion will be drawn to it. So it's not that your assertion is being dismissed out of hand. I put it to you that if you, who alleges you know enough about the subject to be able to pronounce on bias, is unwilling to lift a further finger to educate the rest of us, then we will probably find other and more rewarding ways to fill our time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh now that’s a truly nice welcoming which would make even less likely that I should lift a finger. It’s nice to see that when a reader points out that an article basically seems to have a bias issue one is redirected only. What you do fill your time with beats me though. It was my understanding that single purpose accounts go against Wikipedia regulations. I shall leave it there then. --Tonisana2 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tonisana2, we have over five million articles, many of which are in need of attention. We are edited by thousands of volunteers, who choose what they are going to work on. It is always welcome for somebody to point out a problem or potential problem, but whether it gets anybody else's attention depends on how interested they are in the article and how serious they think the problem is. --ColinFine (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Wikipedia is created by volunteers some of whom have niche interests and contribute using single-purpose accounts. Their contributions are welcome given awareness of the policies against undue promotion, advocacy and personal agendas. Anyone tagged as an SPA should not take this as an attack on their editing. The OP has made no article contributions. AllBestFaith (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frankly baffled by your self-defeating approach, Tonisana2. I think I can speak for most of us on wikipedia when I say that this thread is the first any of us have heard about Soka Gakkai. And along comes Tonisana2 who says "the article is biased" but will not say a word on what the nature of the bias is. And so, presumably, expects that someone is going to gear themselves up to understanding enough of the subject matter to be able to deliberate on the unidentified bias, on the basis of a compaint which amounts to "there is a problem but I'm not going to tell you what it is". And is dismayed and pulls a hissy fit when we react by saying "tell us more". So, really, either put up or shut up: provide some information on the supposed bias so that we have something to work on, or else, as you put it, "leave it there" and drop the whole issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As obscure as the subject seems to be, that alone could explain why it's only had a few editors. Really, this discussion should be moved to the article's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar time frame for correspondence

A couple/few weeks ago, around the same time frame I wrote to Today (U.S. TV program), CBS This Morning and Good Morning America, I also wrote to Allstate Insurance and Virgin America. How long does it take for the latter two to get back to me?2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same question = same answer. It depends on what you wrote to them about. If you wrote to your insurance company to make a claim following an accident, they will have a set time within which they have to reply. If you wrote to ask for a job, you will never get a response unless they decide to interview you for a position - and if that happens how long it takes will depend on when they have a suitable vacancy. Wymspen (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to Allstate Insurance about promotional items, and Virgin America about a merchandise catalog.2604:2000:7113:9D00:CDEE:E2C8:B362:33BB (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did they get back to you? And did you literally write a letter, or was it via internet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, they haven't gotten back to me yet. And yes, I literally wrote a letter.2604:2000:7113:9D00:CDEE:E2C8:B362:33BB (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion on the misc page, I don't know that you should count on getting an answer. Maybe a phone call would stand a better chance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

How and when do the Republican and Democratic Party announce their official candidate?

When, and in what form, are official presidential candidates made official? Llaanngg (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Democratic National Convention, 2016 Republican National Convention. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what (and why) were they voting lately (for Trump and Clinton)? Couldn't they just hold these national conventions and no previous elections? Llaanngg (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there were no previous elections that would be undemocratic. Politicians (which is what the delegates are) do not need more power. They used to have no previous elections and the conventions used to really choose the candidate, the current system of BS infomercial conventions is just a kludge grafted on on top of that, just like many other things in the American political system they just duct taped a kludge to something centuries old whenever society advanced enough that they didn't want something undemocratic anymore which was originally "acceptable". Your country's core laws explicitly allow slaves? Duct tape something on to fix that. It allows former slaves to be prevented from voting? Duct tape stuff on to fix that. Doesn't let anyone who lives in the capital vote for President for 160 years? Duct tape something on to fix that.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They voted for the delegates to the conventions. The process is explained in countless wikipedia articles, newspaper articles and TV programmes. Start with Presidential nominee or United_States_presidential_election#Procedure and take it from there. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been talked about recently in the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Hour by The Housemartins

I had a conversation with one of my friends who stated that the 1986 Happy Hour (The Housemartins song) was an anti-Margaret Thatcher song, but I fail to see how and why? Is it about her or something else? --Cabinetto-Polo (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been described in WP:RS as an attack on casual sexism rather than Thatcherism. Perhaps your friend is referring to the album it appeared on, London 0 Hull 4, which, as our article notes, is infused with Marxism, including in the liner notes. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was aristocratic women allowed to mix with men in 18th-century China?

I have the impression, that it was not accepted by custom for upper class women in early modern China to mingle with men, socially. For women of the poorer classes, things were different, but aristocratic women were, as I understand, only allowed to socialize with other women, and that there were not gender mixed aristocratic social life such as in 18th-century Europe, with balls and other events were men and women regularly socialized with each other. My question is: exactly how strict was this? Was socializing with men outside of the family really non existent for a Chinese upper class woman in the 18th-century? Was there really no social occasion were the genders would mingle in aristocratic social life? Was there no gender mixed banquets, parties or religious ceremonies, when it was socially accepted for non-related men and women from the same social class to meet each other? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least according to literary stereotypes, major festivals provided an opportunity for otherwise cloistered upper class young ladies to meet young men. For example, in romance literature of that era, the Lantern Festival is often where the young lovers first meet, because it was socially acceptable for young ladies to walk out on the evening to see the lanterns. Major religious festivals often involved "temple markets" or fêtes around the temple, where a devout young lady returning from prayers might meet a young man. In the spring time, the viewing of peach blossoms (or some other flower) could also take young women and young men to the same monastery garden or a private garden which is accessible to visitors. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central Heating Boilers in South Sudan

According to http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/ssd/, South Sudan imports $1.71k worth of central heating boilers from Uganda. Why would such a hot country want central heating boilers? --Cabinetto-Polo (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan#Climate puts the low average temp at 20°C (68°F). While that might be acceptable, although on the chilly side when bathing, that's only the average low. The extremes could be quite a bit worse. Also note that $1,710 could be a single boiler, so it's not exactly a huge quantity. Maybe it's for a single hotel that wants to provide warm bathwater for it's guests. StuRat (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan does have mountains; Geography of South Sudan#Topography mentions the Imatong Mountains. Whether any of these have sufficiently sophisticated structures that they could have boilers I don't know. As StuRat has mentioned, the dollar value is very low so it doesn't take much and I'm not sure how reliable such low figures are anyway. If central heating boilers are used to heat water for human use then it seems even less surprising. It's hardly uncommon in KL to have heated water and I don't see a reason for things to be different in South Sudan due to climate. (Due to the different social and economic situation, sure.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is KL? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 194.66.226.95 (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry for the confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]