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.

October 13

8 million pound sterlin bond from the united kingdom in the 1920's.

Why is australia still paying interest on a bond borrowed from the united kingdom in the 1920's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.41.33.57 (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Perpetuity may be relevant. Loraof (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 2014 UK was still paying interest on bonds issued in 1720: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/world/that-debt-from-1720-britains-payment-is-coming.html?_r=1 --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although we (the UK) finally paid off our 1918 war debt to the US in 2015. This map shows that Australia is not doing badly with regards to national debt, whereas the USA is up there with Portugal, Greece and Sudan. Alansplodge (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orders Franz Joseph, Isabella the Catholic, Rising Sun, Chrysanthemum

Are there reliable sources for the awards of the Order of Franz Joseph, Order of Isabella the Catholic, Order of the Rising Sun, Order of the Chrysanthemum in the 19th century? I mainly need these sources to know if they were awarded to Hawaiian Queen Liliuokalani or her husband John Owen Dominis. All part of a larger discussion. Possibly some more official record of the awards of these honors which doesn't mention both individual but only mentions the awardee because at this point it is hard to distinguish when both individual are listed in the same few sentences especially if you have two editors disagreeing on punctation meaning. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer, but to eliminate an obvious source, the list of conferrals of honours on foreigners on the Japanese foreign ministry's website only goes back to 2005: http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/protocol/jokun.html#happyo --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ja.wiki article on the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Chrysanthemum (:ja:大勲位菊花大綬章) has an unreferenced footnote that mentions Liliuokalani. My Japanese is very poor but I think it says she was awarded the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Precious Crown instead - the system was changed a bit later to differentiate between heads of states with female titles (e.g. Queen) and those with male titles (e.g. President). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a farmer move from Minnesota to Arizona?

Why would a ruined farmer and his family move from Minnesota to Arizona? Would that be considered an understandable or dumb move?

Some context:

That's in a Raymond Carver short story, but it's realistic fiction. In the story, that family has no apparent reason to go down there. (They lost their Minnesota farm to overspending and bankruptcy, then moved to Arizona. They rent a motel room in a small town where they know nobody. Everybody warned the man he won't find no farming job, and he stays unemployed. His wife becomes a waitress.)

So I'm just trying to understand what the reader was supposed to make of such move. Is Arizona supposed to be dirt-cheap living? Is this supposed to be a smart or understandable move for them? Or is it supposed to paint them as dumb or lost? Thanks, 62.147.27.240 (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When was the story set? Politico-economic context. 14:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

They have a K-Mart and a Denny's, so I'd say 1970s or early 1980s (story published 1983). 62.147.27.240 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See The Grapes of Wrath. Just swap Minnesota for Oklahoma and Arizona for California. People in economic hardship make moves out of desperation. It doesn't always work out for the best. In both fiction and real life. --Jayron 32 16:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Sun Belt; starting from the late 1970s, there was significant internal migration in the U.S. from the "Rust belt" and upper Midwest to the Southwest, which was then seen as a land of greater economic opportunity. However, Carver is known for depicting characters who are economic "losers", so the fact that the former farmer can't find meaningful employment in Arizona is at least thematically consistent. Obviously, the character would have had to move into another field of employment in Arizona, but the state's economy was relatively booming in those days, so that would not have been far-fetched. --Xuxl (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to sit around and do nothing, you might as well do it somewhere warmer. Wymspen (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, moving to California would make sense for a farmer; moving to Arizona, maybe less so? Hence my question. Wymspen, for doing nothing in a warmer climate, wouldn't going to California's beaches be a better move than Arizona's deserts?

Xuxl, that makes more sense to me. I was unclear about what Carver expected us to think of his main character, that is:

(a) Maybe Carver reckoned that Arizona would have the cheapest rents for this guy to survive with his family, and wanted us to see that move as desperate but "the least worst" in his situation?
(b) Maybe Carver considered dumb a farmer moving to Arizona's deserts (rather than some farming place in California), and wanted us to see him as a loser, as you point out.

Thinking about it, in the story: (1) He was a decent farmer until he bought a racing horse and started gambling on her, losing all races then the farm. (2) He moves to Arizona. (3) He tries to impress his neighbors and ends up hitting his head. (4) After ER, he's changed and a little simple. -- I mean, if Carver intended it as a pattern of "dumb and dumber" loser, then point 2 would also have to be intended as a dumb move for him, right? 62.147.26.108 (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Less competition? In January 2016, Minnesota had about twice as many beef cattle as Arizona, but fewer meat goats and sheep. See https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=MINNESOTA and https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=ARIZONA. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why Jamaica still retains the monarchy

Having browsed Monarchy of Jamaica I still don't understand. Independence of Jamaica says that "On 19 July 1962, the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed the Jamaica Independence Act, granting independence as of 6 August. On that day, the Union Jack was ceremoniously lowered and replaced by the Jamaican flag throughout the country". So why Elizabeth II and Governor-General are still there? Thanks. --93.174.25.12 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true of Canada, Australia and ~~god~~ Wikipedia knows how many other Commonwealth countries. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go. Commonwealth realm says she's still the constitutional monarch of 16 countries. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. This implies that as long as they stay in the Commonwealth, they would have constitutional monarchy and only upon withdrawal there would be total self-governance. --93.174.25.12 (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite correct. The Commonwealth is a community of 53 completely independent and sovereign nations. Some, like India and Pakistan, have elected to replace the British monarch with their own President as head of state. Others, like the ones mentioned above, decided to keep the Queen, but she is merely a figurehead, a ceremonial monarch with no actual executive power. The government of each country is completely independent. Rojomoke (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's separately the head of state of those 16 countries, so she is Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, etc., independently of her role as Queen of the UKGBNI. So, those 16 countries are all independent, and all happen to have the same person as their equivalent of the President in India (for example). She, or actually the Governor General in each country, does technically, abstractly, theoretically have executive power, but it would be, ah, rather problematic if she actually tried to exercise it. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, AFAIK, the last time the Governor General did anything meaningful in ANY Commonwealth nation, was over 40 years ago, and IIRC, It didn't go over so well... --Jayron 32 01:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michaëlle Jean came close, but in the end only dallied for a few hours to 'send a message' rather than exercising her powers. Matt Deres (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As our Governor-General of New Zealand article and [1] [2] [3] mention, it sometimes suggested that it may be more likely to be needed in NZ after the implementation of MMP. At the very least bumping heads together. As mentioned in the NZ Herald link, probably partially for this reason, most Governor-General's chosen since then have had a legal background. However so far there's actually been no need, probably partially because after the first election or two, most parties died out, leaving 2 dominant parties and other fairly minor parties. This combined with the recent poor performance of Labour has meant that recently National has actually nearly been able to govern alone. The Greens have managed to hold on an mature, but are much more closely aligned to Labour. NZ First's come back has raised the potential for problems, but with Labour's continued poor performance and as history has shown about the personalities involved, it's likely that a deal will be reached if there is any real choice without the GG needing to get involved. Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No, this is doubly wrong. First, while Elizabeth is the head of the Commonwealth of Nations, more than two thirds of Commonwealth nations have heads of state different from her - indeed several are republics. And secondly, the Queen is not governing - she reigns. The fact that she is a nominal head of state of e.g. Canada does not mean that it is not fully self-governed. Keep in mind that the Queen is not the Queen of England in Canada - she is the Queen of Canada, who just also happens to be the Queen of England. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's also not the Queen of England anywhere on earth, even in England. She's the Queen of the United Kingdom. The last Queen of England died in 1714, having relinquished said title in 1707. --Jayron 32 01:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are of course right. I award you 5 pendant points! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While most Commonwealth countries these days are republics, some are monarchies with monarchs who are not Elizabeth - Tonga and Malaysia, for example. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few further clarifications:

See personal union for the concept of the same person having separate positions as the monarch of multiple countries.
Under the Statute of Westminster, and I presume similar arrangements made later with other countries, this personal-union status will carry forward to QUeen Elizabeth II's heirs as long as the monarchy continues in these countries, because they all have the same law on succession to the throne and have agreed not to change it separately. It has only been changed once since the Statute of Westminster was passed, and all 16 countries had to enact the change separately.
Elizabeth II's status as "head of the Commonwealth" is separate again. Apparently this position is not hereditary though it may be expected that it will go to Elizabeth II's successor.
Elizabeth II's position as "a ceremonial monarch with no actual executive power" applies in the UK just the same as in the other realms.
As to the original question of "why", I think the answer must simply be that in these countries there was no strong desire to change things.

--69.159.61.230 (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Statute of Westminster applies in each of the "original" realms either because they gave consent beforehand or ratified it afterwards (in some countries, such as Australia, this took many years). The newer realms obtained the same status via the laws passed for their independence - e.g. in Jamaica via the UK statute that gave effect to Jamaican independence. The point of the Statute of Westminster is that each realm is sovereign with a separate crown, and the monarch is advised by his or her local ministers in respect of each realm. It does not as such deal with the rules of succession or the procedure for changing the rules of succession. The principle that all of the realms must agree for the rules of succession to be changed is instead a convention, although it is recorded in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, which helped to solidify it. Our article Perth Agreement has a good summary of the background and how the different realms chose to interpret the principle in the process of implementing the agreed change to the rules of succession. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the short answer to "why Jamaica still retains the monarchy?" is that they wanted to. Alansplodge (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but that's a tautological answer. These sorts of questions are asking "Why would they want to?" I'm not saying that such questions aren't basically impossible for the ref desks to answer (justifying the mindset of non-sentient abstract concepts like "nation states" are futile, first because no one here can read minds, and secondly because only people have minds, not abstract concepts). --Jayron 32 18:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"they wanted to" retain in 1962; in 2016 they just haven't got around to changing it yet. More information at Republicanism in Jamaica. I sympathise with 93.174.25.12's confusion; the monarchy articles in {{Commonwealth realms}} have a lot of repetitious Bagehot boilerplate about fount of justice and suchlike and little about what it all means to the average subject-in-the-street. jnestorius^(talk) 23:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to clarify that colonies were not coerced into Commonwealth Realm status as a condition of independence, they could just as well have chosen to be a republic, as many colonies did. Alansplodge (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to contradict you but to prevent your comment being misinterpreted in a broader sense than you intended. The article I linked expands on the points you make. Incidentally I don't think any country gained independence as a Commonwealth republic until after Jamaica's independence; I believe the first was Zambia in 1964. Not saying it was not possible in 1962, just that it had never actually happened. The closest were Cyprus, became a republic in 1960 and rejoined the Commonwealth in 1961; and Malaya, became a non-realm monarchy in 1957. jnestorius^(talk) 16:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take your points, although Burma became independent as a republic in 1948, but was something of a special case. Uganda became independent as a Commonwealth Realm but became a republic in 1963. However, we end generally in happy agreement. Alansplodge (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commonwealth_of_Nations#Republics, India was the first Republic to become a member of the Commonwealth, in 1947. See London Declaration, which in 1949 confirmed India's Republican status. According to Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, Pakistan (joined 1947, became Republic 1956) and Ghana (joined 1957, became republic 1960) were both Republics within the Commonwealth before Jamaica. Several states which joined before Jamaica (Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika) later became republics, but they did not do so until after Jamaica joined the Commonwealth. Also, according to the same article, Burma declined to join the Commonwealth. --Jayron 32 02:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed although India wasn't strictly a colony (at least in the British classification of these things) and became the Dominion of India between 1947 and 1950, so didn't go straight to republic status.

The concept of the Dominion began to be renamed "Commonwealth Realm" in the post-war period, in order not to make them sound subordinate to the UK I suppose. Alansplodge (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was "gained independence as a Commonwealth republic"; there were Commonwealth republics in 1962, but all gained independence as Dominions/realms and became republics later. Burma gained independence as a republic but outside the Commonwealth. jnestorius^(talk) 17:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

Meaning of BYAWATHA

What is the meaning of the word BYAWATHA. It is the name of a house in Balgowlah NSW Australia and also a region in Victoria? HJSY (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the Tourism Board for the relevant region doesn't include the name in the relevant page on its website (which is here). It will probably need a direct enquiry to the Board itself, or perhaps to a nearby University's Linguistics Department, which the OP might find an interesting excercise. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

damnation in Judaism

Is there damnation in Judaism? The article on damnation talks about it according to Christianity and Islam, but doesn't mention about it according to Judaism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Ancient Judaism, it did not have a viewpoint on the afterlife, it had viewpoints (plural), see e.g. [4]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afterlife#Judaism has some information. Whether or not there is damnation in Judaism really comes down to which period of Jewish theology you're asking about. If you mean modern Judaism, you can find some who believe in reincarnation, some who believe that God will just not resurrect the wicked in Olam Haba (the world to come), and some who believe that the only difference between heaven and "hell" is closeness or distance to God (otherwise, the same place).

If you're asking about Second Temple Judaism (from which Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism split off), the most common view was that everyone who died went to Sheol (even Abraham and Moses) but that particularly nice people might be neighbors and even best buds with Abraham, and that on judgement day God will resurrect at least the righteous. As that link discusses, some pseudepigraphical literature (no longer accepted by mainstream Judaism) further suggested that some evil people God will resurrect on judgement day to send to Gehenna (an idea that survived in the Christian Bible but was not so popular in Judaism), and that there are some people so evil that God isn't going to bother bringing them back at all.

Some later Rabbinical and Kabbalistic literature mentions Gehenna, when ideas of Gilgul also start to be more openly articulated. Between modern and Second Temple Judaism, it depends on which rabbi you ask.

Overall, while there appears to be room for belief in damnation in Judaism, it's certainly not a key doctrine or even a coherent one. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Judaism doesn't really have a concept of damnation, or "Hell" in the way that many other religions/sects do. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An answer from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism in the 21st century. Our article on damnation defines it as "divine punishment and torment in an afterlife". Judaism doesn't really go for that kind of concept, although I've heard and read comments about it that I'd mostly put to hyperbole. There is an emphasis on eligibility for Olam Haba (a fairly low bar in Judaism's view, including for non-Jews) and "enlarging one's share" in Olam Haba, whatever that means. There is very little emphasis put on what the alternative to Olam Haba is, but see Gehinnom, which hasn't been linked to yet. There's an idea that this is a temporary place even for the most wicked, see this article for example.

To help you navigate through the morass of different opinions at different times, bear this in mind: to my knowledge, there's never been a strong tradition in Jewish philosophy of an emphasis on eternal + punishment in the afterlife. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan's Nobel Prize for Literature

Dylan's music is certainly the music of my generation. But I'm not familiar enough with all of it to fully appreciate how it represents Nobel-worthy literature. I'm sure it does. I'd like to study it a little bit. I don't normally ask questions to Wikipedia that are more about opinions than 'facts' - but here I'd like to know what people think are the essential Dylan songs with poetic lyrics that illustrate his art as literature. Of course, the award recognizes his entire canon, but if there is consensus on 6-10 songs, I'll then look them up, read the lyrics, listen to the songs with the lyrics, and I'll know him better. Anyone who offers a short list, with or without comment on 'why' this or that song - thanks for your kind contribution. Congrats Bob Dylan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.155.173 (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I'd go with Love Minus Zero/No Limit (lyrics), Desolation Row (lyrics), Like a Rolling Stone (lyrics) and "Jokerman" (lyrics) for starters. --Viennese Waltz 09:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also find journalists and critics on this very topic. For example: "Our Favorite Dylan Lyrics" (The New Yorker), "The most powerful and poignant lyrics from the Nobel Prize for Literature winner" (The Independent), "Are these the lyrics that won Bob Dylan a Nobel prize?" (The Guardian), ... ---Sluzzelin talk 09:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I forgot about Mr. Tambourine Man (lyrics). That would certainly be considered one of his best. --Viennese Waltz 09:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subterranean Homesick Blues is a good example of lyrics as poetry - the "video" even features Allen Ginsburg cameos. Rmhermen (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we restrict ourselves to Dylan's "classic" period (say up to the mid 1970s), though, his lyrics are all over the map. Some songs like those mentioned, as well as Tombstone Blues or Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues are very poetic in nature; others like Lay Lady Lay are fairly straightforward pop songs. There's a wide range to choose from. Here is one recent review of Dylan's best lyrics by The New Yorker, and Here is one by the BBC. --Jayron 32 13:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, here are now two recent reviews of Dylan's best lyrics by The New Yorker :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 13:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I was reviewing these myself, I note how many of these lists of his best lyrics show up on the album Highway 61 Revisited. There are a few earlier protest songs that a few people in those lists name. But the bulk of them, including "Like a Rolling Stone", "It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry", "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues", "Desolation Row", are ALL from Highway 61 Revisited. --Jayron 32 13:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't overlook Blood on the Tracks, by common consent Dylan's best album since the '60s. Pretty much every tune on that album has the kind of lyrics that would have made the Nobel committee sit up and take notice. --Viennese Waltz 13:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Atwood was interviewed on the BBC yesterday, and her view is that the Dylan prize is a protest against the turn to the right in the US Presidential Election. [5] If so, I'm not sure that the intended target is likely to take the hint. Alansplodge (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the most appropriate response. Tevildo (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the day of the Nobel announcement, our sister-site Wikiquote chose lyrics from The Times They Are a-Changin' for their main page:

Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown.
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’.

And that seems a reasonable enough choice. Matt Deres (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is well-said:

Advertising signs that con you
Into thinking you're the one
That can do what's never been done
That can win what's never been won
Meantime life outside goes on
All around you.

It is from the Bob Dylan song It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding). Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transit routes from West Berlin to West Germany

West Berlin#Road traffic explains the special transit routes used by West Germans driving between West Berlin and West Germany: "The transit routes were also used for East German domestic traffic. This meant that transit passengers could potentially meet with East Germans and East Berliners at restaurants at motorway rest stops. Since such meetings were deemed illegal by the East German government, border guards would calculate the travel duration from the time of entry and exit of the transit route. Excessive time spent for transit travel could arouse their suspicion and prompt questioning or additional checking by the border guards. Western coaches could stop only at dedicated service areas, since the East German government was concerned that East Germans might potentially use coaches to escape into the West."

Are there any documented cases of East Germans escaping (or attempting to escape) to the West via these transit routes, perhaps by stowing away in a car boot or coach? --Viennese Waltz 09:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A brief Google search hasn't brought anything up, but don't forget that vehicles would have to pass through Checkpoint Alpha to get into West Germany, or Checkpoint Bravo to pass into West Berlin, so hiding inside a vehicle would be liable to discovery. One woman hid inside a stuffed cow inside a lorry, but was discovered at Checkpoint Bravo (presumably heading west). [6] Another man hid his mother in the boot of his Austin-Healey open-top sports car, and having previously removed his windscreen, was able to drive under the barrier at Checkpoint Charlie. [7] However, neither of these escapes started in the road corridor, which you were asking about. Alansplodge (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth googling the name Kay-Uwe Mierendorff. Helping people escape via Transitstrecke was good business for him for a while. He also hired drivers as escape helpers. In one report I found, the driver was to pick up the fugitives at "Kilometerstein 144.2" between Lauenburg and Berlin (and stow them away in the sealed van). I found little in English, but here are two Spiegel articles from 1978 and 2015. I'm certain there are more and later examples, but I remember having read about Mierendorff (sometimes portrayed as heroic, sometimes as someone who merely exploited people desperate enough to pay him a lot of money for their escape). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

de:Hartmut Richter is also known for helping 33 people escape via the transit route. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, Ppp! Thanks to that link I finally found Kay Mierendorff (without "Uwe") in the category de:Kategorie:Fluchthelfer (Deutsche Teilung) (unfortunately no corresponding category here). Maybe there are more examples via transit route in that category. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Vandeana

How come La Vandeana is a song in Italian? 2A02:587:2901:9200:DCBC:3B83:525D:F9BB (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is used by a a far-right, anti-liberal group in Italy; the song commemorates an event in which anti-liberal groups in The Vendee rose up against the leftist Jacobins during the French Revolution. --Jayron 32 17:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a bit strange that Italians would choose an event in a foreign country to symbolise their political ideals. I can't immediately think of a similar example. Alansplodge (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge and Jayron32: Moreover, our article implies that the song existed in Italy long before its use by the group. 78.87.221.199 (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was a cause célèbre in the Italian states at the time, being fellow Catholics it would be understandable; all we need now is a reference.... Alansplodge (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for West Berlin

West Berlin notes that the Potsdam Agreement created the plan for dividing Berlin into sectors similar to the division of the country as a whole, but neither that article nor Potsdam Agreement specifies the rationale. Why was it deemed important to divide the capital into sectors, instead of merely leaving all of it in the Soviet sector of Germany as a whole, just like every other city in that part of the country? Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Potsdam Agreement created the legal framework, but the actual plan was set by the 1944 London Protocol. That article is a minimal stub, unfortunately. The German version of the article goes into much greater detail, but still doesn't explain why the Western Allies wanted a piece of Berlin that I can tell. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth thinking about "Four Powers" too, and why there were four. With four of them, Berlin, as we saw it develop, tends to emerge quite naturally. But why four? Why include France, but not Poland? Why not include other occupied countries? Why not even Italy (by 1944)? In particular, why did negotiations between the three major powers wielding military power cede some ground to France, but not Poland? Was this (sheer OR) because the Soviets wouldn't give an inch to Poland, but knew that France was outside their grasp? Otherwise there's little moral authority for treating those two so differently. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be asking for a logical explanation. Politics’s does not follow a logical path but is rather a battle between the strongest competing alphas. One only has to look across to the other side of the pond at to see this in action as the US election time draws near. --Aspro (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The division was similar for Vienna, but even more complicated, for there were five sectors in Vienna. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five sectors, but still the same four powers (they shared the centre). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think the issue over the the division of Germany into West and East as a semi-permanent state of being was never the initial goal of the Potsdam Conference, as noted both Germany and Berlin were each divided into four districts so that each of the major allied powers was granted a sector to manage until such time as a responsible German government could be established. As noted at Allied-occupied Germany in the section titled "Governance and the emergence of two German states "The original Allied plan to govern Germany as a single unit through the Allied Control Council broke down in 1946–1947 due to growing tensions between the Allies, with Britain and the US wishing cooperation, France obstructing any collaboration in order to unwind Germany into many independent states, and the Soviet Union unilaterally implementing from early on elements of its political-economic system". Basically, the "Two Germanies" situation was not the plan at either Yalta or Potsdam; but after a year or two of peace, it became clear that a unified Germany was not in the works. West Berlin was thus not a well thought out plan, but an accident of history born out by the refusal of the parties involved to stick to the original plans. There is no rationale because it was not planned to be (thus, there is no rational explanation for it except "it just sorta worked out that way".) --Jayron 32 23:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another (edit conflict): Zhukov by Otto Preston Chaney (p. 307) says that the 1944 London Protocol had agreed on Germany being divided into three zones, (US, British and Soviet) with a jointly administered Berlin as a fourth zone. At the Yalta Conference, it was agreed that France be given a fourth zone with Berlin as a fifth. There was Soviet suspicion that the Germans might open the way for the Western Allies to take Berlin before the Soviets arrived, or that a US airborne force might take the city in a surprise attack. At any rate, it seems that everybody thought that one power being in control of the capital would be a bad thing. Following the German surrender, there was an attempt at unified governance through the Allied Control Council, but the Soviets were reluctant participants and finally walked out in March 1948. Alansplodge (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding Poland, see Yalta_Conference#Poland_and_the_Eastern_Bloc and Operation Unthinkable. The mistreatment of Poland during the peace that ended WWII was one of the great disappointments of Churchill's career, and he basically acknowledged they got fucked. The best deal Poland got was the so-called Recovered Territories, mostly Germanic lands granted to Poland which acted as a sort of consolation prize for losing the lands of the Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union. --Jayron32 23:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Churchill put it a bit more eloquently, as you would imagine. He wrote in 1946: "The fate of Poland seems to be an unending tragedy, and we, who went to war, all ill-prepared, on her behalf, watch with sorrow the strange outcome of our endeavours." --69.159.61.230 (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

Hillary Clinton and the Merrick Garland supreme court nomination

Has Hillary Clinton expressed any plans or views as the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme court? Has she said whether, if she wins the Presidency, she intends to stick with the nomination? Surely some media interviewer would have asked her the question at some stage, given that the issue will inevitably end up in her presidency's lap (barring an unlikely Trump victory, or the almost equally unlikely event of congress actually acting on Obama's nomination of Garland)?

If she's been silent or noncommittal on the issue, have any analysts of note expressed any opinions as to whether she will once again nominate Garland, or will she nominate someone else? And if the answer is the latter, whom do they think are the most likely candidates? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The speculation in the press (I heard an NPR discussion to this effect) has been that Obama nominated him because he is somewhat moderate, and in this way he hoped to get a hearing. Hillary, on the other hand, could elect somebody more liberal, with the confidence that Republicans, even if they still have a majority, won't block a nominee for another 4 or perhaps 8 years. Republicans might see this coming if Hillary wins, and quickly approve Garland before Hillary gets in. However, if they don't do this and do refuse to consider any Hillary nominee, we could have a Constitutional crisis, where neither party will consider a nominee from the other party, so that no Supreme Court judges can be replaced until Congress and the President are of the same party. I suppose the Court could continue to function until it drops to 1 justice, but not with 0 (however, it seems to function better with an odd number of Justices, as then there can't be any ties). StuRat (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Title 28 of the United States Code, a quorum of 6 is required for the US Supreme Court to hear a case. -- ToE 17:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I wonder if Congress and the President would strike that down, in the event that they couldn't agree on replacements. Or you could have the bizarre situation where it is struck down by the Supreme court as unconstitutional, if it has the effect of dissolving the Court. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has the constitutionality of the quorum position ever been seriously tested? As a co-equal branch of government, I have had the impression that the Supreme Court took a dim view of the other branches telling them how to conduct their business. Dragons flight (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lee explains why the GOP will block Garland even if Clinton wins ^{WaPo, 13 Oct. 2016}

Clinton has carefully avoided committing to renominate Garland, and it seems likely that she would appoint someone who is younger and has a more progressive track record. Indeed, many activists on the left would go apoplectic if she stuck with the chief judge from the D.C. Circuit. There is a widespread feeling on the left that Obama squandered a big political opportunity by going with someone who he thought could get confirmed in the lame-duck session.

Not mentioned in that article is that the Republicans might be more inclined to approve Garland if the Democrats also win control of the Senate, as now seems somewhat more likely than not. Here is FiveThirtyEight's senate control forecast. -- ToE 20:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the nomination survive into the new presidency?

The bit of the Constitution where it talks about nominating Supreme Court justices says that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint" them. Is it obvious whether or not a nomination by one president can lead to an appointment by another? I don't think it's obvious. Assume that nothing happens until after the elections; is the new Senate required to vote on Garland's nomination before the new president can consider nominating someone else? If so, could they accept Garland at that time even if the new president would rather cancel the nomination? Is there any sort of case law on this point? (The same wording applies several other offices besides the Supreme Court; perhaps there has been a case regarding those other offices.) --69.159.61.230 (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See What happens to Merrick Garland’s nomination in December?.^{WaPo, 6 Oct. 2016} The nomination will expire when congress adjourns -- likely in December, but necessarily before noon on 3 January. President Obama could then renominate Judge Garland sometime before he leaves office on 20 January, and this nomination would survive into the next presidency, though the next president could withdraw the nomination. -- ToE 13:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that covers everything except the question of whether there's case law. --69.159.61.230 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect U.S. courts would regard the internal procedures of the Senate as a political question not reviewable by the courts. Congress's procedures for conducting its own business aren't laws. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v. United States ruled that the judicial branch has no power to review impeachments. (Note that case didn't involve Richard Nixon, but a completely different person who happened to have the same last name.) You are correct in observing that the Constitution is silent on the exact mechanics of a nomination, which is really why things are in the situation they are in. Technically there ain't no law that says the Senate must hear a Supreme Court nomination, so the Senate Republicans are pushing at the limits of precedent to placate their far-right base that thinks Obama is an evil dictator. This is the kind of thing that leads to constitutional crises. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald Forbes decorations

Can anyone identify the decorations worn by Archibald Forbes, the war correspondent, in this picture of him? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top row is allegedly Order of St. Stanislas from Russia; the Iron Cross 2nd Class for Non-Combatants; the civil class of the Pour Le Mérite; and the French Legion of Honor. [8] --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And others have walked this way before: Archibald Forbes: Medal ID Exercise and this article. With some judgement, that might account for 12 or so of them. It would be interesting to complete the matrix on this page ... and I note that the forum age seems to disagree with the cigarette card page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thank you, will have a close read of those and see if I can sort them out. DuncanHill (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of this kind of fallacy?

What is the name of the fallacy type that works like this:
Thing A has characteristic B
PS: More than one stuff stuff can share same word/name, and so some words can have multiple meanings. B is one example of that and the definition used for B was C.
Thing D apply to everything that has characteristic B.
PS:Now, the definition of B on this new case is E.
So D must apply to A.
201.18.142.36 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equivocation is the technical term. The example from our article is:

A feather is light.

What is light cannot be dark.

Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

Tevildo (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Your question is a bit hard to parse for me. The general scheme

B(a)\wedge \forall X:(B(X)\Rightarrow D(X))\vdash D(a)

is sound - indeed, the classical example for this syllogism is "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal". Do you want to suggest that the "B" is different in both cases? As in "All stars are giant balls of hydrogen. Patrick Steward is a star. Therefore Patrick Steward is a giant ball of hydrogen"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tevildo , Equivocation is the one. Yes your patrick exemple would be one example of what I was thinking.201.18.142.36 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if we miss out the B term and go straight from C to E, we get the quaternio terminorum fallacy - to adapt an example from above:

Hitler was a National Socialist.

Socialists are left-wing.

Hitler was left-wing.

The conclusion may (or may not) be true, but the logic is invalid. Tevildo (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That particular case would also be caused by an underlying etymological fallacy which leads to the equivocation which leads to the quaternio terminorum. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one I remember was "Nothing is better than everlasting love. A ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than everlasting love". 50.0.205.96 (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joint dormitories for men and women in army

Not long ago I heard that a certain army, possibly the Belgian Armed Forces, once faced issues of sexual harassment of female soldiers and decided to resolve them by increasing the social interaction between males and females, particularly by creating joint dormitories, and that it worked. I'd like to check this claim and see how specifically it was implemented but I couldn't find any reference in Google. Has anyone here ever heard of it? Thanks, 84.108.121.108 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're thinking of the Belgian Armed Forces? I don't know if the Belgian Armed Forces have mixed/unisex dormitories but the Norwegian Armed Forces or at least the Norwegian Army seem well known for it including the finding it appeared to reduce sexual assaults & harassment, and also increase unit cohesiveness. [9] [10] [11] [12]. [13] is an English report of the study. See also [14] [15] [16] [17]. BTW the first four links were found with a search for 'armed forces reducing sexual harassment dormitory' after 'Belgian armed forces reducing sexual harassment dormitory' didn't find anything useful under the assumption that the country involved is something easy to misremember & perhaps the most likely thing of the details that you mentioned. In retrospect 'belgian armed forces unisex dormitory' or 'belgian armed forces mixed dormitory' both work. In fact even '"belgian" armed forces unisex dormitory' and '"belgian" armed forces mixed dormitory' find stuff about Norway. Nil Einne (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW 'belgian armed forces joint dormitory' and '"belgian" armed forces joint dormitory' don't work, although 'norwegian armed forces joint dormitory' does. If you try searching for 'joint dormitory' or '"joint dormitory"', you'll find it's not a very common term in English for what you're referring to. Also I probably should link to [18] and [19]. Nil Einne (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Mary Parades

http://specphotos.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Festival-of-the-Virgin-Mary3031.jpg

How do people call the parade platform and statute of Virgin Mary? -- Toytoy (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "statute" is just a statue. The platform could be called a type of litter, though "litter" normally means it carries a person rather than a statue. An Italian word is it:fercolo, which is specifically a platform for a saint's statue in a procession, but may be carried by people, animal, cart, or motor vehicle. More ornate ones are called it:cereo. jnestorius^(talk) 01:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Wiktionary:litter, definition number 1: "A platform mounted on two shafts, or a more elaborate construction, designed to be carried by two (or more) people to transport one (in luxury models sometimes more) third person(s) or (occasionally in the elaborate version) a cargo, such as a religious idol." Catholics would be offended by "idol" and may prefer "image" or "icon" although the latter is usually applied to paintings in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Our Aniconism in Christianity article has more details. Alansplodge (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia coverage of this type of event is a bit slim, we have Marian devotions#Processions, which only mentions one example in Los Angeles. Alansplodge (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian procession has more; it's any saint, not just Mary. commons:Category:Processions has subcats commons:Category:Processional carriages commons:Category:Processional litters and commons:Category:Processional canopies though all, especially litters, are underpopulated.
Here's a user on WordReference.com giving terms used in Spain.

jnestorius^(talk) 12:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have added "see also|Procession#Christian processions" to the Marian devotions article. Alansplodge (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

Popish Plot

Line 4: Church in England read: Church of England — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.242.152 (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The church Henry VIII took over was the (Roman Catholic) Church in England. By doing so he turned it into the (non- RC) Church of England. Before the reformation it was accepted that there was a single church in communion with Rome, and that more local structures were that single church IN a particular country. Wymspen (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the article is Popish Plot. I concur with User:Wymspen - perhaps there is scope for an article Pre-Reformation Church in England, but that will have to wait for a rainy day (well, even rainier than today!). PS: I've already found a source: The Pre-Reformation Church in England 1400-1530 by Christopher Harper-Bill (1989). Alansplodge (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea.

I have a question. Why has North Korea been deemed such a threat/problem for regional stability in East Asia? --Poing-PoBongino (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please start by reading North Korea–South Korea relations and Japan–North Korea relations. Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two Koreas are still technically at war, as a peace treaty has never been signed, only an armistice that halted the fighting. Beyond that, see Korean conflict. North Korea has one of the world's largest militaries, regularly threatens to restart the fighting and engages in various provocations, is trying to build nuclear weapons and delivery systems for them, and since the end of the Cold War and thus food aid from the Soviet Union and other friendly countries has been unable to adequately feed its population. Many commentators consider North Korea a near-failed state; when Kim Jong-un succeeded to the leadership there was some speculation about a collapse of the government or civil war, as some felt Jong-un would be inexperienced and unable to maintain effective control over the military, but it turns out he may actually be more ruthless than his father in eliminating perceived disloyalty. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens is also interesting. Although it happened decades ago, they still deny most of the kidnappings ever occurred. The axe murder incident is another reason they are considered a rogue nation. But, to take the big picture, their continued threats against South Korea and Japan may ultimately make each nation feel they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves from NK nukes, causing a new round of nuclear proliferation. StuRat (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: because it's Kim-possible to predict what they'll do next or what boundary they'll cross. They're ~~like~~ the Donald Trump of nations. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Their current god-emperor is the third of a dynasty of sociopathic nutcases. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

October 17

Malcolm Lowry eating Harriet Lane

WHile researching James Johnston Abraham, the author of a book I've just acquired, I ran across the following quotation from the Malcolm Lowry novel Ultramarine "Now I was telling you about this hungry ship. We were carrying a cargo of Crosse and bloody Blackwell's plum puddings and tinned chickens and all sorts out East for the Christmas season. Ruddy murder it was to think of all that food under the hatches and us poor twats forward eating Harriet Lane all the time. What did he mean by "eating Harriet Lane"? DuncanHill (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This post from the Gutted Arcades of the Past blog explains it:

"Harriet Lane" refers to sailors calling canned meat by that name after a famous murder in 1874. Henry Wainwright was a brushmaker who murdered his mistress Harriet Lane in September 1874 and buried her body in a warehouse he owned. When he was declared bankrupt the next year, he disinterred the body in September 1875 and attempted to rebury it with his brother Thomas and another brushmaker, Alfred Stokes. Stokes was suspicious of the contents of the parcels he had been given to carry, and opened one, revealing human body parts, which he immediately reported to police. The crime was given more publicity at the time than those of Jack the Ripper. Henry Wainwright was sentenced to death and hanged on 21 December 1875.

Might be worth mentioning the Harriet Lane-canned meat connection at the Henry Wainwright article. There is a shanty about Harriet Lane at www.shanty.org.uk/pdfbox/andy_mckay/HarrietLane.pdf and an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang here --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid work, many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebury it where? Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Navy slang often repurposed the names of famous murder victims to describe unpalatable food - Fanny Adams is the most famous example, but there's also the generic Jane Shore (rhyming slang for "whore"). Smurrayinchester 12:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me, based on the initials, that perhaps the language is also suggestive of Hellish Leftovers. Bus stop (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dark magic in kabalah

Can any dark magic be found in kabalah?AndrewAngel1024 (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend entirely on your definitions of dark magic and Kabbalah, as well as which authors you consult. Concerning just the latter two issues, do you mean just Jewish Kabbalah, or are you including Hermetic Qabalah? If you're including Hermetic Qabalah, are you restricting yourself to just its adherents who also identified as members of Abrahamic religions, or are you including Theosophists, Neopagans, Thelemites, and Chaos Magicians?

Someone like Isaac Luria might deny that real Kabbalah has practical magic (and that any practical magic is not truly Kabbalistic). Someone like Samael Aun Weor or Helena Blavatsky might say that true Kabbalah can only lead to some kind of white magic that brings enlightenment and maybe some sort of parapsychological benefits but not any sort of practical rituals. Someone like Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, Aleister Crowley, or Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers might say it depends on how you use it or that it's unrelated but still necessary for understanding practical ritual magic. Someone like Malaclypse the Younger might instruct you to find the answer by dancing like a turkey. Someone like Thomas Karlsson, Andrew D. Chumbley, or Michael Howard might say that if you're not using Kabbalah for black magic, you're not doing it right. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why's Australia much less conservative than America?

Australia: "No American republican would stand a chance in any other developed country except maybe a moderate republican in maybe Australia. Maybe. But I doubt it." - (Ashley John Land)

US: 43% of Americans tell pollsters they'll vote for Trump. He's winning most non-coastal states. [20]. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Conservatism in Australia. In Australia, the conservative movement has historically been dominated by liberals (in the European small-government, free-market sense) which meant that there was less room for social conservatism. That's changed a bit recently, as Australian politics has adopted more European/American ideas - the left has shifted to a pro-market Third Way position, which has meant that the liberals had to take a more conservative standpoint to differentiate themselves - and, as it came to rely on fossil fuel and mineral exports, under John Howard the government took a very US-Republican attitude to environmental issues. Smurrayinchester 3:55 pm, Today (UTC+8)

Not sure about your reference to Europe: the Conservative Party (UK) has been pretty small-l liberal in recent years, in terms of concrete policy positions in many ways it's significant further left compared to the Liberal Party in Australia. I'm not sure there is any major Western European country where the conservative party is as far on the spectrum as the US Republican Party. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I more was talking about the Australian left picking up Clinton/Blair-style social democracy, which then necessitated a corresponding shift from the Liberals. Nevertheless, most European countries have a socially-conservative, anti-liberalism Christian Democrat-type movement which fuses moral conservatism with social democracy (including the British Conservatives pre-Thatcher - see One-nation conservatism - and even when Thatcher came along, she didn't really change the back-to-basics morality). The British Tories remained old-fashioned (and increasingly out of touch) on social issues through the leadership of Hague and IDS, started to modernize under Michael Howard, but only really became liberal on social issues under Cameron post-2005, which is after John Howard lost power in Australia. There's never been an a major analogous movement in Australia - see Christian democracy#Australia - but under John Howard the Liberal/National alliance did start to become Thatcherite (as our article notes, John Howard is the first Australian PM to call himself "conservative" instead of "liberal"). Of course European and American conservatives aren't the same, but that there is a common thread of social conservatism that was less significant in traditional (pre-90s) Australian conservatism. Smurrayinchester 10:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, it may be more pertinent might be to ask why America is so much more conservative (or at least, why American conservatives are further right) than other European and Commonwealth countries, which America's political system is otherwise quite similar to. As Conservatism in the United States says, US politics actually followed a similar trajectory to Australia, but social conservatives did a better job of taking control of the formerly classical-liberal party. Maybe it helped that the US has a stricter separation of powers than Australia, and between 1980 and 2000, the two main branches of government were almost always opposed (Democratic House of Representatives until 1994, then a Republican House but Republican Presidents until 1992, then a Dem President), which created the governmental deadlocks that allowed culture war to thrive. In Australia, the PM always controls the House, so political polarization matters less.) Smurrayinchester 10:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Banned user's contribution deleted]

A conservative paper supporting Brexit suggests the Tories have moved further to the right? How does that compute? Does the fact that the Lib Dems were the strongest Remain supporters suggest they are now further left than Labour? By all accounts there were more Brexit supporters amongst Tory voters than amongst Labour voters, and given that a majority of the country ended up voting for Leave, it should not have been surprising that the Telegraph endorsed "Leave". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For about the 25,926th time, a majority of the country did not vote for Leave. 37% of the electorate voted for Leave, 35% voted for Remain, and 28% did not vote at all. Those figures should be engraved on every Brit's heart. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An optional voting system gives you the option to abstain, and those who abstain, like the insane except voluntarily, don't count as part of the body politic for the purpose of counting this vote. 52% of the body politic voted for Leave. This is the same in every British election or referendum, it seems to me that your beef should be with the optional voting system rather than anything to do with this particular referendum, so I'm not sure why 35% is any more worthy of engraving on body parts than 48%. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One must also factor in that the "Bible Belt" phenomenon is uniquely American. No other country has a significant population of gun-toting bible bashers. The types of hot button political issues for this sector of American society such as gun rights, opposition to abortion, creationism, etc. barely feature in the political agendas of any other western democracies. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point, although it's interesting that until the 70s, this community wasn't all that influential in the political mainstream (they were just another brick in the New Deal Coalition). But when the Democrats went desegregation, the Republicans swept in with the Southern strategy to pick up the alienated white working-class Southerners, and Moral Majority picked up from there. Smurrayinchester 11:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that it wasn't until the US started to experience its now-regular mass shootings that the gun lobby became so powerful. After people began to argue for much more stringent gun control in order to limit the possibility of more shootings, the gun lobby argued that defence of life and limb in the face of the shootings was exactly why ever more guns were needed. While ever one side sees the ready availability of guns as the cause of the problem and the other side sees it as the solution, there will be no resolution. After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, Australians by-and-large willingly agreed to surrender their guns for destruction. Twenty years on, there has been no repeat of such an event here. Otoh, Category:Mass shootings in the United States by year tells a radically different story. Just 2016 alone in the USA has had more mass shootings than Australia has had in its entire history. Whether this difference in approach/outcome can be characterised by different levels of conservatism in our respective countries is an open question, but it must play some role. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what role geography plays. Those on the coasts (primarily the US East and West coasts, not as much the Gulf coast) had constant exposure to new immigrants, and their ideas, so the more recent liberal ideas may have made more inroads there than far from the coasts, as in Iowa, which kept to the old ways. Comparing with Australia, isn't it true that the Outback has a low population, and thus little influence on the politics of the nation ? The US interior, on the other hand, has a larger population, and even more political power than their numbers would indicate, because every state gets 2 Senators, regardless of population. And Australia, being an island, has coasts on all sides. StuRat (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that all US immigrants come from the sea via the coasts and none of the come from the Canadian or Mexican land borders? Wasn't this question partially relating to Trump? Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All, no. Most, yes. And the more liberal immigrants tend to come from Europe, not so much from South of the US (Hispanics tend to vote Democratic not because they are liberal, but because Republicans like Trump make them feel most unwelcome in that party). Canada does tend to be more liberal than the US, but the immigration from Canada is fairly small, and it might tend to favor conservatives, as liberal Canadians should be happy to stay put. StuRat (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About Hispanics not being liberal. I didn't see evidence of conservative values in the people I went to school with (mostly Hispanic). In church sure, one likely wouldn't go to Catholic Mass every Sunday if one was liberal right? Is there a regional difference in this? There's probably also a generational difference. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing my point. You've implied that Australian being all coastal somehow makes immigration easier or more likely which flies in the face of many immigrants come from the land borders, especially in recent times, in the US. (In modern times many immigrants who aren't coming by land don't come by sea, they come by plane.) Further, you've muddied your point even more by now bringing up politics. How many European immigrants are going to be coming by boat to the West Coast of the US? Speaking of Australia although coastal a lot of it is actually not very close to any land where immigrants are likely to come from. While I'm not an expert on the sea currents and ocean voyages, I'm pretty sure I'd be easier for immigrants to make it to the northern part of Western Australia or the Northern Territory or Northern Queesland or in some cases even Perth, then it would be to make it to Melbourne or in some cases even Sydney. However the later 2 are where they tend to go. Of course the White Australia policy was only completely dismantled by 1973, by which time it's likely most were arriving by plane rather than sea. In a place like Australia with limited transport over land, travelling to Melbourne or Sydney by boat is generally easier than over land, but still talking about "Australia being all coastal" but the US isn't "all coastal" but instead has land borders is clearly excessively simplistics. The differences between population distributions could be a factor but there are many reasons for this and putting it down to Australia being all coastal is again too simplistic. Nil Einne (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asiatic Barred Zone.png

The Asiatic Barred Zone of 1917-1952

The US had a similar policy from the early 1920s to 1965. A series of laws were passed with names like the Emergency Quota Act. They set low annual immigrant quotas which were very low for non-white countries. A correlation with settling in or near port cities and Mexico continued even after the disappearance of oceanliners. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are conservative values that go along with being Catholic, like opposition to Roe v. Wade. StuRat (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even my mother's very devout 70 year old Polish Catholic friend didn't say did you vote, she said did you vote for Kerry like it was a no brainer. She was the kind of person who thought morals had gone so bad that Revelation might happen within decades and hopes God will make the world like the old days before electricity. She told us if she had Bill Gates' wealth she'd use nearly all of it to build a cathedral 2 or 3 times as tall as the Twin Towers (so 1/2 to one mile tall and long basically) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for your first point, sure and that re-enforces the view that making a big deal over the coastline is confusing. As for the second point, yes there are reasons why this can occur but it's complicated, e.g. Dallas isn't a coastal city [21]. (This is even clearer if you look at other countries. E.g. London isn't coastal.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was in a bit of a rush when writing the above so I should clarify I was of course primarily thinking about immigrants from Asia, although I expect immigrants from Europe are likely to find the listed places easier to get to too if going by sea. Immigrants from North America may not find Sydney too bad although I expect North Queensland is still better. NZ is one of the few places from which immigrants by sea may find the coasts of Melbourne or Sydney a good target, but even if the entirety of NZ's population migrates to Australia it would only increase the Australian population by 20%. A big amount for sure, but this does indicate there are ultimate limits to migration from NZ. Also I should mention that despite the increaing migration from Asia and the weird view of those opposed to migration, the UK and NZ are still the biggest source for the resident population born overseas (Immigration to Australia#Country of birth of Australian residents). Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(StuRat beat me to it) The states on the Mexican border are indeed turning Democratic. California hasn't gone Republican in a presidential election since the Cold War, New Mexico hasn't gone Republican since 2004, Arizona could go Democratic for the first time in a while this year and Texas probably has too many conservatives for newcomners to dilute them quickly enough for the Democrat to win by 2016. 27.5 million people live in Texas and only 18% of white Texans voted Obama last time. They'll be a swing state by an Olympiad or three.

Most of the states bordering Canada are liberal but many would still be liberal without Canadians and most are coastal anyway (many immigrants got off the boat on the western tip of the Great Lakes). Canadian immigration is not a big factor. Only 2% of foreign born residents are Canadian and only 1% of Americans claim Canadian descent or birth. The interior states bordering Canada are cold like the other side, have pretty Rockies like the other side, are less rich than Alberta, have oil like Alberta, have prairies and farms like Saskatchewan, have rural life like the other side, have rivers and lakes like Manitoba, play similar sports .. there's not much the interior border states have that Canada doesn't besides.. Republican-strength conservatives. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian emigres include the good, the bad and the ugly. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

(edit conflict) Another element is the migration of British industrial workers to Australia, who brought their values with them. "Trade unionism began to take root in this country [Australia] in the 1850’s following the abolition of convict transportation. Tradesmen and mechanics coming from Britain established craft unions in the building and engineering trades.... From 1860 to 1890 the young unions displayed great militancy and won many concessions from the employers. Seamen, waterside workers and other sections formed unions. Up to 1890 conditions favoured the unions; capitalism was expanding and it was cheaper for employers to grant concessions rather than face lengthy stoppages". This quote is admittedly from the Marxist Internet Archive but seems to hit the nail on the head. Mass British working-class migration continued into the 1970s, see Ten Pound Poms. Alansplodge (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Menzies Dickson

I am trying to corroborate Menzies Dickson obituary which said he served in the navy during the American Civil War but after searching the list of enlistment of men from Massachusetts who served in the Union Navy I can't find his name. He also lived in Cincinnati but I don't think he was there until after the war. Can someone help to find more sources speaking about this individual? Also a possible obituary for him in Massachusetts or New England newspapers?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google says he was an acting Master's mate [22]. Nanonic (talk) 2:47 pm, Today (UTC+8)

October 18

Why there is no article about Antisemitism or racism in Iran?

I wonder why there is no separate article about Antisemitism in Iran. Antisemitism in Iran is actually a redirect to Antisemitism#Iran. And Racism in Iran is again a redirect to Racism_in_Asia#Iran. Is there something wrong here? 46.225.10.109 (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are not long enough for separate articles, so it's more appropriate to include them in something of more suitable length. IBE (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the weapon

What is this weapon held by two figures flanking the woman? Looks like some sort of club, rather than bladed. A vajra? --Brandmeister^talk 08:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The story - Tilottama - just says clubs. Wymspen (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. A. B. van Buitenen uses "horrible clubs" in his translation of the Mahabharata. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parable or story referring to a red harness on a white horse, or something similar?

I'm trying to think of a saying or parable or quote I read years ago, to the effect of "(something) is as unfitting to (someone) as ..." and the closest I can remember it is, something like "...like a red bridle on a white horse" or something like that.

I think it could be a well known quote. Any hints? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is "Poverty befits Israel like a red trapping a white horse" in this translation of the Hagigah (and other translations do use "bridle")---Sluzzelin talk 10:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a school assignment, writing about this here fictional Norwegian immigrating to USA. For obvious reasons, it is only natural that I place the story in Minnesota or surrounding states (Wisconsin, the Dakotas or Iowa), as that is mainly where Norwegian immigrants settled.

There was a lot of poverty in Norway back in the late 1800s / early 1900s, and agriculture was always hard in such a Northern climate, with lots of mountainous regions, not to mention the lack of agricultural technology that we have today. With Norway being a winter-nation, the search for arable lands was one of the main things that lured Norwegians across the Atlantic.

So I wonder about Minnesota and nearby states around year 1900. It seems to me that the climate in Minnesota ain't that different from Norwegian climate, with proper winters and all, which begs the question; how was agriculture in the Upper Midwest back then?? Were the lands truly arable? What work-opportunities did people have to sustain themselves? I reckon the worst of the Gold Rush was over by then, right. I'm not asking for answers for free, because I will need to find sources to confirm my findings anyhow.

I'm looking for articles that might be helpful to me. If you have information/knowledge to add beyond that, then that's a bonus, and might be helpful

Thanks Krikkert7 (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]