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 26

Pantheism and Suicide.

Does this title cover it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasapathy (talk • contribs) 02:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cover what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are part of God, we should know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Alan Vega, vocalist of the duo Suicide (band) is a pantheist, but their self titled debut album Suicide (1977 album) comprises original songs and no covers of songs, plus he died of natural causes at age 78, not suicide. His 68 year old partner Martin Rev is still active. -- ToE 09:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

funny cat

I was looking on Google at some images. They consist of a squinting cat with its paw over its mouth as if the cat was giggling. The caption read "DO YOU WANT TO KNOW SOMETHING FUNNY?" Underneath the images, Grumpy Cat gave her reply "NOPE". Where can I find images of only the funny cat?2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here. (Take your pic(k)). First one was first hit for "smiling cat". Second one was second hit for "giggling cat". Incidentally there's nothing funny there from the cat's point of view. This is what one of my cats does when there's something stuck between his teeth. Basemetal 18:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the cat I was referring to. Thank you so much.2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the concert harp an instrument blind people can master?

I've tried the Entertainment Desk with no result.

I've been wondering what instruments could be played without any need to look at one's hands. If a blind person has ever mastered the instrument, then it is obvious that instrument can be played without looking at one's hands. One instrument that seems particularly difficult to play without looking at your hands is the large concert pedal harp of about six and a half octaves. The large harp even has strings colored in various colors (usually three colors) which seems to show that visual cues cannot be dispensed with even for virtuoso professional harp players. Obviously there are blind players of small, traditional kinds of harps, but I am not aware of any blind player of the concert harp. Have you ever heard of a blind player having mastered the large concert pedal harp? Basemetal 12:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Parry (harpist) appears to have played a full-sized harp with no trouble. Harps have no more strings than a piano has keys and pedals, and there are numerous examples of blind pianists. There are also numerous examples of blind organ players, and the full concert organ has far more moving parts than a harp. It should also be noted that I have never heard of an instrument that a blind person could NOT learn to play; notably people like Stevie Wonder is a multi-instrumentalist that has played a wide variety of instruments, from drums to keyboards to strings. --Jayron 32 12:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you're right, especially since I do believe instruments should be played (even by sighted people) using only ear, touch and proprioception (which has practical as well as musical benefits) and that the way blind people approach an instrument is in all cases the right way. At least this is how I play my instruments: currently sax and guitar, in the past cello. For these I can vouch for the fact sight is entirely unnecessary even though you often see cellists looking at their bow or, more ridiculous even, even proficient sighted classical guitarists with eyes popping out of their heads checking their left hand. Now John Parry's example by itself is not entirely conclusive. His harp seems large enough alright (though not quite as large as the modern concert harp) but it's not only a matter of how many strings there are but how demanding the repertoire is. It is difficult to compare an 18th c. traditional musician and the requirements and repertoire of the modern harp. So, while I would guess that you are probably basically right, still I would very much like an actual example of a modern blind concert harp player to entirely reassure me and prove that beyond all doubt. Basemetal 13:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is one enough of an example for you? --Jayron 32 15:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes one is enough. Madeline Link started on the Celtic harp in 2007 (all the pictures show only Celtic harps) but the page does say she took up the classical pedal harp in 2013, so she does seem to be a real example of a blind pedal harp player. Here she is again, a few years later than in your link. Still no picture of a pedal harp but again a mention that she does play that instrument too. What search string did you use? Basemetal 17:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I used "Blind concert harp" or "blind concert harpist". --Jayron 32 17:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there would be lots of opportunity for invention here. For example, a small tube with compressed air behind the harp could have holes punched in it that direct tight jets in front of particular strings to provide some tactile landmarks, or a camera might read the position of the user's finger and provide an audio feedback via an earpiece. Since even the sighted players have given themselves accommodations with those color codes, it only makes sense that the blind would do the same. Wnt (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or they could just play the harp, because the last thing people with disabilities need is the able-bodied to patronizingly treat them as being incapable of doing things they're quite able to do without any trouble at all. --Jayron 32 23:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it patronizing to offer ways to compensate for the absence of some ability? I had to get glasses. Was I being patronized? There's useless gimmicks offered to sighted players too, like colored stickers meant to help you know where you are on the fretboard. Useless even for the guitar, but on the cello they would in addition be a way to hurt your neck. But take this device. It did not become a commercial success but it was meant to solve a genuine problem for harpists, sighted or not, namely knowing the positions of your pedals. Otherwise you may be looking forward to that F string sounding an F♮ and actually getting an F♯. That can come as a nasty surprise mid-concerto. Unfortunately you needed eyesight to take advantage of it. Would it have been patronizing of anyone to come up with an equivalent device that nonsighted or very poorly sighted players could use? Basemetal 15:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prosecution of Governor's Spouse

Has the spouse of a United States governor (first lady or first gentleman) ever been indicted or prosecuted for a crime while the governor was in office? I can think of some close calls (Cylvia Hayes, Maureen McDonnell) but none that actually happened. Thanks, --M @r ē ino 13:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant posting by banned user removed – Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does that relate to Mareino's question about US state governors? Rojomoke (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did find another close call. Bill Collins, the husband of Kentucky Governor Martha Layne Collins, was convicted but only after she had left office. He was charged and convicted in 1993, some 6 years after she had served as governor, however the activities he was charged with occured during her term in office. --Jayron 32 17:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

party-list proportional representation voting system how

Is there a website that shows you how many votes does a party need to get in order to reach the threshold like for example in Israel, to get a seat it is 3.25%? Donmust90 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which method a country uses to allocate its representation. Wikipedia has articles on the D'Hondt method while others use the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method. Both of those articles list countries using those methods, and the minimum thresholds they set. --Jayron 32 17:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, forget all of that. Wikipedia has an article titled Election threshold which seems to have everything you want in nice tables. --Jayron 32 17:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earning Money for Dead People

Is earning money for dead people 'logically' and 'religiously' sensical? E.g., I would like to earn/tuck away money for my Late. Mother and Brother... 103.230.105.19 (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what they tell you at the Western Union office, I say don't pay them to wire any money unless they get you a live video connection first. Wnt (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, in a few religions (ancient Egyptian religion or traditional Chinese religion with joss paper money and possessions, e.g. "hell money") it is nominally considered possible to transfer possessions to the dead, often with a substantial discount. I don't know how serious they were/are about it though. In religions that believe in the Atman, a person can donate to the poor to give to departed loved ones, since all people are expressions of the same underlying essence. Wnt (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant posting by banned user removed – Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read Johann Tetzel and it doesn't really seem like the same idea, but I suppose it's another answer for the question. Wnt (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead people do often have trusts, there to either distribute money to the heirs, or, in the case of a more substantial trust, to give scholarships, support charities, etc., in perpetuity. In the later case, they do need to make money to replace what is distributed, as well as administrative costs, by making investments. So, it makes sense in that case. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you're asking. What do you mean that you want to earn money for your late mother and brother? Obviously they cannot benefit from the money you earn for them. So, in what way is that money for them? Basemetal 19:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Money saved up for a tombstone, monument, etc., might also be said to be "for the dead", although others would argue they are really for the living. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it might but here might doesn't cut it. To answer the question (or to attempt to in any case) it is necessary to know what it is for. The OP has to provide more specifics if they want the RD to be able to answer their question in anything but the vaguest terms. And also, to determine if it makes sense in religious terms, one must know what religion the OP has in mind. The IP is from somewhere in Bangladesh but that does not necessarily mean they are interested in a Muslim answer. In any case, that's another important piece of information that's missing. Basemetal 20:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An Englishman, a Welshman and a Scotsman attended the burial of a loved one. To show his appreciation of the deceased, the Englishman laid a pound note on the coffin. Not to be outdone, the Welshman pointedly lay a Five pound note on top. The Scotsman sniffed "I was the one who loved him most" and laid a cheque for £100 on top of the pile. AllBestFaith (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what did the Irishman do? Maybe this is where we go back to Wnt's Western Union warning. Basemetal 20:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drank a bottle of whiskey in his honor, then shared it with the deceased by pissing on the grave ? :-) StuRat (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The cheque clears a few days later. The Irishman is the undertaker. AllBestFaith (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This humor started out good, but this just seems nasty. If random put-downs of the Irish weren't already out of style, they've been pretty much unthinkable ever since the Orangemen started parading down to the post offices to pick up their EU passports. Wnt (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would also benefit the living person to have some of their wealth transferred to a trust or charity of a deceased person.Instead of using their own money to build buildings etc. and having to pay tax,it could be used as a donation to the trust,which as a charitable foundation wouldn't have to. Lemon martini (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may find our article on Testamentary trusts to be of relevance, but such trusts, whilst arising upon the death of the deceased, are still designed to benefit the living. I agree with others above, to give a proper answer, we need more info from the OP. What does the OP expect the dead person to do with the money?

Also perhaps relevant is that some people can seemingly continue to earn money (sometimes lots of it) even after their death. See the article at [1] for the latest list of the highest paid dead celebrities. Apparently, Elvis Presley continued to earn $27 million in 2015, despite being dead for 39 years. But of course, the deceased themselves do not get the money - it goes to the heirs, or whoever the heirs have sold the rights to the celebrity's work to. I suppose the celebrity, whilst alive, could order that their intellectual property (and other property, if it has significant value) be put into a testamentary trust when they die, with instructions as to the trust deed, i.e. how the income should be spent. John Baker, you're the lawyer here - Can you see any reason why this couldn't be done? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, is that John Baker (legal historian)? _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you're not kidding, I mean User:John_M_Baker, who's a qualified lawyer, and often contributes pro bono to this desk on legal questions. Although it might be interesting for the John Baker on this desk to explore his ancestry and see if he's related to his legal historian namesake. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not related to Professor John Baker, but I do know him, or used to. I took a class from him in English Legal History when he was a visiting professor at Harvard Law School in the early 1980s. We got mail and phone calls for each other.

In the United States and other common law countries, a dead person cannot own property. Instead the decedent's property is held by the executor or administrator of their estate, for the benefit of their heirs or beneficiaries. (Sometimes the estate is held open for an extended period of time, typically in order to realize on the decedent's intellectual property.) Thus, it is impossible to give money directly to a decedent. However, you can spend money to memorialize a decedent or to pay for prayers for them.

As 110.140.69.137 suggests, you can of course specify in your will what is to be done with your property, including intellectual property, and putting it in a testamentary trust is one option. John M Baker (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stream of consciousness

hi,can you please help me understand the writing style-Stream of consciousness?I read the wikipedia article,but i'm in need of a clearer answer.Azmain apro (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that people don't think in a particularly logical order, like chronologically. Instead, they start thinking of one thing, which reminds them of something else that sounds similar, which reminds them of an old friend, which reminds them of their childhood, which reminds them of amusement parks, which reminds them of something else, etc. So, a book written in that style is extremely fragmented and hard to follow, but you may eventually get some insight into the mind of the author or fictional character, similar to the psychological test where the "shrink" says one word and you say the first word that pops into your mind. Unfortunately I had a history book written this way (which I was only subjected to because my prof had written it and required it), and this method is terrible at conveying factual info. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this article? What is it you don't understand? Basemetal 19:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) See the article Stream of consciousness (narrative mode). I recommend reading James Joyce's Ulysses (1922) and Virginia Woolf's Mrs Dalloway (1925) as examples. AllBestFaith (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kigeli V of Rwanda

So, what about the heir to his claim? Who is the current pretender now? Our article remains silent.--78.87.221.199 (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The king had no children. There was no previously named heir - in line with the traditions of royalty in that part of Africa. The wider family will now have to make a decision as to which member of the family will be considered the titular king - and their choice has not yet been announced. Wymspen (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reference for that? We could put it in the article. Alansplodge (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC says heir will be announced later, quoting King Kigeli's official website. 184.147.116.156 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post - Kigeli did not marry, in deference to a rule that kings take no wives in exile. Pennington declined to provide a complete list of survivors, citing “security reasons.” An heir has been selected and is expected to be announced in the next week, he said. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/kigeli-v-ndahindurwa-rwandan-king-without-a-crown-dies-at-80/2016/10/18/c02e6a22-948a-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html Wymspen (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Saenz

Has his trial not commenced yet?--78.87.221.199 (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what crime exactly? He's a prolific criminal. More about him: [2]. Llaanngg (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan

All tabloids and gossip columns say that he has silently decined the Nobel and that he hasn′t even contacted the Academy. Isn′t the Academy′s spokesperson a reliable source?--78.87.221.199 (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to acknowledge an award is not the same as declining it. I've seen him roundly criticised for not uttering a single word of thanks, but nothing to say he's "silently declined" the word. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But he did not simply fail to ″utter a word of thanks″. He failed to go and receive the prize, or even send a proxy.--78.87.221.199 (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been a bit difficult for him to go and receive the prize, as the ceremony isn't till the 10th of December. Fgf10 (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, I guess I didn′t know that... still, our article could include a reference to the Academy′s reaction.--78.87.221.199 (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See [3] [4] [5] [6] for some discussion surrounding what may happen with Dylan's award. If you want to discuss what to include in our article/s, I suggest you use the talk page and various methods of WP:Dispute resolution where needed. As always, you're welcome to update any articles yourself where you can, or use the edit semi-protected template where you can't. Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan has acknowledge the prize and said he's attend the ceremony if possible although it's somewhat unclear what he told the foundation about attendance. [7] [8] [9] [10] It also doesn't sound like he's commented on whether he's going to do what's necessary to receive the money. Nil Einne (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumibol Adulyadej

Was he considered a natural-born citizen of the U.S.? Did he lose his citizenship on succeeding as King or before?--78.87.221.199 (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does "except children of foreign ministers" of United States v. Wong Kim Ark apply? Mahidol Adulyadej (Bhumibol's father) was a Prince, but he was in the US as a medical student at Harvard at the time of Bhumibol's birth. -- ToE 13:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does being a medical student qualify one as a diplomatic envoy?--Jayron 32 17:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was to suggest the opposite, that, despite being a prince, Mahidol's role as a medical student suggested that we was not a foreign minister and thus not excluded from jus soli. -- ToE 04:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Posters on reddit and quora claim that the hospital where he was born was declared Thai territory, making him a Thai citizen and not an American citizen. (See Princess Margriet of the Netherlands for an actually attested case of this tactic.) However, I can't find a reference to this being done for Bhumibol, so this may not be true. This 1960 newspaper article does claim American citizenship for him but that doesn't have much authority either. 184.147.116.156 (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be it would likely be quite difficult for the US to simply give up on the territory of the hospital even momentarily so I'd expect there to be much more info if it happened. For starters since it was in a state Massachusetts, I'm pretty sure it would require both the state and federal government involvement. And given the various parts of the US constitution, I strongly suspect it wouldn't simple be the executive but the legislature that's needed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do tipped employees' income have a round number-based business cycle superimposed on the general economic one?

Especially while the long-term trendline for job X & clientele Y transits the 1 $/£/etc. neighborhood and that's the smallest bill?

Cause maybe when the long-term trend was somewhat below a dollar people didn't want to look cheap by giving a bunch of coins summing to like 19 shillings. So they give 1 banknote. The US didn't have half dollar coins in common circulation after the Sixties I think so even more coins would be needed than in Britain. Then inflation happens and the long-term trendline's somewhat above a dollar but many probably still give the same $1 bill. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The correlation between tipping and inflation is complicated, especially since most tips are paid as percentages and tips themselves seem to be one of the drivers of inflation. I only managed to find one study that looks at the effect of currency redenomination (in Ghana), which finds that, again, it's complicated. (As an aside, there were coins between the shilling and the pound that were acceptable tips in the UK - depending on the service and the era, you read about people pressing crowns, Half sovereigns, 10-bob notes, half crowns and so on into the hands of eager urchins - it was relatively easy to tip with just a couple of coins.) This is not at all related, but in searching for answers, I came across this amazing patent for a gun for shooting money at strippers. The inventors tells us that this "frees up the customer from using their hands". Smurrayinchester 08:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting invention, I may have to ask permission from the manager at Spearmint Rhino before bringing a money gun into the premises. But I'm not clear from reading the patent if the gun shoots the money, or merely dispenses it, and keeps track of how much is dispensed, to avoid the client over-spending. Currency notes don't make good projectiles, and I don't easily see how one could be "shot" any distance through the air, unless the "gun" automatically folded it into some kind of paper aeroplane. EDIT: To quote the patent, "a speed control switch operable to adjust an operation speed of the electric motor, thereby adjusting a currency eject speed at which currency exits the currency exit slot during operation of the device". So you can adjust the money shooting speed. Still, even at the fastest speed, I don't see the currency note travelling very far. Remember, the device is for paper currency, not coins. It also includes a speaker for sound effects. Doubt it will take off, but an interesting patent nonetheless. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

Why has Spain ceded Gibraltar?

Why did Spain cede Gibraltar to the UK under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 and later even confirmed this situation? Soon after, in 1727, Spain would try to reclaim the territory by force and it remains committed to regaining it until the present day. --Llaanngg (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The British (as part of the Grand Alliance) had already captured Gibraltar in 1704, and Spain failed to recapture it (Gibraltar is extremely difficult to take by land, which is partly what makes it such a military asset). The Treaty of Utrecht was simply Spain recognizing that it had no hope of getting the Rock back and formally handing it over to stop the war - although the Grand Alliance was defeated in Spain as a whole, Gibraltar was such an excellent redoubt that they could have continued low-level conflict from it for years. Smurrayinchester 12:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And blockaded Spain's ports, sank Spanish ships that escaped the blockade and captured Spanish overseas possessions.
Sleigh (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe these accounts could go into an article like Disputed status of Gibraltar, if adequate sources could be provided. Otherwise, the idea is only implicitly there. Llaanngg (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The real rulers of Gibraltar are the Barbary macaques. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I wonder, given that the Grand Alliance was ultimately defeated in Spain as a whole, did Spain get a bad bargain in signing the aforementioned Treaty of Utrecht? Yes, Gibraltar could have held out as a redoubt, up to a point - but sealing the land border between Gibraltar and Spain is not that hard. It would ultimately come down to the ability of the Spanish to impose a naval blockade, to stop Gibraltar being resupplied by sea. This might not require actual ships - simply strategically placed coastal artillery capable of sinking any British ship trying to land at Gibraltar. If the Spanish could have accomplished this (a very difficult feat, as "Britannia rules the waves" - the Royal navy was the famous Royal Navy), Gibraltar would have eventually been forced to surrender, wouldn't it? So do historians view the treaty as a smart deal for Spain, given the military outcome on the ground? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - I couldn't find any historians looking back on that. However, given that Spain did try the kind of all-out blockade suggested here (the Great Siege of Gibraltar, where the Spanish paid Morocco to stop trade, instituted a full naval blockade, and bombarded Gibraltar), and it still failed, it looks like there was no realistic way the Spanish could prise Gibraltar back. Smurrayinchester 09:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic churches in Rome

how many Catholic churches are there in Rome?--79.17.186.90 (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our Churches of Rome article says: "There are more than 900 churches in Rome, including some notable Roman Catholic Marian churches. Most, but not all, of these are Roman Catholic."

A full list is here, but it only lists six Protestant churches (the Assembly of God church meets in the American Episcopalian building) and three Synagogues. All the rest are Catholic, although some cater for non-Italian speakers. I'll let you add them up, but 900 seems to be a good estimate. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, there is a list of about 100 "Protestant Churches" (which strangely includes a Mosque) near the bottom of the list, but duplicates those listed at the at the top, Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The website of the Diocese of Rome lists 341 parishes. These will be active, functioning churches. There is also a wiki devoted to churches in Rome which lists 1,179. This includes churches from other dioceses which are within the municipal boundaries of Rome, deconsecrated churches and even churches demolished in the last 250 years. 184.147.116.156 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that list which I linked above includes a large number (perhaps 200 or more, too many to easily count) of "Catholic Churches: Non-parochial", ie churches that are not parish churches. Alansplodge (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deals Gap

From this video [11], does anyone know which side of the Dragon (Deals Gap the Swift semi truck is on (Tennessee or North Carolina)? Is the Swift semi heading to North Carolina or Tennessee? --107.77.234.85 (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Text in the video itself and the description of it mentions THP. That stands for Tennessee Highway Patrol.--Jayron 32 17:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date headers

I notice that this page is no longer automatically creating a new level 1 date header each day. I have been adding them as we go along, but it would be nice to have the auto function running again. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does it appear to be automatically archiving older material as it used to. The list of questions is getting very long! Wymspen (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has happened a time or two (or three) over the years. Usually this is a problem with the bot. You could try asking at User talk:scs or the WP:VPT. Thanks for doing things manually Blueboar. MarnetteD|Talk 21:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked SCS about this by another method. He's aware of the problem—this is what WT:RD#wiki server issues? is about—but has been too busy to look into it right away. --69.159.61.230 (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scsbot is back in action after a hiatus of five days. Thanks Steve! We don't usually appreciate the work you and your bot do, day in and day out, until there's a hiccup in the system. -- ToE 04:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What they carry?

What these Soviet soldiers carry across shoulders? I've seen the same stuff on other photos with Soviet soldiers in WWII, but never on other Allied soldiers. Thanks in advance. 93.174.25.12 (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a 'Plash Palatka', a piece of canvas that could be used as a rain cape or as part of a basic (or complex) shelter. See also [12], [13], [14]. Nanonic (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought of it, but wasn't sure. 93.174.25.12 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible that the soldiers could roll up their Shinels/Woolen Greatcoats, cover them with their plasche and wear them around their shoulders, tied with a belt like in [15]. This roll was called a Skatka (with or withouth the plasche). Nanonic (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should have an article on Plash Palatka or at least a section within Poncho or Tent (Tent#Military) and Tarp tent. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an image of one being worn. Not too dissimilar to the British Army gas cape which could also double as a raincoat or groundsheet. I've always assumed that the Russians had a blanket in that bundle as well, but I can't find any confirmation at the moment. This way of carrying their kit over one shoulder dates back to the Napoleonic Wars at least. Alansplodge (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an image here (bottommost image) of a blanket in combination with a platsch. The caption reads "Another handy thing, is that you can wrap your platsch around your blankets, then tie it all onto the Veshmeshok (Soviet Rucksack), and slap on a couple of canteens and fill with gear and you're ready for the march to New York City". Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page for Napoleonic re-enactors shows how a greatcoat was rolled, the finished product being called a скатка ("skatka"?) if I'm reading it correctly, although a grasp of Russian is not one of my accomplishments. Perhaps a Russian speaking editor could help? Alansplodge (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've just seen that User:Nanonic has already told us that name above. Apologies. Alansplodge (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Negative numbers and the use of brackets

Does the use of parentheses in accounting to indicate negative numbers[16] predate or postdate the invention of the plus and minus signs? Pizza Margherita (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only small parts are available for preview, but this book here, titled: "A History of Mathematical Notations" looks promising for your research. --Jayron 32 17:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have that book (both of its two volumes). It talks about the history of the minus sign but the accounting practice of parenthesizing to indicate negative numbers is not discussed at all. --69.159.60.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The usual practice in the old days was to indicate negative numbers in financial records with the use of red ink. Using parentheses for this purpose did not become common until the 19th or early 20th century, when it was desirable to publish financial records and using red ink was expensive and impractical. This suggests that the use of parentheses probably was much later than the invention of the plus and minus signs. However, I cannot say for sure that there were not some accountants using parentheses much earlier. John M Baker (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

Did the ancients understand a whoreson had one father?

Until recently, babies all had just two parents. And I'd think it would be pretty obvious even to the ancients that a woman with a husband and a lover of two different races would give birth to one or the other. But births from women who have many sexual contacts in a short period - e.g. "whoresons", at least according to what the term seems like it should mean - well, it might be harder to keep track, and they might think that if, say, the semens literally mix together then they become one. And we have little bits of silliness in our culture that seem like they reflect an analog view of insemination, like "the best part of you ran down your mama's leg", or silly villains who are the "son of 100 maniacs" or some such. Do these reflect an earlier time when people believed that the genetics of multiple inseminators could mix, or are they just modern day fantasy/humor?

I should note that there is no a priori logical reason why this couldn't happen, even without modern embryo manipulation. There are schemes of bacterial conjugation which, if extended to the human situation, could produce this result quite handily. Indeed, if a woman's body could decide to take random pieces of sperm and use them for some sort of gene conversion or other replacement using homologous recombination at the ovum, it would allow considerable strategic possibilities to use more pieces of genes from a very fit male or less from one more average, or even to take up a limited amount of DNA from a different species; it would also allow for uptake of different sequences from different men to produce the same embryo.

Wnt (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall from Attilio Mastrocinque's From Jewish Magic to Gnosticism, a number of followers of Sethianism would reason "my mother recently had sex with the priest descended from Seth, therefore I am now descended from Seth" or something even like "the Sethian priest just buggered me, I'm now a descendant of Seth." Consider also that the Early Church would track Jesus's genealogy through Joseph to claim birthright as a descendant of David while simultaneously denying any biological inheritance. While that may not be a direct answer to your question, it does indicate that their understanding of descent wasn't as strictly material as ours. The treatment of whores is an argument in both directions: were the payments intended as a divided child support, or was the lack of further payments evidence that the kid was viewed as not belonging to any father? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While not directly related to your question, you may find this of interest. Matt Deres (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At one stage it was widely believed that the mother contributed nothing to the child - the man produced a seed, which contained the whole of the new person, and then sowed that seed in the woman who provided, in effect, the field in which that seed could grow (Preformationism). The child of a prostitute would certainly have been considered to have developed from one seed - but with no way of knowing which man had sowed it. This is why legitimacy was such a big issue. Wymspen (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good point - it is easy now to forget how widespread that belief was, and for quite a long time. Ironically, in this context it was "true", at least in the sense that a preformed male gamete existed to give rise to its part of the child's genetics rather than merely having some indistinct and gradual effect on epigenesis. I suppose then that it might only be the proponents of the other position who would be at risk to suppose that the fathers' influences might be mixed, though that might be assuming too much. Wnt (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly not: see Telegony_(pregnancy). See also Partible paternity, although that seems to be more about legally/socially treating people as having multiple fathers rather than thinking they biologically have them. Iapetus (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also a great point - I suppose someone must have tried to apply it to simultaneous insemination rather than serial pregnancies. Wnt (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

""In lowland South America, the core belief is that all men who have intercourse with a woman during her pregnancy share the biological fatherhood of her child." [17] - newspaper article touching on the Bari tribe mentioned in partible paternity. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did have a bias against taking that too literally because in the U.S. there is a sort of partible paternity in regard to husbands (see [18] - the husband is the father of the child unless both he and the other man make out a paper to say otherwise) without any such belief, but you're right that this is what the article says. Wnt (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From our article Pan (god): "Other sources (Duris of Samos; the Vergilian commentator Servius) report that Penelope slept with all 108 suitors in Odysseus' absence, and gave birth to Pan as a result." --151.41.136.222 (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last lunatic asylum

Is it known which lunatic asylum was the last in the world to close before the appearance of psychiatric hospitals? Thanks.--93.174.25.12 (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austin State Hospital is still in service, though it is no longer called an "asylum". It changed the name away from "asylum" in 1925, whereas Friern changed its name in 1930. It's not clear if OP is interested in merely the name "asylum", or some other change in mental health care that loosely came along with the name changes. If OP is interested in places formerly known as asylums that are still running, then Austin State Hospital is an example. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many organizations and facilities formerly named "lunatic asylum" and "insane asylum" and similar which are still in operation today under different names. There is a ship of Theseus problem when considering continuity here. For example, the Riverview Psychiatric Center is a direct continuation of a facility formerly named the Maine Insane Hospital, but it is neither at the same location, nor has the same name as originally. When did it stop being an asylum and start being a "psychiatric center"? Changes to mental health infrastructure and practices have been gradual over time, and especially susceptible to the euphemism treadmill in terms of naming practices. Articles like History of mental disorders and History of psychiatric institutions provide some good overviews for the OP to learn more about this subject. --Jayron 32 17:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a relevant mention of Friern Hospital here and Lunacy_Act_1845 here until it was removed, I am putting the links back because I thought they were interesting and might help OP. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not answering the question.

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

As someone with long-term mental health issues, I view blanket ideologies of Deinstitutionalisation as an unmitigated disaster. We should have kept those institutions, and brought them up to modern standards. Now we have nowhere to put the long term severely mentally ill. Deinstitutionalisation was the fallacy that everyone belonged "in the community" regardless of how well they could cope with "the community", or how well (or even safely) "the community" could accommodate them. It's a bit like suggesting that we should shut down all nursing homes, and all elderly people should stay in their own home until they die (some do apparently hold this view, I gather!). Of course, an elderly person staying in their own home is ideal, but sometimes it's not possible, and we have nursing homes for good reason. To me, the mentally ill are no different. Many have argued that many of those formerly in lunatic asylums now end up either in jail or homeless instead. Do forgive my rant. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rant forgiven. The original asylums where provided as a place or sanctuary (which I think your alluding too), where people went to have a respite, in which time they could recover. On leaving they’d go back to their trade and provide for their families once more. Then someone discovered barbiturates. People then went in.... never recovered.. nor seldom got released (no longer leaving of their own free will but never getting released). Ah, but this was now the age of modern medication and we should all be thankful for that – or so we are lead to believe by those doctors that know best. The UK population in the UK asylums thus rose to about a 100,000 thanks to modern medical science. Then the government wanting to save costs, closed these big 'institutions' and threw those patents out into the community. Where they now live (still) institutionalised, only this time in little flats with no access to any meaningful rehabilitation. To get around any forceful objection these people may have, they are still fed anti-psychotics in order that they can't protest in any meaningful manner. If their nearest, dearest and friends that knew them well do question this, they just get told: Best thing you can do is insure that they keep taking the tablets. Wonder how many minutes or seconds, it will take for a modern psychiatric student to come back, protest and deny this long history?--Aspro (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatry does not entirely have the most honourable history, and I think many Psychiatrists will themselves admit that. See Lobotomy for an example of one particularly frequently done horrible procedure. But I can't agree with you on anti-psychotics. I do think they have a legitimate place in modern medicine. The HUGE problem is treating them as if they are a panacea, and over-prescribing for things other than psychosis (e.g. troublesome behaviour in the intellectually disabled or personality disordered). And sometimes people do need a respite, and meaningful rehabilitation, as you say. If you're rich, you can go to The Priory, perhaps - for the few weeks your insurance will pay. If you're poor and reliant on the NHS... good luck. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have a place? Before asylums prescribed additive drugs, people who had recovered naturally -with time, could leave and retake their former place in society. Now, once placed on neuroleptics, they are locked-in, because to discontinue the drugs, locks-them-in to the discontinuation syndrome (a psychiatric euphemism for iatrogenic addiction). As these drugs interfere with the functioning of the outer cortex, those who start taking them often find it very hard to be, think and behave like other people ever again. The Case for Neuroleptics Reducing Recovery from 80% to 5%. Independent researchers for decades now, have been critical that pharmaceutical companies only publishing short-term changes in 'observable' signs. With a total disregard for full recovery, long term effects and the future quality of life of those so treated. The only place that these drugs have: is to make timid psychiatrists feel that they are doing something, profit the share-holders of pharmaceutical companies and remove the guilt of the government for closing down hospitals. In that holy trinity I don't see anything about improving mental health – in fact, NGO's are saying its getting worse, year by year. Period. --Aspro (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

SCOTUS vacancy

Suppose H. Clinton wins the presidency and the Republicans in Congress refuse to approve any nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court (as they've said). Is there any way to fill that position? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article,[19] the answer is no. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the Senate goes into recess, the President could make a recess appointment, but that would expire at the end of the next session of Congress. John M Baker (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to cover such a possibility. It is technically possible; one Supreme Court Justice, William J. Brennan Jr., was a recess appointment. However, he was confirmed by a near unanimous vote once the Senate came back into session. It seems unlikely that ANY Obama or Clinton nominee would enjoy such an easy confirmation. Also, the ability of the Senate to dodge recess appointments by simply refusing to go into recess indefinitely is a likely possibility, so even if technically possible, it may not be practically possible. --Jayron 32 13:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but wouldn't the point of a Recess Appointment be to force congress into actually voting on the candidate, at least, to stop them using their current tactic of simply refusing to even give the candidate a hearing? Of course, if they continued their current tactic, the appointment would expire next time congress went into recess, whereby the process could be repeated? Of course, this wouldn't stop them voting down the candidate, but it might force them to actually hold hearings.

Also, according to my previous question at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016_October_15#Hillary_Clinton_and_the_Merrick_Garland_supreme_court_nomination, congress must adjourn, necessarily before noon January 3 (In practice, it will probably do so in December. Why must they adjourn? To allow the new senators to take their places?). So wouldn't this be an opportunity to pounce and make a Recess Appointment? Also, at what other times must congress adjourn? After every Congressional election, right? So they can't simply refuse to go into recess indefinitely, can they? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may, but as I noted, that's entirely beside the point. The Senate would actually have to call a recess, and as noted in the article I cited, and supported by Supreme Court decisions, the Senate cannot be forced into recess. They can literally hold pro forma sessions indefinitely and never actually have to have a recess. Thus the catch-22 here: The Senate needs 60 votes to break a filibuster, and even though the Democratic Party could possibly get at most 50-52 seats (and thus reach a simple majority), the Republicans can indefinitely block any nominee coming to the floor for a vote. A recess appointment would eliminate the filibuster option, all but requiring the Senate to hold a a vote. However, you can't have a recess appointment without a recess. And the Senate, if it were to retain a Republican majority, never actually has to hold a recess. According to the Supreme Court ruling, a recess must be at least 3 days long to hold a recess appointment. If they adjourn for only a few hours, that doesn't qualify. --Jayron 32 15:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, congress must adjourn in either December or early January, to allow new senators to take their seats. Are you saying that an "adjournment" (one lasting over 3 days) and a "recess" are different things? What will happen in practice when congress takes its late December adjournment? Will they in practice continue to schedule pro forma sessions at which no senators actually turn up? What's happened in the past in these situations (mandated adjournments)? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate only has to adjourn for a few seconds (and thus establish a recess of only a few seconds) in order to allow old members to leave and new members to take their seats. This is according to the article I already cited (which itself cites a recent Supreme Court decision on the matter). I won't quote the article for you in its entirety, because it deals EXACTLY with the scenario you present, so please read it again yourself before asking the question again. It HAS been answered. --Jayron 32 16:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry for pestering you, I've just read the article (should've done it before posting my reply, my apologies). Just one omission - it talks about what the Senate could do (the scope of its powers to refuse to adjourn), not at all what it will likely actually in fact do. Is there any precedent on this point? What has the Senate done in the past? What's the longest time (months / years, whatever) the senate has ever gone without formally adjourning for at least 3 days? Before you get cranky, the article you linked to says nothing about that. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will likely actually in fact do is a contradiction in terms. "Will likely" means it hasn't happened. "Actually in fact" means it did happen. If you can't ask a question without introducing ridiculous time paradoxes, I don't really feel anyone should be forced to answer such impossibilities. --Jayron 32 23:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An adjournment is different from a recess. When newly elected Senators are seated, it is a new Senate. Each Senate makes its own rules, by simple majority. Supermajority filibuster rules may or may not be included. So a simple majority after an election is enough to end any stand-off. In fact Senate simple majorities can change the (supermajority, filibuster) rules during a session, rather than beginning one, though that is not usual practice.John Z (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is speculation, a question rather than an answer, but supposing Clinton wins and the Republicans maintain a majority of the Senate (thus also the power to avoid recesses), what would happen if she simply forced the issue? Write up the same form she'd usually use if the Senate had confirmed an appointment, write that the Senate had its chance to advise and consent but didn't, so she deems the appointment complete? Technically it would be a constitutional crisis, though since Garland would have to recuse anyway and this would doubtless rise to the top of the agenda this would only be nominal. And technically, if you can't guarantee the Supreme Court continues, isn't it already a constitutional crisis, and a more severe one?

Then the court would have to decide; they might hear a motion from her that the 9-justice court has reached the level of being more than tradition and is an actual "compelling government interest" or something, and hence the right of the Senate to play games can be limited. (Maybe) And that if they didn't hold the 9-member court was anything important, then to avoid future shortages she would be appointing enough to bring it up to 12 or 13 if and when she lined up enough senators.

It's hard for me to picture any line of play that would give a confident ruling for the Senate to simply never hear a confirmation, without leaving open the possibility of an out and out FDR style court packing depending on the election. Is there one? Wnt (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary could ask the high court for some advice on what to do. That doesn't mean she would get a satisfactory answer. But it would be worth a try, if it comes to that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, it all comes down to what Anthony Kennedy will decide? Count Iblis (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about taking it to the Supreme Court to decide, but what if they are split 4-4? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue won't come to a head until the number of Supreme Court justices drops below the level set by Congress as a quorum, which is six. At that point, the Supreme Court is likely to get involved, rather than just close down, as that would violate the spirit of the separation of powers set out in the Constitution. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the Republicans get tired of losing cases due to the 4-4 ties, they might decide to hold some hearings on nominees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very simple way that "President Hillary" could avoid having a Republican dominated Senate block all her nominees for SCOTUS... all she would have to do is consult with the Republican leadership first... ask for a list of 100 jurists they would find acceptable... and nominate one of the people on that list.

It is sad that in our polarized political environment, everyone focuses on the consent part of "advice and consent" ... and ignores the advice part. asking for (and listening to) advice can resolve many issues. Blueboar (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the current political climate it is virtually certain that all 100 names would be hard-line right wingers in the mold of Thomas or Scalia. Hillary knows the Republicans would make political hay out of this -- "see, we gave her a list of 100 names and she didn't consider even one of them!" -- so it's unlikely it will happen. A good idea in principle, but... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for a president to issue an executive order requiring the senate to formally confirm or reject a nomination within $timeframe of a nomination (with or without hearings)? Obviously if so there would need to be some defined thing that happened if the senate failed to do this, the most obvious (to me) being the nominated person being appointed until after the next elections to the senate (at which point the new senate must confirm or reject (with or without hearings) within $timeframe, if they don't they stay appointed until after the following elections, and so on). Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that isn't possible. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, on the contrary - congress can overturn an Executive order, but an Executive order cannot boss congress around. To quote from our article:

Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).

The Executive order you propose falls into neither category a far as I can see, and would be quickly either overturned by congress, or struck down by the courts. The power granted to the Executive by the Constitution in this case (appointing Supreme Court judges) explicitly requires the "advice and consent" of the Senate, and no Executive order can order the Senate around, unless there was some legislative provision to give the President that power, which obviously there isn't, and will likely never be. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Grumpy Cat really the world's most valuable animal?

Apparently, Grumpy Cat, during her prime popularity years, brought in $50 million a year (I have no idea what the figure is now). Assuming this figure is true (owner Tabatha Bundesen calls it "completely exaggerated", but won't say what the true figure is according to her), does this mean, bizarre as it sounds, that during this time, Grumpy Cat was the world's most valuable animal - worth far more than even the most elite racehorse? It does strike me as bizarre, but would this in fact be the case? And regardless or not as to whether she was the one, which would be the world's most valuable animals, and where would she rank?

I told the staff at Healesville Sanctuary to make sure their critically endangered Orange-bellied parrots were well-guarded - a breeding pair might well be worth a small fortune to a collector. There's a good reason the CITES convention was created, partly as collectors of exotic species were in some cases a significant force in reducing numbers in the wild. But I still can't see them coming anywhere near grumpy cat. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tapit is worth approximately $30 million per year - see this article. Tevildo (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on how you define 'value'. According to this (admittedly not entirely reliable source) list of richest animals, there's a dog out there named Gunther who's got a cool $127 million in the bank. Is he as valuable as Grumpy Cat? Tough to say; he doesn't earn anything apart from interest. Some more perspective here, where they attempt to break down where Tardar's money came from, but they don't apply dollar figures to any of it. Matt Deres (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted for inflation, Lassie Come Home took about $63 million, suggesting that Pal the dog was worth roughly Grumpy Cat-levels of money. Rin Tin Tin probably was too - although I can't find much solid data that far back, the dog was called "the mortgage lifter" by studios for a reason. Smurrayinchester 09:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Using Box Office Mojo's ticket inflation numbers, Lassie Come Home took even more - nearly $135 million - but that's arguably comparing apples with oranges.) Smurrayinchester 09:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Particularly as both these dogs had real talents. Grumpy Cat just has her dwarfism to thank - and a bunch of facebook-hooked humans who just adore their memes. Just wondering, are there any current film animals in Hollywood which show elite acting trainability skills and command millions to appear in a film? Koko was something of an elite canine actor, but given that he appeared in a relatively niche film, I doubt he earned much. In any case, he's no longer alive. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pudsey was at one point worth millions (although not Grumpy Cat-levels), but Pudsey the Dog: The Movie flopped and now he appears in panto. Not sure how accurate this article is, but it suggests Keiko the orca from Free Willy is the only other animal from recent times to command a multi-million fee (and he died in 2003). Smurrayinchester 15:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(For a slightly different angle, the best-selling film about a real animal is, I think, Hachi: A Dog's Tale, about Hachikō. So you could argue that Hachikō earned the film studio $46 million.) Smurrayinchester 16:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Children of unwed mothers in 1830s France

Watching Les Misérables, it struck me: Cosette was born an illegitimate daughter to an unwed mother - a mother who at one point had worked as a prostitute, to boot. Yet Marius Pontmercy does not seem the least bit bothered by this fact when he declares his undying love for her, and eventually marries her.

Now of course, people do fall in love, even with those far lower on the social status ladder than themselves. This is hardly uncommon. But my question is, back in 1830s France, would a young woman with Cosette's background expect to easily find herself a husband? Or would she find herself widely shunned by potential suitors and their parents, on account of her origins? I mean, it was only a few decades ago that even here in the western world, unmarried girls who fell pregnant were hidden away until they gave birth, and practically forced into relinquishing their babies forever at birth. A travesty, but it happened, and on quite a wide scale. So how likely would it be in general in 1830s France for the daughter of an unmarried prostitute to find herself a husband? 110.140.69.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe social class had huge importance here. Being illegit would be a massive burden in the upper classes, but in the lower classes it would be common, so not as big of a deal. In the lower classes, a "common-law marriage" was common, meaning they just shack up and have kids. StuRat (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The popularity of common-law marriage amongst the lower classes - was that due to the cost of marriage (holding a wedding and all that), or was it due to the cost of divorce if things didn't work out between them (No-fault divorce was more than a century away, and divorce was an expensive and torturous process, from what I understand?). What deterred the lower classes from holding proper marriages?

Also, where would students such as Marius themselves fit in the social class hierarchy? Would attending a university convey a degree of social status, as I assume only the upper classes could afford to give their children a university education? (In those days, were the lower classes still illiterate?)

(I do note that regardless of how they fit into the social class structure, they claimed to care deeply about the poor starving masses - the "beggars at your feet" as the musical puts it - , in whose name they launched their revolution, and whom they expected to rise and fight by their side - people most of the upper class probably wouldn't give a damn about, other than perhaps throwing them the occasional coin to quiet their conscience). 110.140.69.137 (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If StuRat's guesses are good enough for you, so be it. However, if you're interested in what scholars or historians have to say, the book The Family on Trial in Revolutionary France by Suzanne Desan seems like it would have some insight (excerpt here). Likewise Poor and Pregnant in Paris: Strategies for Survival in the Nineteenth Century by Rachel Ginnis Fuchs (excerpts here). We also have an article about Women in the French Revolution which has some background. Matt Deres (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the biggest reason for marriage was so your children would legally inherit your estate, and poor people had no estate to pass on. What few possessions they did have could just be divided up by the children without legal intervention. StuRat (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are all forgetting that the OP's question is firmly placed in post-revolutionary France, where even terms like 'upper class' need to be redefined.

Which you have not. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As much as revolutionaries like to claim they have wiped out the upper class for all times, it never happens. If they do manage to wipe out the old upper class, they just replace it with a new one. France was no exception. StuRat (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)^{[citation needed]}[reply]

Take a look at Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, who managed to prosper under any form of government. StuRat (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you disputing that Les Misérables was set in 19th century Paris? Matt Deres (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, there were definitely both rich and poor people in post-revolutionary France, obviously. Perhaps there might be less formal or official class division, but there were still vast differences in wealth. The musical portrays hordes of beggars and prostitutes (poor harvests and cholera had decimated the poor areas, though the latter did not always spare the rich - Jean Maximilien Lamarque succumbing to it). In any case, no one has answered my question about the students - where did they stand in the pecking order? Was university education generally confined to the rich? Were the students truly passionate about the starving masses? Were the masses of that era generally illiterate, or was there some form of public education? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prince, of Washington

Who is "Prince, of Washington"? He was a photographer active in Washington, DC during the 1890s.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 1895 DC city directory (which I'm seeing via a pay site) lists George Prince, photographer, 1015 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, home 1827 R Street Northwest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Library of Congress' collection of his work, if that helps. Tevildo (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

coastline length for British counties and Canadian provinces and territories

Does anyone know of any reliable sources that give the length of coastlines for individual Canadian provinces/territories and British (or at least English) counties? Finding the length of the coastlines of the country as a whole is trivial, and I found good sources for US states and Australian states/territories but nothing for the UK or Canada. I know about the coastline paradox but I'm not looking for an exact measure, indeed the accuracy doesn't matter too much for my purpose as long as all the counties are measured with approximately the same length meter as each other (and likewise for the Canadian subdivisions, whether that is the same measure as the UK one doesn't matter). Thryduulf (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Canada, http://schools.ednet.ns.ca/avrsb/070/tawebb/Oceans11/2CoastalZones/Coastline%20vs%20Shoreline%20stats.doc 06:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but it doesn't look like a reliable source? Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't http://ednet.ns.ca an official site of the government of Nova Scotia? How much more reliable do you want? How about the source given under the table on that doc, "Sebert, L.M., and M. R. Munro. 1972. Dimensions and Areas of Maps of the National Topographic System of Canada. Technical Report 72-1. Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Surveys and Mapping Branch"? Rojomoke (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See British Columbia Coast, Geography of Ontario, maritime regions of Québec, Geography of Newfoundland and Labrador, Geography of Manitoba, New Bruswick, Nova Scotia coast, Geography of Alberta and Geography of Saskatchewan have no coastline. Can't find PEI or Yukon. This says that the NWT and Nunavut (about 16,000 km) have 21,131 km of coast between them and this says that Nunavut has 104,000 km. The last two indicate that there is obviously a huge difference in how they are measuring coastline. The second may be adding in the islands but the first looks small compared to some of the provinces. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have constant length accounting/business/tax years existed? (or months or quarters)

i.e. a 364 day year that starts the same day of the week or one where all months are 30 days. Or the very symmetrical 48 week year with 12 week quarters and 4 week months. Not the International Fixed Calendar formerly used by Kodak, that has leap days. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ISO week date comes close by alternating a 364-day, 52-week year with an occasional 371-day, 53-week year to bring the calendar back into alignment with the Gregorian Calendar. Similarly, the 4–4–5 calendar uses "months" of a repeating 4-4-5 week pattern, thus has exactly 4 13-week periods per year (and like the ISO calendar, 52 weeks). Like the ISO calendar, it has an occasional 53-week year to avoid getting too far off the common Gregorian calendar. --Jayron 32 19:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ammon Bundy's opinion on Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Has an enterprising reporter asked Bundy or any of his fellow occupiers of Malheur Refuge about their opinion of the protests in North Dakata, and about the arrests that have been made? If so, what did they answer? thanks! 155.97.8.166 (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here. --Jayron 32 23:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is "the government" developing the pipeline? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bakken pipeline is being developed by Energy Transfer Partners, but has access to Government powers in the form of eminent domain used by the government to seize property to allow ETP to build the pipeline, and government police are being used to disperse protesters. --Jayron 32 10:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

Multi-level political advertising in the US

Having recently moved from Ohio to Virginia's 6th congressional district, I've been surprised to see a new-for-me variation on political signage: the "Trump Pence 2016" signs are familiar, as are the "Hillary Kaine ==>" signs, but a high percentage of the Democratic signs are instead "Hillary Kaine Degner". One can always find unusual signs, many created by the people who own the land where the signs are placed, but these are obviously done by whoever's responsible for creating the Democratic Party signage for this area: I've never before seen ads that advocate both the US House candidate (or anyone else) on the same physical sign as the POTUS/VP candidates, but they're all over the place here. Is this common anywhere else in the USA, or is it merely a local eccentricity here? Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are/were some of the least power hungry absolute monarchs?

Especially from less modern times. Did some stay in power till death without being killed by an enemy? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term you seem to be looking for is benevolent dictatorship - our article lists some examples, but isn't the greatest. See also enlightened absolutism and List of enlightened despots. Matt Deres (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The List of enlightened despots is a horrible article. It does not add anything of value to enlightened absolutism, it has just some dubious opinions, and reddit as a source. Hofhof (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Bear in mind that the papacy has been an absolute monarchy for many centuries of its two-millennium history. I can't speak to which popes were less power-hungry than most (although of course Pope Innocent III wouldn't be one of them), but while there are exceptions such as several who reigned during the Saeculum obscurum, most popes have died in office, in a non-murderous fashion. Aside from martyrs, the last of whom died in the seventh century, the List of murdered popes includes only ten names, and aside from noting the allegations surrounding the 1978 death of John Paul I, the most recent allegedly murdered pope died in 1303. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been absolute monarchs who have (without a revolution forcing their hand) given up powers. Alexander II of Russia might be a good example - he emancipated the serfs, he reconvened the Diet of Finland, and he attempted to create a proper constitution for Russia. At the same time though, he did come down brutally on uprisings in Poland-Lithuania. Alexander II was assassinated in 1881 by the revolutionary socialist group Narodnaya Volya. Smurrayinchester 10:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The history of India affords several examples: Samudragupta, Harsha, Akbar and especially Ashoka, who, according to Buddhist legend, started out very badly but became a benevolent ruler and a unique (or at least very rare) example of a ruler who renounced war as a means of policy. Basemetal 11:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renouncing war? That's incredible. Even Popes didn't do that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is in Rock Edict 13, one of his major edicts, a place where he says something like "Victory by Dharma is the highest victory" (as opposed to military victory). There are other places where he criticizes the desire for (military) glory, etc. And historically there is no doubt that, after the Kalinga war, he never waged war again. You can find the text of all of Ashoka's edicts on the net in numerous places. Also of interest are the WP articles about his edicts among which are Edicts of Ashoka, List of Edicts of Ashoka and others, some of which give summaries of the various edicts. There is also data about his life that comes not from his edicts but from other sources, especially Buddhist writings. Basemetal 12:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does one quantify "power hunger" as a numerical value for which we can then rank monarchs? --Jayron 32 12:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Civil servants

In the U.K., do civil servants have employment contracts with the crown? What about executive agencies, police and armed forces? Are their employment contracts with the crown or with the organisation itself? 82.132.187.145 (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, civil servants appear not to have employment contracts - "For historical reasons, servants of the Crown are treated in common law as a separate category of employee and are not regarded as having a “contract of service” in the normal sense. The main difference is that theoretically a Crown servant is dismissible at any time at the will of the Crown. However, various aspects of employment legislation have been extended to “Crown employment,” particularly in the areas of employment protection, trade union rights and discrimination. researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03698/SN03698.pdf Wymspen (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what subtle distinction that document is trying to draw there. I suspect they are talking about "contract" in the sense that emphasises "duration" rather than the sense that emphasises "legal relationship", i.e. "I have a 2 year contract" rather than "This document is your contract of employment" - because the government definitely and frequently uses the word "contract" in the latter sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP's question: as I understand it (but this is more or less hearsay, as a brief Google search didn't turn up anything definitive to confirm this), there is always an "appointing authority" for each civil service position, which is usually the relevant Secretary or Minister of State, or the Prime Minister for very senior roles. The "appointing authority" hires ("appoints") the person on behalf of the Crown. What I'm not sure about is how the appointing authority for each position is determined, I don't know whether this is set down in legislation, or whether the Civil Service Commission or Minister for the Civil Service just makes it up. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think they do have a written terms of employment and other than very senior roles, appointment is delegated to managers but I'm not sure. 82.132.237.192 (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb question: Who's in charge after a government falls but before the next prime minister?

The old guys? There's no other choice right? If it's so easy to remove a political party from power without replacement that'd be a great time to invade the country if there's really no executives anymore. So why can governments resign? It makes parliaments sound so banana republicy to US ears but of course we had an annual extort minutiae with world recession thing recently so we're even worse. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is always at least a caretaker government in power. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the Privy Council has ultimate executive power, and can keep the government operational (through Orders in Council) without a working cabinet. This would only be used in emergencies (such as in time of war) - normally, the functions of each department are just suspended until the new minister is appointed. Tevildo (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When David Cameron resigned recently, he actually continued to serve as Prime Minister even after announcing his intention: only when the party had appointed a successor did he go to the queen to formally resign, and she then immediately appointed the next person. If the government as a whole fell, the same process would happen: the existing prime minister would continue in a caretaker role either until someone from another party was in a position to form a government, or until there was an election. The convention is that a caretaker in such circumstances just keeps thinks functioning, and would no introduce anything new, or take any major decision except in an emergency. Wymspen (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's difficult to give a general answer encompassing all parliamentary systems, but if we look at the example of the United Kingdom, the executive power can kind of be considered "shared" between Parliament and the monarch, under the fusion of powers. Parliament is formally summoned into being by the Queen-in-Council with a Royal Proclamation (see Dissolution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom). Remember, Parliament has its origin as a body of advisers summoned by the monarch. In extraordinary circumstances where Parliament had been dissolved and it was deemed necessary to call Parliament into session immediately, a proclamation doing so would simply be issued, being considered a legitimate use of the monarch's reserve powers. The monarch formally is the one who appoints Prime Minsters as well, so if the previous Prime Minister was unwilling or unable to serve, the monarch can just pick somebody. The Westminster system is rather more flexible in matters like this due to its reliance on precedent and unwritten conventions, compared to a system like the U.S.'s. Note all the questions on here this year (and every Presidential election year) about various scenarios involving the U.S. Presidential race; there are a number of grey areas in the laws relating to Presidential elections and succession. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reliance of the Westminster system on such matters also occasionally creates problems, c.f. the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, where the dismissal of the Whitlam government was technically de jure legal, but practically de facto not; that is on paper it was fine, but given how the Australian government had always worked prior to that point, it looked shifty as hell. --Jayron 32 13:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a Westminster-derived system, conventions can have actual constitutional effect, so something which is against constitutional convention, even if it is technically in compliance with the words of the constitution, can be unconstitutional. The drafters of the constitution were drafting against the background of the unwritten British constitution, and even today Australia's constitution remains part-written and part-unwritten. I support your implication that all we can say is that it looks dodgy, different people have had different interpretations of whether the dismissal was or was not against the established unwritten constitutional principles as they stood in 1975. But if one's view is that it was against those principles, then it's actually illegal, even if those principles aren't written down in the Constitution Act. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's kinda the point of the problem with unwritten laws, isn't it? If you arrest someone for spitting on the sidewalk, and he says "How would I know it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk?" You can't very well say "It's just not how we do things around here..." Due process says that he has the right to have known, before he actually broke the law, what the law was. Otherwise, you're just making it up as they go along. Or more to the point: How was Kerr supposed to have known (that is, where could he read about it) that what he was about to do was against the law? Where would have been told that his actions were not allowed? --Jayron 32 17:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia at least, there's in practice never a break in executive power. As everyone here probably knows the instant a sovereign departs the next-in-line instantly becomes the monarch, so there is never any break in sovereign power. Formally, executive power is vested in the Governor-General. Even if there is a break in Governors-General (for example, because the previous one has died or is on a boat back to England and the new one has not arrived yet), there is always someone with a dormant commission who instantly steps up to become Administrator of the Commonwealth. So there is never a break in formal executive power.

The Governor-General is required to be "advised" by the Federal Executive Council in many matters. Appointments to the Federal Executive Council is for life, so there is always a pool of Executive Councillors who can make up the numbers if for some reason the entire incumbent cabinet is wiped out.

In practice, there is never even any break in Prime Ministers. If a Prime Minister advises the Governor-General to call an election, that previous Prime Minister stays on in a "caretaker mode" until the new Prime Minister is commissionsed. Similarly, if a Prime Minister is overthrown by the party room, that Prime Minister stays on until the new Prime Minister is sworn in. Even if the Prime Minister suddenly dies or goes missing while swimming, the Governor-General will as soon as possible appoint a temporary replacement (usually the deputy), until a new Prime Minister is chosen by a majority of the House. In all of these cases, the caretaker or temporary Prime Minister is meant to keep the country running for as long as it takes to find the new Prime Minister. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese immigration and other immigrants to the nations

My cousin and I were having an argument about why Chinese barely come to UK and a lot of them come to Canada for immigration. I told him that there was a BBC article, which I think it is gone, that said Chinese people go to Canada and not UK because of land size. He didn't believe it. He said (meaning my cousin) said why not? A lot of South Asians go to UK, a lot of Algerians, Francophonie Africans, Moroccans, Tunisians and Vietnamese come to France, and Arabs come to Libya. My question is that how can I prove him wrong? how can I prove that Indonesians don't go to Netherlands despite being a former colony of Indonesia, Syrians don't go to France despite being a former colony of France; Congolese, Rwandans, and Burundians don't go to Belgium despite being a former colony of that and etc? Donmust90 (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you say Indonesians don't go to the Netherlands. Our article Indonesians says there are about 1.8 million Indonesians in the Netherlands, and our article Indo people says there are 431,000 mixed Dutch-Indonesian people in the Netherlands. That's significantly more even than the number of Canadian Chinese.

Most former colonial powers have a lot of immigrants from their colonial empire, although specific patterns of immigration differ depending on the extent of historical cultural interaction between the countries, the colonising country's historical immigration policies, and more recent events post-decolonisation. Nevertheless, colonial history is one factor that helps to explain, for example, why there are more Vietnamese restaurants in Paris' Chinatown than London's. It also helps to explain why the UK's ethnically Chinese population is (or was, until recent decades) dominated by immigrants from Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong and their descendants, rather than those from mainland China. I think you need to rethink your premise if you want to prove your cousin wrong. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See History of Chinese immigration to Canada and History of Chinese immigration to the United Kingdom for background as to how each group came to their respective countries. As far as Syria vs. Algeria in France, part of the issue is that Syria was never part of France. It had a very short history as a League of Nations Mandate (see French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon) and a Mandate is not really a colony; it was always set up as a temporary situation to allow for Syrian self-government once they could be so organized, in response to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the 1920s. On the other hand, Algeria was France from 1848 until 1962. And by that, I don't mean a colony, or a dominion, or a semi-autonomous region; legally, practically, and literally Algeria was as much a part of France as was Provence and Brittany and Normandy were. That's why you find a lot of Algerian people in France; because from 1848-1962, the Algerians were French people. And visa-versa. Until they were driven out in the 1960s, there were also a lot of Metropolitan French who had moved to Algeria as well, see Pied-noir, of whom Albert Camus is perhaps the most famous. --Jayron 32 15:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for 19th C. artist

Looking for poss. 19th C. artist/sculpture Franz Waager and bio. information.Nishnawbe (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Human population 2^33; when will this be true??

This is an interesting question for reasons related to the following problem:

Let's assume that there was just one vampire at any time in history. To stay alive, a vampire must bite one person a week, and then the person being bitten also becomes a vampire. How many vampires would there be after 33 weeks?? This problem is an easy way to show that vampires never did exist. Georgia guy (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vampires realize they might be hunted if they kill humans so they drink animal blood instead. They realize a population explosion of vampire animals would not be keeping a low profile so they bite animals in north-facing caves at dawn and incinerate the evidence by throwing them into the sunlight. Or they keep livestock for their blood and ensure a secure diet. Since they get the blood with a knife instead of their teeth they don't have to imprison vampire livestock that's much stronger than when it was alive. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They could also start biting each other. Who's to say that a twice bitten vampire necessarily experiences any inconvenience? Two vampires biting each other in a cave could survive for ever. They could even have fun that way, or at least while away the time. But seriously, the OP's argument is hardly a proof there can be no vampires. It is just a proof that vampire population cannot explode exponentially indefinitely, but that's true for any, er, life form, since any life form needs some resource to stay alive. There is always some limit since on a finite planet resources are limited. With that "proof" you could easily "show" there can be no vampire bats, or lions, or ants, or bacteria. Basemetal 16:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the part of my argument that the people being bitten become vampires after being bitten. Georgia guy (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does that change anything? Basemetal 16:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This property of vampires is not shared by the animals you're talking about; the animals they bite stay the same species. Georgia guy (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy is not exact in every respect, but that difference does not change the fact that with a limit amount of resource there will always be a check on growth without that being a proof that life form can not exist in the first place. In the vampire model a vampire is "born" when a human is bitten and becomes a vampire. That's no different than any life form being born. The fact that that vampire used to be a human is completely immaterial. From that point on there is no difference in the model between mosquitoes and vampires, or generally any life form that is born and needs resources to survive. The fact that those resources are limited and so that the growth of the life form is checked by the availability of resources does not by itself mean that life form could not exist. If that's not clear how about this: suppose that all the people the original vampire bites are idiots who turn into incompetent vampires who are not able to find anyone to bite and so they die. So the original vampire stays alone. He keeps biting people. He survives. But all the new vampires just die because they are too dumb to find someone to bite. Does that prove that original vampire cannot exist? Btw, I'm not arguing for the existence of vampires. I'm just saying that your argument for their non-existence is not valid. Basemetal 17:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, Vampires would still be subject to the same properties that govern normal population dynamics, specifically resource availability. Not EVERY Vampire will get enough blood to thrive; some will starve to death. There's a classic problem of looking at the gestation period of flies, and then calculating how long it would take for the mass of flies to exceed the mass of the Earth. It's a shockingly short amount of time, and is the sort of reductio ad absurdum argument to show that there is more to population dynamics than simply births. --Jayron 32 17:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I got this by reading a Childcraft book called "Mathemagic", the 1989 edition. Does Childcraft lie a lot?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that is Childcraft's proof there can be no vampires, then I would return the book and ask for a refund. Basemetal 17:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Replace Vampires with <random life form> In order to exist <random life form> must reproduce. Assuming that <random life form> produces "X" offspring in each <random time period>, then after "Z" time periods there should be X^Z <random life forms>. Since I don't see X^Z <random life forms> all around me, then <random life form> cannot exist. It may be sound math, but it's bullshit logic. --Jayron 32 17:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish people selfish and greedy

Why are Jewish people so selfish and greedy?24.207.71.235 (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]