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.

November 24

Why is nazi Germany considered right-wing

If Nazi stands for national socialist, then why is it considered to be the far right wing opposite of communism, which is considered left wing?Uncle dan is home (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: they hijacked the term socialism. Long answer, from Nazism: "The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of a new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good" and to accept the priority of political interests in economic organisation." The characteristics of the regime are those associated with the right-wing of politics - see Right-wing politics. hth --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The Nazis were strongly anti-communist and opposed any truly socialist movements. Their term "national socialism" was an attempt at hijacking the term when they really just meant "fascism." This is covered in the Nazism article, if you read it. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It's like if a political party that opposed private property advocated "collective capitalism," just on the opposite political side. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the question you asked a while ago about Neonazis and conservatism. And similar to that situation, I should start by saying that Nazism (our articles goes into great detail) does not neatly fall on a modern, Amerocentric right-left spectrum. They were pro-religious freedom (unless they hated your religion), but against homosexuality. They supported the creation of a welfare state, but hated the entire concept of intranational class struggle. The neatest way that Nazism falls into the realm of far-right politics is the insistence that everything they're doing is based on some imagined historical tradition. That is, they are trying to go backwards, not forwards. You may be interested in the horseshoe theory of politics, which posits that the far-right has more similarities to the far-left than it does to the ordinary right. Rational Wiki has a more extensive article on this concept. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? *This* is the ordinary right now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These things happen. People's Republics were not for the people, Democratic People's Republics were not democratic or people's, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was the Lesser East Asia Exploitation Sphere, Work Sets You Free was fatal slave labor, the Italian Social Republic was a non-socialist annexation, the Grand Old Party is newer than its rival, National Socialism had only the slightest similarities with socialism, Juche is not Juche, traditional anarchism is close to but not actually anarchy (especially what they think would happen), the Republic of China doesn't possess any China, Japan's Liberal Democratic Party is conservative, Australia's Liberal Party is conservative, Newfoundland was last found in the 1400s, Virginia goes further west than West Virginia, East Elmhurst is north of Elmhurst, the West India Company was 10,000 miles from India, Inner Mongolia is not in Mongolia, West New York is in New Jersey, Pennsylvania Station is New York's Amtrak stop, Boston Road is in the Bronx, the Polo Grounds was a baseball stadium, the New York football teams are in New Jersey, Grand Central Station is peripheral and Terminal, Red Square is spindly, Herald Square is triangular, Times Square is a hexagon, and the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor Empire. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the Affordable Care Act isn't... - Nunh-huh 08:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that in general, the naming of US bills is one of the two original forms of comedy the US created (the other, of course, is The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson). "Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if the name of the bill actually corresponds to its contents, it's an oversight. If it's an acronym, it's an outright lie. - Nunh-huh 11:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely insane! It's so insane I think it might truly happen... - Nunh-huh 06:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The north side of my town faced east and the east was facing south. —Tamfang (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If I tell you the world is ruled by a handful of capitalists, then I belong to the extreme left. But if I tell you all these capitalists are Jewish, then I belong to the extreme right". Quoted and attributed from memory to an anonymous Russian anarchist. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For how it acquired the term "socialism", look into Strasserism (and both forms of it). The Nazis arose at a time when first they had to compete with a left wing, in offering a bread and jobs solution to attract a hungry Germany, and then later in competing against it to wipe it out as an alternative competition. So early period Nazis were happy to present themselves as "socialist", meaning that they would be attractive to "the working man". Later, mid-period Nazis wished to distinguish themselves from this already-labelled left-wing and so they portrayed themselves as a right wing instead, something that was new for populist political parties. Previously the "right wing" had been a British model of "us and them", as Labour vs. Tory simple class distinctions within a democracy. The working classes would always be left wing because to be right wing was to support the upper classes, against your own obvious class interests. Working class politcal struggles had so far been either "against the owners" in a simple Marxist role, or as internecine splits within the working class left. I think Germany was the first place to offer a right wing, democratic (at the time), working class party which portrayed itself as a diametrically opposite political alternative to working class left wings. Such parties are still popular today, cf. Trump.

At the same time, the dictatorial and militaristic strand within the Nazi party, that exemplified by Hitler himself, as opposed to its populist politics, had always been simply outright fascist. When Hitler became the sole fuhrer of the Nazi party (he took it over, he hadn't created it himself) and other leaders (like the Strassers) were reduced to either toadying acolytes or ousted, then it became the simple right wing fascist party that we'd now recognise, and the "socialist" label became the part looking out of place. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the Nazis weren't conservatives in the previously accepted sense of the word; they wanted nothing to do with the monarchy, the aristocracy or the church, and although they wanted the financial and industrial giants on their side, they didn't let the needs of the business community affect their policy making. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} for the last sentence! You might want to take a look at e.g. IG Farben. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that was remiss of me.

1. Business and Politics in Europe, 1900–1970: Essays in Honour of Alice Teichova edited by Terry Gourvish (p. 174): "National Socialism suspended the normal operation of the capitalist system rather than operating it on behalf of 'industrial monopolists'. The emphasis was on national service, not individual gain. 'The regulating principle', wrote one Nazi economist, 'is not profitability but a victory at arms [Waffensieg]'."

2. The Historiography of the Holocaust edited by D. Stone (p. 146): "Although National Socialists used some some traditional business organisations early on, their overall aim was to restructure companies and commercial attitudes to turn businesses away from the pursuit of individual profit and towards the good of the whole (the state and the Volk) as defined by the party."

Nobody is denying that many industrial concerns prospered because of the Nazis, my point was that it was never a Nazi ideological aim to make them prosperous, thus differentiating themselves from traditional conservatives. Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'd probably be a bit more cynical, seeing it more as a difference between official ideology and actual practice, but I get your point. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point too. The truth seems to be that they exploited each other shamelessly for their own ends. Alansplodge (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So? Hitler became a de facto king, high-ranking Nazis became the aristocracy and Nazi paganism was becoming the church. They just didn't call it that (Führer not king or emperor, their words for high-ranking Nazi not duke/baron..). Not too different from the old throne usurpations. And pogroms weren't new. Blaming the Jews wasn't new, genocide wasn't new, state racism wasn't new. Absolute monarchy is authoritarian, Nazism is authoritarian. Kinder, Küche, Kirche. Seems pretty damn conservative to me. By necessity if you're going to make Germany great again you can't be economically far right. (The business community did fuck-all to end the Depression) That's one of the flaws of capitalism - when a Great Depression happens there's no one to restart the economy by simply forcing the employers to rehire the country again till the economy can stay up without central planning. It's a bit like the prisoners dilemma. The right is varying amounts of Darwinism/preservation or creation of a caste order (i.e. Aryan>African>Jew) and the left is varying amounts of egalitarianism/encouraging the reduction of inequality so in that case Nazism is about as right wing as possible ("it is the birthright of the genetically superior White Master Race to exterminate the subhumans"). Nazism is rightism for the race. Ultranationalism is rightism for the country. No rules capitalism with possibly employee-affecting drugs and porn banned (porn addiction) is rightism for businesses. Libertarianism with all drugs allowed is rightism for the individual. Theocracy is rightism for the religious. Monarchism is rightism for, um, whoever prefers that. Australia's far more right wing on monarchism than less liberal America so I suspect what you're used to determines how much of the population prefers monarchism. These are incompatible and cannot coexist but the underlying theme is "some people are better than others and that's the way it should be" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US federal cabinet nominees by president-elect

Images such as File:20081211 TD ROLLOUT-1136.jpg and news stories about "Trump nominates X for cabinet position" remind me of something I've wondered for a long time. When the incumbent US president's successor is elected (whether because he defeated the incumbent or because the incumbent wasn't running), the president-elect soon begins announcing his nominations for various high positions, long before he actually takes office on 20 January. How "official" are these announcements? Obviously the position of president-elect has no constitutional powers (especially at this point, since the electors haven't yet voted), so I've thought of several alternate explanations for how the process works, with the current folks' names for simplicity:

Trump announces that he's going to nominate X, so in order to make things work smoothly, Obama nominates that person to start that position on 20 January, and the nomination is considered as soon as the relevant Senate committee has time
Trump announces that he's going to nominate X, so that person is officially nominated on or soon after 20 January, and the relevant Senate committee then adds that person's nomination to the calendar for hearings
Trump announces that he's going to nominate X, so the relevant Senate committee adds that person to the calendar for immediate hearings. That way, once the official nomination is made on 20 January, they can just vote without taking the time for post-nomination hearings.

Which of these (if any) is roughly accurate? Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 is normally what happens. Why would Obama ever take action on his successor's nominee? Most of his cabinet nominees were sworn in on the afternoon of 20th or during the following week. Hillary Clinton was the exception for the Obama cabinet as the confirmation hearings were the week prior - her nomination required a reduction in the SOS salary to get around the ineligibility clause. Xenon54 (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Option 3 is the better answer. Senate committees have independent investigatory authority, and hence can open hearings any time after the new Congress opens in early January. The official nomination doesn't occur until the new President is sworn in, and in general the full Senate vote can not occur until at least one day after the nomination, but the relevant committee can choose to hold hearings early at their discretion. In 2009, after Obama was elected for his first term, Senate confirmation hearings were held for 11 of 15 Senate confirmable cabinet positions before Obama took office on Jan 20.: Secretary of Agriculture (Jan 14), Attorney General (Jan 15), Sec. of Education (Jan 13), Sec. of Energy (Jan 13), Sec. of Health & Human Services (Jan 8), Sec. of Homeland Security (Jan 15), Sec. of HUD (Jan 13), Sec. of Interior (Jan 15), Sec. of Labor (Jan 9), Sec. of State (Jan 13), and Sec. of Veteran Affairs (Jan 14). Of these 8 of the 11 were confirmed during the first week after Obama took office. Dragons flight (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Where did you get the dates on the hearings? And on the "why would Obama" question, I imagined a mix of convenience and courtesy: barring a sudden withdrawal decision by Trump (which Obama could resolve by firing the person before he took office; no Tenure of Office Act), a nomination by Obama of someone to take office after he's out of office won't have any immediate effect (as long as he's in office, it won't affect the country one way or the other) and that person's guaranteed to get the nomination soon afterward anyway. Plus, every incoming president announces nominations before taking office, so presumably there's a traditional way of handling these things, and if Bush II had nominated Obama's appointees to take offices post-20 January, I thought perhaps Obama might do the same for Trump's appointees. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic North Dakota primary result 2016 by county

Which counties did Bernie Sanders win during the primaries? because the map for Democratic primary North Dakota didn't show the counties that were green but the US map of Democratic Party primaries results by counties did show for North Dakota but it was confusing. Donmust90 (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the files that I've placed to the right, and the fact that no counties are marked on the state map? I'm guessing that someone was planning to mark the counties on the ND map but forgot. Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Donmust90 (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just now downloaded the North Dakota map and discovered that it's text-editable (i.e. changing six specific characters, all easily identified, will change a county's color), but then I noticed that the boundaries on the national map do not reflect county boundaries, comparable to what's done with Alaska and Kansas. As such, I cannot update this map. We'll have to find county-level data on voting before updating this map. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out that the North Dakota on the US map is actually the map of North Dakota Legislative Assembly House of Representative districts. Donmust90 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Root Causes of Sudan's Civil Wars (African Issues)

Resolved

Hello. I am destubbing Josephine Apieu Jenaro Aken and the article references:

Root Causes of Sudan's Civil Wars (African Issues) by Douglas H. Johnson (Paperback – 16 Jan 2003) ISBN 0-85255-392-7

Problem is, I have a copy of the book with me, but I can not find her name or her husband Dominic Dim Deng in the index. I've looked, and I can't find either of them in the book. I am focusing on destubbing Josephine Apieu Jenaro Aken but her husband's wiki article also cites the same reference.

Are they both included in the book and i've missed it? Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you've maybe noticed, that book was in there from the get-go. I'm guessing that it was placed as a background-reading item on the whole conflict, not as something that would provide specific data on Josephine. Dominic's article got the book in this series of edits by the same IP address on 22 January 2011, and again it's seemingly just for background reading on the whole conflict. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I wasn't sure. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

What do you call this situation?

Two school boys, call them Sam and Singh. Every day, Sam insults Singh. Real insults, like racist or scold his mother, not joking. One day Singh cannot take it anymore and beats Sam up. The teacher knows that Sam bullied Singh for a long time. So she choose not to punish Singh because punishing him would add to the bullying. Of course, under the law, both Sam and Singh are underage, but what if this situation happens between adults? Like abusive relationships. Or even communities facing discrimination.--Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Provocation (legal) for the common-law position. Different jurisdictions will have different rules on the subject. Tevildo (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I read it and confused over one thing. In the law, provocation is only for sudden single incidents? My thinking more about long term situation. --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black rage (law) is also potentially relevant. (Or of interest anyway.) Amisom (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Defense of infancy#Ages of criminal responsibility by country. In the UK, the schoolboys would have to be less than 10 years-old to be "underage". Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but police are reluctant to prosecute children generally. 86.169.56.237 (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be changing. A quick Google search revealed a couple of examples: School crime reports topped 30,000 in 2014 (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and For More Teens, Arrests by Police Replace School Discipline (USA). Alansplodge (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Defense of infancy, "10 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; 12 in Scotland". Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds completely wrong to me. If the teacher knew bullying was happening they should have taken steps to stop it, and fairly coercive steps by the time of this it sounds like. And Singh should have been punished for beating a person up even if not so much because of the provocation. Dmcq (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but traditionally many have had a "hands off" policy regarding bullying, trying to get the victim to "stand up for him/herself". Unfortunately, these days, with guns widely available to all in the US, this attitude has led to many school shootings here. StuRat (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean after Singh whack Sam, then the teacher found out that Sam bullied Singh for a long time. Also depends on the culture. --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stand-your-ground laws may also be relevant. StuRat (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elections in Israel: campaigning on Shabbat?

up== I know that all sorts of things on Shabbat are controversial, public transport, protest marches and so on. I'm trying to find any articles or content on election campaigning on Shabbat. Is it frowned upon? Does it happen? But strangely can't find anything. Can anybody help? Amisom (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a prohibition on "work" on shabbos. Election campaigning is most definitely "work". Also, of course, campaigners who bother people on this day will just cause annoyance and turn people off from voting for their party. 86.169.56.237 (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm looking for sources about controversies that this issue has created. For example, transport restaurants radio and other such issues have caused public controversies. I'm interested to know whether there have been any similar public controversies around election campaigning, eg. proposed laws against it. Thanks. Amisom (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli population is culturally diverse and the majority (including many Jews) don't observe the Judaic laws of Halakha with its numerous prohibitions on what constitutes "breaking the Sabbath." Whatever of Halakha isn't codified in civil law is a matter of personal choice. Other than the political parties whose candidates, representatives and platforms align with and observe Halakha, others on principle support religious pluralism and freedom of observance. Such parties would very likely campaign actively during the Shabbat, which hours coincide with the weekend. This would likely be received favorably by the sector of the electorate to whom they appeal. Alternatively, observant parties might successfully conduct parlor meetings at private homes and neighborhood halls with no commercial element. (Public media coverage, though, is to some extent restricted during the Shabbat.) None of this being newsworthy, it's unlikely to be reported in the media. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much needs improving

In the summer of 2003 I visited an exhibition at the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich commemorating the 400th anniversary of the death of Queen Elizabeth I in 1603. On display were several paintings of Elizabeth, one of which, if I remember correctly, had in the background, in Latin, the sentence, "I have seen it all, and much needs improving". I have looked for this sentence in Latin for several years. Can any of you tell me what the Latin sentence might be, and in which painting of Elizabeth it appears? 86.142.14.38 (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it would be in David Starkey's catalogue of the exhibition. [1]. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There could be lots of ways to say "much needs improving", but "I have seen it all" would probably be something like "omnia vidi" or "omnia vidimus" (assuming the "royal we"), but I don't see any relevant results for those... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might you mean the Plimpton Sieve Portrait of Queen Elizabeth I, which includes the Italian text "TVTTO VEDO & / MOLTO MANCHA" ("I see everything, and much is lacking")? (Or maybe another sieve portrait by George Gower, with the same motto above the globe, here)! ---Sluzzelin talk 00:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by Jove, I think that's it. Thank you very much, indeed! 86.142.14.38 (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

Metal of a coin more valuable than the monetary value

Can the metal of a coin be more valuable than the monetary value printed on it? In countries like Zimbabwe, for example, due to hyperinflation, the monetary value of their cash might well end up not being much above 0. Or, if the metal prices skyrocket, would the smallest coin of a Western country fall into this category?--Llaanngg (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Coin#Currency, paragraph 2. Loraof (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The silver in Canadian quarters was worth more than face value back in the '70s, so people got their mitts on as many as they could and made tidy profits. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The production of a Swiss 5-Rappen coin costs about 6 Rappen which led Swissmint to recommend abolishing it a few years ago, but the Federal Council decided on keeping it because of the people's cultural attachment, see also this NZZ article and de:Fünfrappenstück which even gives the Swiss phrase "Chasch nöd s Föifi und s Weggli ha" as an example of the coin's 'cultural significance' (literally "you can't have your 5-Rappen piece and your bread roll", meaning "You can't have your cake and eat it"). ---Sluzzelin talk 06:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bullion coins have a face value far below their intrinsic worth. The British Sovereign has a face value of one Pound Sterling, but can currently be sold for over £200. Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bass bought US$1,000,000.00 worth of nickles--five cent pieces-- a few years back when their scrap value was 6.8 cents per coin. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So did he get 20 million coins or only 15 million? —Tamfang (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

$20 million. I am not aware of the details as to any fees or commissions paid or whether he actually took physical possession of them. And he'd have to take them out of the country to sell them as scrap. I am sure this is googleable, I simply remember it as a news item, I never read past the lead. μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The results of a Google search would suggest he did take possession of the nickels, and they are sitting in storage somewhere. Furtheremore, taking it out of the country would not help, as 18 U.S. Code § 333 does not care where the offense is committed. It is sufficiently broad, in fact, that even just selling the coins would probably count as a violation, if there is reason to think the buyer plans to melt them down. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a read of Thomas Levenson (2010). Newton and the Counterfeiter. ISBN 978-0571229932. (Yes, Isaac Newton). This covers the 17th century crisis in England, where the bullion value of the silver currency encouraged clipping and also trading across to Holland, where the metal was worth more and coins were melted. A further problem was the counterfeiting of good coins in pure silver with bad coins in a diluted alloy. This led to an actual shortage of coins, and an inability to mint more at a sensible cost. Eventually this drove England off the silver currency standard and onto a gold standard, where the currency of everyday commerce became a fiat currency, backed by gold held in a robust national reserve bank, but not actually circulated everyday. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the term "fiat money" here is incorrect. Fiat money refers specifically to paper that it not backed by, or redeemable in gold or silver or some other valuable substance. The term for paper money redeemable in a precious metal or similar substance is hard money, referred to as "commerce currency" in the fiat currency article. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, my use of the term fiat currency was carefully considered and is correct. In Wikipedia's terminology, this situation is more closely described as representative currency, a term which I did consider using instead. However as the first instance of fiat currency in this sense, and the first move towards fiat, rather than simple value based coinage, I consider it as the more illustrative term. Note that, in the sense of England's gold standard after Newton, that form of representative money is considered as a form of fiat.

Also, in Newton's period, currency also became significantly paper based with a growth in various forms of bonds or simple lotteries, the Malt Lottery being the most famous. These were pure fiat, and in turn led to the South Sea Bubble, in which Newton himself lost heavily. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite free to make up whatever meaning you like for a term, and government central banks can and do welsh on paper certificates, such as the US going off the Silver certificate (United States). But calling silver certificates fiat money, and money which cannot be redeemed for anything tangible "pure fiat" money is your own idiosyncrasy, and a version of the "No true Scotsman fallacy. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Keynes' term: fiat money is any money for which the face value is divorced from the intrinsic value of the coinage. This can be of two forms, either a fiat backed purely by trust and confidence, or it can be representative money backed by hard reserves (this has the advantage that the gold, or whatever, doesn't have to be circulated and so susceptible to wear or clipping. Nor would a reserve of diamonds or neodymium be easily coinable.). As the intrinsic value of the coinage itself though is negligible, both of these are fiat monies, according to Keynes. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coin clipping was a risky business in England, where it fell under the offence of high treason. Consider the fate of Thomas Rogers and Anne Rogers who were convicted of clipping 40 silver coins in 1690. "Thomas Rogers was hanged, drawn and quartered, and Anne Rogers was burnt alive". Alansplodge (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clipping was becoming uncommon by this time, in favour of either shipping the entire coins off as bullion, or as coining (minting counterfeit from debased alloy). Only the lower grades of criminal, without the skills or connections to do any better, were still at it.

Another form of profit to such groups, was in selling out other counterfeiters in exchange for a pardon. There were whole pyramid schemes of betrayal going on, where some of the most successful thief takers were little more than the best connected of the counterfeiters. The Rogers were simply at the tail of such a chain. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why were there so many counterfeiters with such harsh penalties? Did all the counterfeiters who turned in another live? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they could earn a pardon, see Queen's evidence. See also Bloody Code; "In 1688 there were 50 offences on the statute book punishable by death". Because coinage offences could undermine the whole financial system, the punishment had to be worse than that for common theft, which was hanging. Eventually, we decided to send our thieves to America instead, and when there was some local difficulty there, we found Australia. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My father was given a warning about defacing the coin of the realm once because he used a whole lot of Nigerian one tenth of a penny coins which were much cheaper and better quality than the washers he could get for a job. Dmcq (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides the guest selection for the White House Correspondents' Dinner?

Who decides the guest selection for the White House Correspondents' Dinner? The White House Correspondents' Association, the White House, or both together? Or some third party? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Deor (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

Government policy

Are government policies the same thing as organisation policies (I.e. Policies which defines the way an organisation functions - I suppose a bit like Wikipedia policies)? 2A02:C7D:B946:A000:F9F8:FC21:38F4:D028 (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Policy and Government policy. Government policy generally refers to decisions on how to influence conditions or entities outside of government, rather than how the government itself functions. Loraof (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But they're still basically the same thing right? Policy, organisational policy, public policy, Wikipedia policy. 2A02:C7D:B946:A000:F9F8:FC21:38F4:D028 (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that cows are the "same thing" as animals. Some policies are government policies, some policies are not government policies. Wikipedia policies are not the same as government policies. United States government policies are not the same as Saudi Arabian government policies, and I'm pretty sure that both of those are rather distinct from North Korean government policies. None of them are like the policies for the Church of Scientology, Alcoholics Anonymous, or Toys for Tots, which are organizations that have organizational policies, but not governments (and so do not have governmental policies, even if they may be affected by them to varying degrees). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC. Lord, I hate ECs.) Well, they're all policies of one sort or another. Loraof's answer seems to point to the nub of the difference between the two classes of policy. It's difficult to understand what you're wanting by way of an answer to the question. If you want a trite policy=policy, then we're done. If you want to start digging in a little more, there's lots that might be said. I suspect a central problem is that this is an ill-posed quesiton :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think there is a real dilemma here, in that while it has been government policy to regard policy as the responsibility of Ministers, and administration as the responsibility of officials, questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the administration of policy and the policy of administration, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts or overlaps with responsibility for the policy of the administration of policy (Sir Antony Jay, Yes Minister). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

"Arrangement" as a painting

The article Whistler's Mother, referring to the painting officially titled Arrangement in Gray and Black No.1, says that "The sensibilities of a Victorian era viewing audience would not accept what was apparently a portrait being exhibited as an 'arrangement'; thus the explanatory title Portrait of the Artist's Mother was appended."

What did Victorian viewing audiences expect an "arrangement" to be? Arrangement (disambiguation) doesn't appear to link to any articles which cover "arrangements" as paintings. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whistler frequently used musical terms to describe his pictures - see, for example, Nocturne in Black and Gold and Symphony in White, No. 2 - so our appropriate article on the term is Arrangement (music). This was to emphasise their status as "Art for art's sake", and to escape the constraints of the traditional Academic genres of painting. Tevildo (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How much is Newton's 1696 salary (£500-600) worth in today's US$?

In terms of how much of a CPI-type basket that'd buy. This says £62,570-£75,084 but the pound just dropped by a ton after Brexit and I assume any value added by British residents should not expensivize quite as much as how much the pound dropped relative to the dollar (since whatever Brit added the value must buy non-imports at times, too). What should I multiply the pounds by?

2. How many grams of each metal did he get? Was it 400 gold crowns and 3,000 silver shillings or 300 sovereigns and 4,000 half shillings and 5 bronze pennies and a copper farthing or what? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that inflation in the UK has not really been affected by the devaluation of Sterling yet (I'm not sure what "expensivize" means) - see UK inflation at 1% as price of clothes and fuel rises, so I think you could safely use a pre-Brexit rate of exchange from a few months ago. These historical equivalences are guesswork at best; "over long time spans, changes in prices give only the very roughest and most approximate idea of changes in the value of money." Exeter University - Current Value of Old Money. According to this, the pre-Brexit rate was $1.48 to £1. Thus a conversion of £62,570 - £75,084 would be $92,604 - $111,124.

The status of the English currency at that time was a bit complicated, as there was no fixed value for the standard high-value coin, the Guinea. Nominally worth one pound Sterling (20 silver shillings), because of the fluctuation in price between silver and gold, it could be exchanged for between 22 and 25 shillings in the 1660s. However, it eventually settled at 21 shillings, which it remained until 1971. So at a nominal rate of 21 shillings, £600 would be 12,000 shillings, or 571½ guineas, (each guinea being about a quarter of an ounce of gold) which gives 143 ounces or 8lbs 15 oz of gold or thereabouts, always provided that I've done the maths right. Our Cheque article says: "By the 17th century, bills of exchange were being used for domestic payments in England", so he probably wouldn't have been handed a big sack full of gold coins, just a piece of paper. Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've just noticed that you asked for grams (I thought you American chaps weren't metricated). That would be at 8.385 grams per guinea, equal to 4.772 kg (Hmm... that converts to 10 lbs 8 oz so maybe the "approximately one quarter ounce of gold" quoted in our article was only very approximate). Alansplodge (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Americans aren't metricated but since the troy pound has 12 ounces that are c.10% heavier than the avoirdupois ounce but there's 16 of 'em so the avoirdupois pound's c.22% heavier but it's used for regular things like pennies while troy ounces are used for gold and silver I thought it'd be better to just ask for grams and convert back to pounds (not the apothecary pound – that's only for drugs). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought about troy pounds but thought I'd better stick with the bog-standard 16 oz kind. I'd forgotten that the troy ounce was bigger, so perhaps that accounts for the error. Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

Cixi and Guangwu

When Empress Dowager Cixi and the Guangxu Emperor fled to Xian after the Boxer Rebellion where did they live in during their exile in Xian? They left Beijing on 14 August 1900 and did not return to the capital until January 1902. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a lot more obscure than it ought to be. It's not even mentioned in our History of Xi'an article. I was going nowhere until I remembered that in my far-off school days, Cixi was called Tz'u-Hsi [2] and that led me to Sian, the former transliteration of Xi'an. Anyhow, by a lot of Googling book titles, I eventually came to Through hidden Shensi (1902) by Francis Henry Nichols, an American charity worker, who arrived in Sian three weeks after Tz'u-Hsi (or Tsz' Hi as he calls her) had returned to Beijing. From page 203 to page 208, Nichols describes the Imperial progress through the countryside, staying at the residences of local governors or in official inns ("kung kwan") and accompanied by "wholesale decapitation" of those who displeased her. On page 209, he describes the former viceroy's residence "in a park in the northern part of Sian" which was renovated for the use of the Dowager Empress. "The whole area, comprising about fifdteen acres, was then inclosed with a high brick-wall, in evident imitation of the forbidden city in Pekin". A photograph of the elaborate gateway faces page 210. He managed to persuade an official to give him a tour of the complex, which he describes in the following pages. Identifying whether these buildings are still standing today has eluded me. Alansplodge (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mini pianos with 12 keys?

Are there mini-pianos for training scales? That is, twice 12 keys? Llaanngg (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some with 25 keys. --Jayron 32 09:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are toys though, this kind of thing is better. --Viennese Waltz 10:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not much more than a toy either, with its "mini keys". For "training scales" - which I assume means "learning to play scales on a piano" - you need full-size keys, preferably weighted (i.e not on springs), and at least four octaves (49 keys - which will of course only allow a scale of three octaves in most keys). For learning the fingerings one of these might be a better option. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yours is also a toy,User:Viennese Waltz , and as above, it's also designed for little fingers. And these keys are not weighted. --Llaanngg (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ones in Jayron's link are clearly designed to appeal to children, with their bright colours and superhero graphics. That's what I meant when I said they were toys. The one in my link may not be much good for learning to play scales either, but it's not explicitly designed to look like a child's plaything. --Viennese Waltz 17:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware the super-hero pictures altered the way it produced sound. --Jayron 32 17:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly! You'll be claiming that go-faster stripes don't make a car go faster next. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.248.159.54 (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's defined as a toy by what it looks like, not by the way it produces sound. --Viennese Waltz 07:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 US House election data

Hello,

I am wondering if Wikipedia has the 2016 US House election results in a data set that I would be able to use for my own research, if not, can you direct me to where your information came from? I have checked many other sites, and Wiki currently has the most complete and succinct list.

I appreciate your time167.206.48.221 (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Crystal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.48.221 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could do a copy-and-paste into whatever document you're working on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for a good way to extract the data, just copying the HTML tables into Excel usually does the trick, although you might have to fix a bit of formatting afterwards. Smurrayinchester 09:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For real research, you need the primary source information, not whatever Wikipedia has. More than that, it looks like the Wikipedia sources are newspaper reports (for example, at United States House of Representatives elections, 2016#References), which are also liable to error and change.

You really need the official numbers from the US Government: usa.gov says they will be available at usa.gov in mid-2017; but if you need them sooner, you can go one by one to each state's election office, where they will be posted no later than Dec 19. 184.147.120.192 (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betrayal of Anne Frank

Who betrayed Anne Frank, her family and the other 4 people in hiding and why? 81.154.209.39 (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article you just linked, her betrayer has never been identified. The same article also notes several suspected informants, but no one has been firmly identified as the one. --Jayron 32 18:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

Defending abortion without defending infanticide

According to here,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_debate#Fetal_personhood in the second paragraph it says that one person concedes that infants do not qualify as persons according to the criteria for personhood mentioned in the first paragraph. The second paragraph says that defenders of the criteria respond that reversibly comatose patients do fit the criteria, but not infants. How could one defend the criteria in such a way without defending infanticide? I'm not asking for arguments in favour of abortion which don't use the criteria.Uncle dan is home (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given a certain definition of personhood, the difference between a patient in a reversible coma and a fetus is that the former is a once-and-possibly-future person, while the latter is merely a possibly-future person. Critics of potential-personhood-centered pro-life arguments often take the concern over potential-future-persons to the extreme and insist that one should conclude that even sperm and eggs would be protected under such criteria. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another definition is life starts at conception and potential human doesn't mean anything. Otherwise people should multiply as fast as possible till whatever the Earth can take (36 billion?) then instantly switch to replacement-level fertility cause otherwise they're preventing future lives. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Protestant clergymen of Polynesia

Who was/were the first indigenous Protestant clergymen (i.e. Pastors or Reverends) of Polynesia? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moorish Revival landscaping

I am researching landscaping solutions that would complement a city's Moorish Revival architecture. This is somewhat complicated by the city's humid continental climate. Almost all examples of Moorish Revival architecture I find are from areas of either Mediterranean or subtropical climate, which means the plants are not cold-hardy. Can someone tell me where to look? Any significant examples of Moorish Revival landscaping in continental climate? Surtsicna (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mangareva and the Gambier Islands Annexation

I'm trying to find the exact date for the annexation of Mangareva and the Gambier Islands but it seems there are two different ones reported: 21 February 1881 when the island chiefs and Henri Isidore Chessé signed an agreement and then another date "23 February 1881" which seems to be a revision of the existing native law code. My confusion with this is why did annexation dated to the latter date instead, These are the two sources I've been using [3] and [4]. However there are more ones out there. Please someone with the knowledge of French or the patience to copy and paste French text to Google Translate, help me understand the reason for this dual dating. Some sources with the 23 February [5]. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say the same thing but disagree on the date: that the inhabitants of Gambier Islands were convened in solemn assembly and voted in favor of annexation. The problem is, as you state, that some say the assembly was convened on February 21 and others on February 23rd. There is no indication that the meeting lasted more than a day either, so that's not the source of the discrepancy. Both sources are relatively close to the events themselves, but still a few years removed, so it's hard to say which one of them is correct. --Xuxl (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know about usage of ancient buildings?

For example, How do we know that Colosseum was used for gladiator? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology and studying written contemporary sources.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, for instance, Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre, which mentions the works of Suetonius and Cassius Dio and Martial. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How archeology can tell us By the 2nd century BC the area was densely inhabited? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Presidential Election

How did Hillary Clinton manage to lose all three battle ground states and 3 of the blue wall states. I can understand splitting but going 1 for seven?68.191.203.98 (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]