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.

January 3

troops volunteered when they enlisted for Vietnam

Someone told me that 2/3rds of the troops volunteered when they enlisted for Vietnam, while it was only about a third for World War 2. Is this true? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right for WWII. According to the WWII museum, 38.8% were volunteers, 61.2% drafted.[1] And for Vietnam, this source says 25% were draftees. Thing with the Vietnam draft is that the way it was structured, it was highly advantageous for men to volunteer once they'd found out they were likely to be drafted. `--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 06:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JPgordon is right. Many volunteered in anticipation of being drafted. By volunteering, one maintained a certain level of control (or at least a feeling of being in control) by being able to choose which branch of the military and list their choice(s) of M.O.S. (they, of course wouldn't always get their requested job, but the goal was presumably to avoid the Army/Infantry). This PhD thesis addresses this, particularly starting at the end of page 40.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 07:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the question and answers all relate to USA only. If the original questioner reads this and is reflecting on other countries too, please do say so. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Australia, 15,381 conscripts were deployed to Vietnam out of a total of about 60,000 Australians who served in the war, so about three quarters were professionals. See Conscription in Australia and Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War. Alansplodge (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

25% were conscripts: they did not enlist. Of the enlistees, many did in fact volunteer to serve in Vietnam, but many of us who volunteered to avoid the draft explicitly did so to avoid going to Vietnam, as William said above. The tradeoff: draftee serves two years, volunteer serves 3 years. Volunteer has a very good chance of not getting shipped to Vietnam. However, there were lots of guys who genuinely wanted to serve in combat, which meant serving in Vietnam, and they volunteered to do so. -Arch dude (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural upheaval

Hank Green recently said We are in a time of cultural upheaval.

Is there truth to this?

Benjamin (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear of a time when there wasn't cultural upheaval. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a large early chunk of the paleolithic. Though that could just be us hoping for the best out of an era that didn't leave much that could be considered records. Then there's also the debate of whether they have the sort of culture necessary to qualify as not having cultural upheaval. Otherwise, yeah, you can always find doomsayers in any era, and Hegel-influenced historians (not as explicitly common these days) assume that history is just a series of cultural upheavals. See Oswald Spengler for an example. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Hank Green and do you have a link to where he said it, Benjaminikuta? Do you think that everybody is on the same wavelength as you? Here you refer to a "Dan Howell" and a momentary mention in a longer video that you do not link to. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on a Hank Green and a Dan Howell, both being internet personalities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, that is the way to pose a question. A question should be posed to facilitate those responding. Some feeble attempt should be made to clarify an area of inquiry. I don't mean to discourage the editor from using the Reference boards. And I am sympathetic to the difficulties of participation here. But there was already mention made of problematic question-posing in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the poster actually is a teenager, he may have the notion that "everybody" knows who these internet characters are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. This is the video I'm reffering to, but I didn't include it because I know a YouTube video probably isn't a good source, and I'm looking for other sources. Benjamin (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote in the vlog is

We are in a time of cultural upheaval. That's probably true of everyone who has ever lived but it seems particularly strong right now.

So I suppose you are asking if the rate of change in culture is on the rise. I also assume you are asking about Western culture.

Wikipedia has interesting articles on Transformation of culture and Accelerating change. There are reasons to believe that culture is evolving faster than it did in the past. It is also possible that we simply attach more significance to cultural changes in our own time because we are witnessing them first hand. Schnitzel8 (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most everybody thinks things are more volatile in the here and now, especially the younger ones who weren't yet alive during previous "upheavals". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no measurement of culture change therefore any answer is as good as any other answer. You could say culture is evolving rapidly or you could say culture is evolving slowly. There are no increments for measuring cultural change. Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the long view, yes there has always been change and upheaval, and there is nothing new under the sun. But if you care to delve into prehistory, fully modern humans created an art of astonishing cultural continuity over tens of thousands of years.[2] [3] [4] The history of history books is still too often of monarchs and generals, and the life of court and capital, where fashions have always changed and churned. The lives of the peasants and artisans of any given period would have changed much less from one generation, or indeed century, to the next: the food they ate and the implements they used are there to be examined, in documents and museums. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The control of fire by early humans was a significant cultural moment. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that our perspectives are colored by our generational perspective, but it's also pretty reasonable to suppose that some years, or some decades see more cultural change than others. Benjamin (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what evidence? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjaminikuta—there is the article Sociocultural evolution. I'm not sure how relevant it is to your line of inquiry but I just thought I'd mention that article. Bus stop (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, that is exactly my question. Benjamin (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is unanswerable because there is no measurement of cultural change. How would it be measured? By conjecture? I am aware that this is the "humanities" reference desk but doesn't your question fundamentally require "science" or "math"? In my opinion it would be a mistake to attempt to measure cultural change by reference to external factors. We could very easily wax loquacious about computers or airplanes or nuclear power but what matters is the subjective impact on people of those external factors. How can that subjective impact be measured? If for instance the arrival of the "information age" is taken in stride by humanity, can it be said to have cultural impact? Bus stop (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, wouldn't it be reasonable to say 1848 was a year of cultural upheaval? Benjamin (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what, and compared to what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think one can quantify culture, Benjaminikuta. One certainly could say that "1848 was a year of cultural upheaval", but only to make a point. I don't think there could be any objective reality to such a statement. One might say that as an introductory comment before mentioning the cultural changes taking place at that time. But in my opinion this would be little more than a literary or oratorical device. Would there be any objective reality to the assertion that "1848 was a year of cultural upheaval"? How do we know? Have we measured the level of cultural upheaval applicable to that year as opposed to other years? Culture by the way is a thing created by humans. If a meteorite hits the Earth that is not a cultural event. Culture is not only created by humans but it is regulated by humans. While there are cultural impulses that may seem vastly transformative there are always humans trying to rein in and productively harness those impulses. When we say "culture" we are largely talking about technology. Technology is never allowed to run amok. The control of fire by early humans was a cultural event. Our article says "The control of fire by early humans was a turning point in the cultural aspect of human evolution." Nuclear power is certainly controlled. Air flight is controlled. And the use of computers is controlled too. I think that maybe it is unlikely that there could be cultural upheaval because we are controlling cultural events. And also I don't see how we could measure the amount of change culture is imparting to society. Culture means many things but I think when we talk about cultural upheaval we have in mind cultural changes brought about by technology. Bus stop (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of policy is that Wikipedia is not concerned with "objective reality", but rather, what sources say. I would be quite surprised if there are no sources so bold as to call a time one of cultural upheaval. Benjamin (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Benjaminikuta, concerning policy, you probably could speak of "cultural upheaval" in article space. This is the first mention you've made of Wikipedia policy and the editing of an article. What is the article? Can you tell me more about the edit? Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None in particular yet. What would be most appropriate? Benjamin (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate article in which to use the term "cultural upheaval"? Is that what you're asking? Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Women's suffrage in Japan uses the term. It reads: "Whilst experiencing marked cultural upheaval, women's suffrage became a feature of the changing society of Japan." Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for sources talking about the level of cultural upheaval in the current time. Benjamin (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to what other time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The past, mainly, I suppose. Perhaps the future, but I would think that'd be a bit uncertain. Benjamin (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjaminikuta—how can there be a "level of cultural upheaval" without the ability to measure cultural upheaval? Bus stop (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DEFCON 4? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of a similar system for classifying cultural upheaval? DEFCON measures the level of readiness of the US Armed Forces. Would there be a corresponding system for measuring and classifying the level of cultural upheaval? Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have the causality mixed up. DEFCON does not measure the readiness of the US Armed Forces, it indicates what level of readiness they should be at. The DEFCON level is set top-down, by the President, hopefully with the Secretary of Defense and the Chiefs of Staff in the loop, based on an assessment (not a measurement) of the overall threat situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephan Schulz—what does DEFCON have to do with "cultural upheaval"? We were discussing cultural upheaval. Please explain. Bus stop (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know about MCLR, and how MCLR is different from the base rate?

After reading many articles I gained knowledge about MCLR and the difference between MCLR and Base Rate. I am sharing my views here on MCLR and Base Rate, if I missed some points so please let me know about it,

MCLR means: The Reserve Bank of India has brought another approach of setting loaning rate by business banks under the name Marginal Cost of Funds based Lending Rate (MCLR). It has adjusted the current base rate framework from April 2016 onwards.

The MCLR ought to be updated month to month by thinking of some as new components including the repo rate and other borrowing rates. Particularly the repo rate and other borrowing rates that were not unequivocally thought to be under the base rate framework.

According to the new rules, banks need to set five benchmark rates for various tenure or time periods ranging from overnight (one day) rates to one year.

Now the point come that How MCLR is different from base rate?

The base rate or the standard lending rate by a bank is calculated on the premise of the following factors:

1. Cost for the funds (interest rate given for deposits),

2. Operating expenses,

3. Minimum rate of return (profit), and

4. Cost for the CRR (for the four percent CRR, the RBI is not giving any interest to the banks)

On the other hand, the MCLR is comprised of the following are the main components. 1. Marginal cost of funds;

2. Negative carry on account of CRR;

3. Operating costs;

4. Tenor premium

It is obvious that the CRR costs and operating expenses are the normal components for both base rate and the MCLR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhushbooGupta07 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not (as far as I can tell) have an article about MLCR (Marginal Cost of Funds Based Lending Rate). See Wikipedia:Your first article. Alansplodge (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to AFF

Are there any alternatives to AdultFriendFinder that are free or lower cost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.147.246.88 (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bar? --Jayron 32 16:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Tinder? uhhlive (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FetLife may be of interest. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think PlentyOfFish claims to be the world's largest "free" (in reality, "freemium") dating site, but it's not specifically adult-oriented, so it may not be what you're looking for. Though, to be honest, if you take the right approach (don't be a sleaze or a creep, ok?), I think you'd be just as likely to meet a potential sexual partner there than on adultfriendfinder? They do have categories as to what people are looking for, so you can screen out those explicitly seeking a long term relationship.

AdultFriendFinder's behaviour in some regards in controversial, and I'd like to see any data, or even estimates, as to how many of the male users of the site seeking female partners ever successfully meet a female off the site in real life. Any studies or estimates on the matter? Or any stats released by the site which may give some guesses? (The nature of such sites is that they're obviously more attractive to the average man than the average woman, so a significant sex imbalance is probably inevitable. But that does not excuse unethical behaviour to make it look like there are more active female users than there actually are). Eliyohub (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Madison gives a good outline of the pitfalls. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "The info that the hackers published contained about 31 million accounts apparently belonging to men, and about 5 million apparently belonging to women." There have been questions asked about how many of these "female users" were real (as opposed to fake profiles created by the company) and actively meeting anyone off the site. So your chances would not be that high on such sites. I suggest reading online reviews of any site from people with experience using it before spending any hard-earned money, and beware of shill posts and astroturfers, even on "publicly posted review" sites. But I do not assume that the OP is married or in a relationship, so what happened to Ashley Madison in terms of the leaks may be less of a concern. And besides, he is only asking about free sites, so the sites' financial integrity may not be an issue. But I strongly recommend familiarizing oneself with spotting and avoiding falling victim to Romance scams (in this case, the promise may be sex, not romance, but the danger is the same). NEVER send money via western union or moneygram to anyone you have not met IN REAL LIFE. EVEN if you've spoken on the telephone! Break this rule, YOU WILL BE SCAMMED, GUARANTEED. Eliyohub (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ingersoll on Moses

Mark Twain said "I wouldn't give a cent to hear Ingersoll on Moses, but I'd give ten dollars to hear Moses on Ingersoll." Moses I know about, but what is Ingersoll? Was he talking about The Ingersoll Lectures on Human Immortality? 208.95.51.72 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Must be Robert G. Ingersoll, a contemporary writer and orator and personal acquaintance of Twain, who had published a work called "Some mistakes of Moses". Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders what Twain would have thought of Oolon Colluphid. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders what Twain would have thought of Vermin Supreme. - Nunh-huh 20:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ingersoll was pretty much a blowhard, although he does still have his fans among certain anarchists. His militant atheism gained him publicity, if not infamy in his day. His reputation was damaged by his connection with the Baron of Arizona land-claim fraud. As a modern atheist myself, I find him long-winded, self-important, and not entertaining. In part, that may be the style of the times, but I agree with Gompers. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the many benefits of atheism, modern or otherwise, is relief from the requirement of having to listen to sermons... - Nunh-huh 23:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC) :)[reply]

Like atheists don't also deliver sermons? Or are you being funny? I tried to watch a Richard Dawkins talk on youtube and it was a lot like a sermon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By "sermon" I meant sermon, not a boring speech one could analogize to a sermon. As to funny, it amused me, but apparently not you. - Nunh-huh 22:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism was a good thing till the SJWs latched onto it. Now it's just a tool in the American Culture war and a vehicle for globalists (for example wrt Palestine.) Dawkins himself has been a victim of this development. Asmrulz (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean Social justice warriors, there's no shortage of them in the right wing either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but you rarely see outright hong weibing-ery from the Right nowadays. And words have definitions. An SJW is someone specifically informed by Cultural Marxism (which is neither cultural nor Marxism) Asmrulz (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not SJW's per se, but militant anti-theists. I am an atheist. Literally, without god. I don't believe in Santa Claus either, but neither incenses me. Many of the New Atheists and Freedom From Religion Foundation types have their own radical ideology, which they do not realize is itself a religion, given its crusading fervor and desire to convert. The are not without God. They are actively against your religious freedom. It's about as insane as Santaphobia. Camille Paglia is an exaample of an atheist who is not an antitheist. μηδείς (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US constitutional definition of treason - "declaring war on the US"?

Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution contains the definition of treason. To quote, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or (rest is irrelevant here).

But in my earlier question it was generally agreed that A non-State cannot declare war. Acts such of those of the Symbionese Liberation Army, or less likely, Timothy McVeigh (I don't think he made any statements of the sort the SLA did of a "declaration of war" type?) would be limited to being classified as Seditious conspiracy (putting aside "common" criminal charges for individual acts such as murders, including Federal charges of "Murder of a Federal Official", or terrorism charges). So is "levying war against the U.S." only grounds for a treason charge if done as part of an action by or on behalf of a country at war with the U.S.? Could non-state-aligned "acts of war" or, put another way, "warlike acts" ever qualify under this definition?

(My guess is, reality, the Government wouldn't bother with Treason charges if they were in any way doubtful in such cases, when there are clear alternatives for things like this, like the alternative charges I mentioned. But I'm still curious about the theory). Eliyohub (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To levy war means to make war. It doesn't necessarily require a declaration of war. And in theory they could have tried McVeigh for treason, but there was already sufficient grounds for the death penalty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed on the theoretical possibly of charging McVeigh for treason. And how courts would define the word "war" in this kind of situation, where war has not been "declared"? Eliyohub (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin James, the ringleader of the 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot, confessed to "conspiracy to levy war against the United States", so (presumably) could have been charged with treason if the plot had succeeded. Tevildo (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sounds like law does recognize "war" in this case, although a plea of not guilty would have forced a judicial definition of the term, as it applies to these situations. Eliyohub (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read what the Washington Post had to say about McVeigh's condemnation.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the link and read it. Interesting mixture of analysis and comment, but not really relevant to the specific legal question I'm asking. Does not contain any legal opinion on this point. The prosecutor's use of the term hardly counts as a legal opinion that his act fits the constitutional definition. Eliyohub (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A treason charge is pretty rare in America. You might want to read about actual treason cases in America and get the drift of what circumstances lead to such a charge. As for McVeigh, what would have been the point in an actual treason charge if he were already being charged with a capital crime? He can't be put to death twice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article may be more enlightening.[6] The theme is that treason charges are frought with politics, and if the perp can be charged with something that can be factually established, why bother with a treason charge? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

Did anyone ever add anachronistic KJV-style verse numbers to pre-verse manuscripts?

The ones at the invention of printing would've only been about a century old at the invention of the modern verse system. Not valuable or old enough a copy to discourage rich clergy from defacing it with chapter and verse numbers, right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source says that is the case only in poetry. In the prose elements of the Hebrew Bible, which is a huge proportion, there is no such division in ancient texts. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I'd dispute even that suggestion. The Song of the sea (our article includes an image) is traditionally laid out in such a manner that breaks with every verse end, but also mid-verse, with no indication of which is which. Similarly for the Song of Moses and some other biblical poems I can think of, offhand. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of such a thing, or seen an example like that - which isn't proof that it never happened. I think it is unlikely - why would someone go through the long and tedious task of adding the numbers to a manuscript when it was so easy to buy a printed version with the numbers already included (especially as they would need the printed version to identify where the numbers should go)? Wymspen (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be someone's idea of passing time. Like knitting. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4th January

What is the importance of 4th January in United States? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Anas Nawaz (talk • contribs) 03:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 4 is not very important in the United States, though some historical events happened there on that day. July 4 is Independence Day for the United States. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, dates are commonly written M/D/Y. Elsewhere, it is far more common to write them as D/M/Y. So, 4/1/XXXX would be April 1 in the United States, but read as January 4 elsewhere. Therefore, it is possible that the actual date of concern is April 1 or April Fools' Day. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See [[7]]DOR (HK) (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Pledge of Allegiance

Hello Wikipedia team,

I am researching information to discover historical details regarding the origins of "The Pledge of Allegiance." I looked at your article at Pledge of Allegiance#Balch and Bellamy pledges, and I found a section about a Balch version. I have found no other general article about this topic, other than this Wikipedia article, that even mentions Balch at all in discussing the pledge's history.

That being the case, the above mentioned article contains links to footnoted publications that expand a bit on Balch's version. When writing about this, would I be able to cite without copyright violation your segment on Balch, with links to those footnoted publications?

Thanks in advance for any information.

Best regards, Jexplore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jexplore (talk • contribs) 04:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Balch family wiki, with a page on the guy.[8] I haven't seen the Wikipedia page, so I can't say if one copied from the other. His version of a pledge is different enough that I'm not sure why it's in our Pledge article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to using Wikipedia material, see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Alansplodge (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And some further references that are viewable online:

Buffalo Bill in Bologna: The Americanization of the World, 1869-1922 by Robert W. Rydell and Rob Kroes (pp. 56-58).
American Civil Religion: What Americans Hold Sacred by Peter Gardella (p. 87).
Pledging Allegiance: The Politics of Patriotism in American's Schools edited by Joel Westheimer (an e-book, so unable to identify the page or even the chapter).
To the Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge of Allegiance by Richard J. Ellis (pp. 44-49) - "snippet view" only.

Hope this helps. Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why UK wanted to protect Poland back then?

Why had the UK any interest in protecting Poland back then during wwii days? Couldn't it just have Germany get away with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123abcnewnoob (talk • contribs) 14:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our Causes of World War II article is weak on this topic, but the daughter article Anglo-Polish military alliance is surprisingly good. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balance of power (international relations) also likely plays into some of the background... --Jayron 32 16:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Anglo-Polish military alliance which basically is the reason why the UK declared war on Germany after the attack on Poland. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an echo in here? --Jayron 32 18:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an echo in here? --Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an echo in here? --69.159.60.210 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an echo in here? --0.0.0.0 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an echo in here? --0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an echo in here? --0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0, tertiary adjunct of unimatrix 0001 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while the British declared war on Germany, as the treaty demanded, it was a Phoney War, and major hostilities didn't start until Germany attacked France and Belgium. It would also have been interesting if Germany had invaded Poland first, before doing all of the other alarming things like the Remilitarization of the Rhineland, annexing Czechoslovakia, and the Anschluss with Austria. Had they only invaded Poland (along with the Soviet Union invading it), then it might not have been the "last straw" it was in our history. StuRat (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't very "phoney" if you were involved in the Battle of the River Plate or the Battle of the Heligoland Bight. There wasn't much else the British could do apart from an all-out assault on the Siegfried Line, which was scheduled for 1941. After being nearly bankrupted in the First World War followed by years of recession and public antipathy to rearmament, there was a lot of catching up to do. Alansplodge (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The German raiding which led to the Battle of the River Plate sounds foolish. Why pick a fight with the British Navy prematurely? Had anyone forgotten that "Britannia rules the waves"? What was Germany's motive in Commerce raiding at that point? And then to be lured into scuttling your own ship? I can't help but say "LOL", though I know that isn't very refdesk-like. Eliyohub (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The options for waging war between the UK and Germany were severely limited in 1939 and the British merchant navy was an easy target. Both sides wanted to impede the economy of the other; the Royal Navy immediately put a naval blockade in place which prevented Axis and neutral shipping from reaching Germany, while the Kreigsmarine were able to run amok in the shipping lanes before escorted convoys could be established. While scuttling your own ship would be extremely shameful for a British commander, it seems that it was an honourable option for German officers. Survivors from the Bismark still insist that she was sunk by her own crew and not by the British. In any event, Langsdorff was led to believe that there was no escape from being destroyed in combat, and by scuttling the Graf Spee, undoubtedly saved the lives of most of his crew, although it's difficult to imagine a British officer reaching the same decision. Alansplodge (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The memories of the Battle of Jutland (the last time the two navies had directly met in combat) and its outcome must have still bruised both sides' naval commanders' minds? Eliyohub (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that. The Germans thought they had done rather well at Jutland (which they call Skagerrak) although the original aim of the operation had not been achieved. The horrendous British losses had nearly all been connected with design flaws in their battlecruisers (or rather they were being used in a role for which they weren't designed). There were no battlecruisers at the River Plate action. The Graf Spee might have been thought to have been able to deal with three much less powerful cruisers, however Admiral Harwood's skillful and daring use of his ships resulted in what was effectively a draw but gave the British the upper hand in the longer run. Alansplodge (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elections and very poor turnout

What would happen in any general election scenario if nobody bothered to vote. Also what would happen if only a tiny minority of people turned out to vote, say less than 5% of the electorate. In each of these scenarios would an election just be re-run until turnout was large enough to give an outcome. If turnout remained low, would the legislature have to enact compulsory voting legislation? --Andrew 16:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the voting laws in the jurisdiction where the election takes place. Unless there is a specific law requiring a certain turnout, it would be illegal to ignore or redo the election because of low turnout. The chance that literally nobody bothers to vote is practically zero, except maybe in a village with just a few people. - Lindert (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, primary elections routinely have very low turnout, sometimes around 20%. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posting by banned user removed. –Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't actually know who the candidates vote for, as the elections are anonymous votes and you only have to disclose your decision if you choose to. For all we know, they voted for the opposite candidate. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 17:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, voter turnout in the United States presidential election has never been lower than 48.9%, so I don't know where you got 20% from, @Sir Joseph: UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 17:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where I mentioned presidential elections in my statement? I said primary elections. And, in some cases, yes, it is for a primary presidential elections. New York State for example has very low turnout for primaries. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I thought you meant presidential election. Should have read better. Yes primaries have a very low turnout for whatever reason. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 17:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that when turnout get very low, there's again a reason to vote. That is, the reason most people don't vote is that "my vote can't possibly make a difference", and that is no longer true when turnout is extremely low. StuRat (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, near me there was a recent election that ended up being decided by a coin toss at the County Courthouse. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a concrete example of a national election with extremely low turnout, see the England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections, 2012 with a national turnout of 15%. Of course, there was no law that said "Turnout had to be at least X", so the results stood, but it did spark a lot of debate about whether the newly-created role of Police and crime commissioner was legitimate. Smurrayinchester 09:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homer, Iliad

Did Homer like the Trojan side more than the Achaeans? The Trojans and their allies come off as much nicer people than the Achaeans in the Iliad, at least it seems that way to me.2602:306:CFC8:DDB0:3C0F:E4C8:4FDA:D753 (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homer may have just recorded an oral epic poem from earlier centuries, before they had writing. If so, he may not have had any impact on them. It's also possible he modified them to his taste, but we may never know. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Gods clearly pick sides in the story, that I must say! Strange beliefs, to most modern thinking, I'd say. The Greeks' beliefs on these matters did later change, with the emergence of Hellenism. Many Greeks started to think that perhaps the Gods were not all-powerful, and could be hoodwinked and the like. Don't have a source, that's just what I've read in Berel Wein's book. Eliyohub (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

1881 US and UK political cartoons

I'm trying to find political cartoons from 1881 depicting King Kalākaua's world tour from the United Kingdom and United States. Where are good resources for cartoons from this specific year? I know there usually published in magazines. The UK ran a few back in the 1820s when Kamehameha II visited London and Kalakaua also had this interesting cartoon (File:The Royal Tattoo, 1875.jpg) made of him when he visited Washington, DC in 1875.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Punch (magazine), after 1841.
Sleigh (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One, A Liliput Kingdom For Sale Cheap from The Wasp, appears in the article you linked. I could only find one Punch cartoon of the tour and it's just a caricature with a poem, punning on the then-current British name for the islands, the Sandwich Islands. Smurrayinchester 11:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner's dilemma with countries

Regarding the Prisoner's dilemma, Why don't countries announce openly to all other nations that they wish to be "C" and forget any past "D"s with old foes? Wouldn't they profit in the longrun and save money and lives, etc? Wouldn't that leave "D"s at a huge disadvantage and out in the cold with no other choice but to be nice? What's with all the "You're the enemy!" stuff? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nations have the same motivations as every person confronted with the prisoner's dilemma. They can always try to get away with non-cooperative behavior. --Llaanngg (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your example appears to be backwards. When prisoners dilemma is applied to countries, it is normally in a cold war example. "C" means "build more nuclear weapons" and "D" means "disarm nuclear weapons." 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be 209.149 who has things backwards. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thoughtful replies. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British demographics

How many Britons live like Mike Leigh's characters? And how many live like Bridget Jones' characters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaanngg (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this chart (from Income in the United Kingdom) helps. Note that the National Living Wage of £7.20 per hour might result in an annual salary of about £16,500 for a full time job [9] although a lot of low-income workers are on part-time contracts. Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, demographics are usually grouped by "NRS social grade" (if you've ever heard someone call the middle class "ABC1s", that's what they're talking about). The table in that article shows what percent of the UK population fall into each category (not including the upper class, which is very small) - for instance, 23% are intermediate managerial, administrative or professional (roughly Bridget Jones' level). Smurrayinchester 14:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(If you want something more granular, there's Mosaic. Bridget Jones would be "Urban Intelligence" - 7.19% of the population in 2004.) Smurrayinchester 14:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presiding Officer of the United States Senate

The article states: The Presiding Officer of the United States Senate is the majority-party senator. Yet, this is not generally correct since the Democratic Party does not have a majority within the Senate at present. Or am I wrong?--Hubon (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not wrong, and the lead continues and contradicts itself a few sentences later. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: Thank you for answering! Firstly, I'm glad to hear that I haven't misunderstood that. Now, shouldn't this contradiction be removed somehow?--Hubon (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hubon, feel free to re-write it to make sense. Be bold in editing, and use the talk page and explain your reasoning behind your edits. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and it's up to all of us to make corrections to articles to make them better. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best...--Hubon (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the original was correct, and the lead did not contradict itself. It says the vice president rarely in modern times presides over the Senate, and the president pro tem is a Senator from the majority party. What's the contradiction? Loraof (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The Presiding Officer of the United States Senate is the majority-party senator." is not correct. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned the article up. Any of you could have done so without any permission from anyone else. Wikipedia doesn't require any approval to fix problems. --Jayron 32 21:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loraof: the president pro term is a Senator from the majority party – I disagree: The Republicans have a majority of 52, and Biden is [still] a Democrat! Otherwise, please tell me if I've misunderstood sth. @User:Jayron32: Thanks a lot for cleaning up! PS: Is pro term really a proper expression?--Hubon (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term, which Loraof had written correctly before you changed it, is "pro tem", short for "pro tempore" meaning "for a time". So president pro tem is essentially "temporary president." - Nunh-huh 01:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biden is vice president, not a senator. The article says that the vice president rarely presides. However, he can, so it's not correct to say it's always a senator. But when it is a senator, it's one from the majority party. Loraof (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(after EC) Now I see – of course you're absolutely right! I'm sorry for my "slow-wittedness", but I'm not [yet] a specialist in American politics... So, please excuse me, once again, and thank you very much indeed for your explaining and patience. (By the way, of course I didn't mean to distort your edit!)--Hubon (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biden is still President of the Senate (for a few more days)... but the President Pro Tem is now Orin Hatch (a Republican) Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear option

In this article, it doesn't really become clear to me why only a simple majority is needed to decide on a constitutional matter while ending filibusters requires a qualified one. Why is the right to filibuster regarded as a more important constitutional good than others? Moreover, it says: They immediately put the issue to the full Senate – but other [also regular filibuster] decisions are made by "the full Senate", too, aren't they?--Hubon (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Filibuster rules" are not part of the Constitution, they're just "Senate convention". The Senate makes its own rules, which may include filibuster rules. If the Senate wanted to write their procedures that a speaker could be made to shut up with a simple majority vote, I believe they could. But convention is, pretty much every Senate has included "filibuster rules". Have there historically been any exceptions, where the majority party in a newly elected Senate did not agree to include these rules? Eliyohub (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pretty much every Senate has included "filibuster rules" – What do you mean exactly? I thought the Senate's rules of procedure, including filibuster rules, have stayed more or less the same throughout the centuries...?--Hubon (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Filibuster in the United States Senate for some background and history of the practice. You'll see there that the rules on filibuster have changed over time, including recently. The relevant Senate Rule is Senate Rule 22. To quote our article:

According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered if a majority vote from two-thirds from senators who are present and voting is received. The two-thirds required vote was a change made from the original three-fifths vote that was originally required.

In other words, filibuster is not a practice enshrined in the Constitution, but one enshrined in Senate rules and Conventions, which could in theory be changed - but such an attempt at change could itself be filibustered. So it's unlikely to happen unless in the extremely unlikely event of one party gaining a two-thirds majority in the Senate. But even if that happened, there would be no reason to change the rule, as in such a situation, filibuster is impossible anyways. (I suppose an exception here would be if the party in control of the Senate thought that following the next election, they would still have a majority, but not a two-thirds one, so would want to keep full control of the chamber by a simple majority vote). Or the ~~equally unlikely~~ event of a bipartisan agreement to change the rule. (Such agreements have in fact occurred at various times, see our article on the subject that I linked to above) Eliyohub (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted, in this discussion that one has to make a distinction between Big C "Constitution" (the written document written in 1787 and amended several times) and the little "c" constitution which is the principles by which a governing body operates. When a`principle or practice becomes enshrined for a long time, it becomes "constitutional" (little "c") even if it isn't Constitutional (Big "C", that is written in the document itself). The entire British system of government is based on little "c" constitutional principles, and it works fine. In the case, revocation of the filibuster would likely still create a constitutional crisis even though it isn't written into the Constitution, simply because it is so enshrined. --Jayron 32 17:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If one party did it unilaterally (which could only occur if they somehow obtained a super-majority in the Senate, an unlikely occurrence), you might be correct. The Supreme Court could not intervene, but there would likely be a degree of political turmoil. But as our article notes, changes to the rule have been made several times by bi-partisan agreement, or support of an element of the minority party in the Senate, as have been made agreements not to filibuster in a specific case, and these have not caused any serious turmoil, to my knowledge. Actually engaging in filibustering is more likely to be controversial, at least in some cases where it was done. Eliyohub (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The restraining feature that holds the two U.S. political parties at bay with regard to violating most rules and conventions to their own benefit is that, for the most part, in the Senate at least, neither party holds the body in perpetuity, and any weapon one creates to punish the other party can easily be used BY that party once it (inevitably) comes to power. As you can see at Political power in the United States over time, over the past 40 years, neither party has achieved long-term dominance, so there is a general leeriness to change rules which can come back to bite the same party in the ass a short while later. --Jayron 32 20:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered if a majority vote from two-thirds from senators who are present and voting is received. – I don't get it: You need a two-thirds majority to authorize a filibuster, or what? I thought the two-thirds rule is applied for ending a filibuster! Please, help...!--Hubon (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confused. They're saying, any move to change to the "senate rule" which allows filibustering, could itself be filibustered, unless it was supposed by two thirds of the Senate. Makes sense now? Eliyohub (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eliyohub, unfortunately not yet... a rule change itself could be filibustered if a majority vote from two-thirds from senators who are present and voting is received – so, doesn't that mean, you need a two-thirds majority to authorize a filibuster against that? If so, how would that go together with the intention of filibuster as a minority right – if the majority gets to decide on the opportunity to make use of it? Sorry for my slow-wittedness... Best--Hubon (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the current wording is very poor. It was changed here [10] for clarity and other reasons but IMO became impossible to understand. I've partially reverted to the older wording [11]. The point is you need a 2/3 majority to end the filibuster for rule changes, unlike the 3/5 needed for most other filibusters. Edit: Actually just noticed further misleading info was introduced which I've also changed [12]. If anyone has time, they can go through the changes and make sure the other changes didn't have similar problems [13]. BTW it's not just the numbers that are different but what numbers as 2/3 is present and voting but 3/5 is duly sworn, so nominally rule changes can happen with fewer Senators actually voting to end a filibuster. (Ignoring the nuclear option.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note as both Nuclear option and Filibuster in the United States Senate, it's unlikely you actually need a supermajority to change the rules. You only need a simple majority. It's not possible to filibuster it unless the majority and presiding officer allow it. Actually changing the rules when you have the necessary 67 may be controversial, but is far less likely to be a genuine crisis than using the nuclear option. That's why the later is called the nuclear option. Note that it isn't as simple as bi-partisan agreement, since that agreement can come only because of the threat to use the nuclear option (which has always been with only a simple majority). Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, I'm sorry but I don't quite get your last statement: why do you think a bi-partisan agreement is "simpler" − in which respect? – than a nuclear option? In fact, I would probably disagree and say it's just the other way around: If the "nuclear threat" forms the basis of such a bi-partisan agreement, then the latter is actually more complex since it needs the additional precondition of this threat (besides the question whether actions based on agreements aren't more intricate than unilateral actions – like the nuclear option – in general, considering that at least two players are involved and not just one...). Best--Hubon (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood. I never said bi-partisan agreements are simpler. My point was that you can't simply say there was bi-partisan agreement so there won't be any controversy. The details of bi-partisan agreements often reveal there was some duress (in terms of threats to us the nuclear option etc) so it's more complicated than a simple bi-partisan agreement and you need to look actual situation rather than simply saying there was bi-partisan agreement. This was in response to Eliyohub's suggestion that when there is bi-partisan agreement there is unlikely to be any significant controversy, without considering the actual details surrounding the various bi-partisan agreements. Actually I still maintain that it's easily possible that a single party able to achieve the necessary 67 to change the rules could in some cases do so with less controversy that a nominally "bi-partisan agreement" where there was significant duress. (I should add a caveat that even without the nuclear option you don't technically need 67 due to the present and voting issue, although we have to assume it will normal be 67 if it matters unless someone tried some funny business.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Nil Einne - I'm not too sure about what some people are saying above. So it may be worth noting some background knowledge: Each Senate is a new entity that has no rules except what is in the Constitution, which says simple majority. Rules, including filibuster rules are adopted at the beginning of the session, by simple majority. So filibusters are impossible then, and by various means, with enough will, probably able to be ended later by a majority.John Z (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did ethical eating become non-religious?

Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians all have their own ethics in regards to eating and animal life. Nowadays, there are vegans, and these vegans mostly use scientific findings to justify their lifestyle. How did ethical eating become non-religious? Do the ancient religions hold the fossilized scientific knowledge of a bygone era, and that there really is no difference between "religious" and "non-religious"? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See History of vegetarianism which says that vegetarianism based on ethical rather than religious grounds was practised in Ancient Greece but "It was not before the European Renaissance that vegetarianism reemerged in Europe as a philosophical concept based on an ethical motivation. Among the first celebrities who supported it were Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) and Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655). In the 17th century the paramount theorist of the meatless or Pythagorean diet was the English writer Thomas Tryon (1634–1703). Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pythagoras was vegetarian? I thought he discovered the Pythagorean theorem. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would the one prevent the other? --Jayron 32 17:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eudoxus writes that Pythagoras used the greatest Purity, and was shocked at all bloodshed and killing; that he not only abstained from animal food, but never in any way approached butchers or hunters. (Eudoxus, Description of the Earth qtd in Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras, 7). It is uncertain whether Pythagoras of Samos c. 570 - c. 495 BC was ever connected to the famous theorem that was first credited to him centuries after his death. Blooteuth (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"and these vegans mostly use scientific findings to justify their lifestyle" ^{[citation needed]}. If people are vegan for reasons of animal welfare etc, no problem. But those that use "scientific" reasons to claim humans aren't omnivores etc are closer to religion than science. Fgf10 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, I have known a multitude of vegans, and their reasons for being so are just as multitudinous. That is, there is no "mostly" for why a person may choose to be a vegan, and while a non-zero number may do so for reasons justfied as so described (that is, at least one vegan in the world), there is no "most" in this regard, there are far too many reasons, and such generalizations are not even wrong. The Wikipedia article on Veganism discusses many different such reasons people have for being vegan. The quote you give is bullshit not because such justifications aren't scientific, but because it's prima facie bullshit for being based on a false premise. --Jayron 32 21:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 'scientific' reasons some vegans give why humans, clearly adapted to being an omnivores, are 'natural vegans', are bullshit though. Fgf10 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions. When OP said "use scientific findings" you seem to have immediately jumped to exactly one claim that is in fact not a scientific finding ("Humans aren't descended from omnivores" or "Humans are 'natural vegans'", or however you want to put this claim you think all these vegetarians are making). Moreover, you've apparently assumed there can be no other scientific findings that may support vegetarian's choices. Let me address that:

Land use required for food production is topic fairly amenable to scientific research. Vegetarian diets require far less land per person than meat eating diets, provided access to good arable land. That claim is well-supported scientifically, and a reason some vegetarians choose to be so (e.g. these folks [14]). If there is insufficient access to good arable land (a contrapositive assumption for much of the world), recent research suggests adding small amounts of dairy and meat may in *some* cases offer a *small* advantage over purely vegetarian diets, with respect to land usage. See here [15] and here [16] for scientific studies of land use efficiency and diet. Now, I suppose you can say that it is not a scientific position to want to need less land per person, reduce malnutrition and starvation, that is an ethical choice. However current well-vetted research readily supports the superior land-use efficiency of vegetarian diets, compared to the average EU, AU, or USA omnivorous diet. We also have an entire article on environmental vegetarianism which covers these ideas and more. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that mostly-vegetarian-with-some-meat "may be more efficient", it simply is more efficient. Thousands of years of trial and error brought us the four field system (not an article on Wikipedia, just a couple paragraphs right now at crop rotation), with 3/4 of the fields for food and one for livestock. This system stood the test of time for centuries until finally supplanted by chemical alteration of the soil. And of course as your articles note, there are lands that you can raise ruminants on that simply aren't suitable for sustainable growing of crops for direct human consumption. These ideas are neither new nor controversial, so I'm surprised to see anyone framing them as mere possibilities. That aside, I think Jayron's point was quite excellent, but you may have missed quite what it was. The inclusion of "vegans mostly use scientific findings to justify their lifestyle" makes this a loaded question, though sure, we can pretend as if it's true and go from there. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My contention is not that the claim is true, it is that Fgf was leaping to conclusions and making bold statements without reference. Your claim "simply is" is also not supported by any reference at the moment, and is in fact contradicted by the reference I provided, under the assumption of access to arable land. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"When did you stop beating your wife?" We cannot answer questions in any meaningful way built on suppositions which are not themselves established facts. We should NOT pretend as though such facts were true and go anywhere. We should refuse to answer the question unless someone can further verify that the suppositions it is based on are themselves true. --Jayron 32 03:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have motivated me to dig. There is quite a rich field of literature asking why vegans go vegan [17][18][19][20]. There seems to be a general consensus that about half or more vegans choose the lifestyle for its perceived health benefits, with most of the remainder making their choice based on animal welfare concerns. "Religion" grabs much of the remainder, with some room left for "other". I suspect that most vegans who chose the lifestyle for its health benefits probably believe that it's based on scientific findings, but are also probably unaware of all the nuances to the vegan/vegetarian/meat-eater health comparisons. Anyway, looking back at the original question, I actually have no idea what kind of science the OP is even talking about, so I guess this is all irrelevant. There is also no historical consensus on how or why the Kashrut was conceived, and scholars have debated since ancient times what the purpose even is. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

Airport as a gateway

In the article of Miami International Airport, it said that 1) "...is American Airlines' primary Latin American gateway, along with a domestic hub for its regional affiliate American Eagle, and Eastern Air Lines; cargo carriers UPS Airlines and FedEx Express; and charter airline Miami Air." and 2) "...is the largest gateway between the United States and Latin America, and is one of the largest airline hubs in the United States, owing to its proximity to tourist attractions, local economic growth, large local Latin American and European populations, and strategic location to handle connecting traffic between North America, Latin America, and Europe." My question is that is Miami International Airport the only one that has that description or nickname and if not, what other international airports in other cities has been consider as a gateway to other parts of the world? Donmust90 (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here you see that Seattle–Tacoma International Airport is described as a gateway to Asia, and here you see that San Francisco International Airport is described as the gateway to the Pacific. There's two examples. I'm sure this list is NOT exhaustive, the use of the word "gateway" to describe Airports (as a marketing term) is common in American English. --Jayron 32 01:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other versions of English, Vancouver International Airport is "North America's gateway to Asia", Singapore Changi Airport is the "Gateway To Asia And Southwest Pacific", and Iqaluit Airport is the "gateway" to ... (drum roll please) ... Nunavut. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US Vice President state car

Which car is used for the US Vice President? I couln't really find a satisfying answer on the web.--Hubon (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this somewhat unreliable source it is currently a 2001 Cadillac de Ville. --Jayron 32 03:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found Government Police Cars Web Site - US Secret Service & Presidential Limousines which shows a 2006 Cadillac DTS Vice President's Limo. Although not stated specifically, it appears from that page that the Vice-President gets the President's cast-offs. Alansplodge (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge, thank you for sharing your find! Now, if that should prove true, this would be quite an interesting, but also somewhat consistent philosophy – the "number two" gets to be transported only with second-hand cars... ;-)--Hubon (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biden has a 1981 Trans Am. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

;-)--Hubon (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political ideology

What's a political ideology like what the Nordic countries have, but with more freedom? Benjamin (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have to define "freedom". Does "freedom" mean lower taxes? Smaller government? Weaker government? Fewer regulations? Or, does freedom mean larger government, more intrusive government? Because it works both ways, mate. I can name quite a few large intrusions by governments that have indisputably made their people "freer". --Golbez (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is flawed. The Nordic countries are known for being amongst the most equal and free in the world. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Nordic countries are pretty free, but they still ban stuff, like licorice pipes, and gas cars. Benjamin (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "licorice pipe"? And in which of the Nordic countries are "gas" (I assume you mean petrol) cars banned? DuncanHill (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, in none of them. But Norway has considered not to register new petrol (and Diesel) cars from 2025. Note that that is not substantially different from nearly any other country, including the US. The all have certain conditions under which cars are allowed on the road (emission limits, fleet mpg limits, safety standards) - Norway's would just be somewhat stricter than most in this one respect. But I'm pretty sure that none of the cars seen in e.g. Remington Steele would be legal to register as a new car in nearly any first-world country. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A licorice pipe is a licorice candy shaped like a pipe: https://www.oldestsweetshop.co.uk/liquorice-pipes. In 2013 a group in the European Parliament (a body in the European Union) suggested to ban toys and candy which look like tobacco. The idea was that such things could make children think tobacco is cool. Licorice pipes were not mentioned and the suggestion wasn't specific to the Nordic countries but licorice pipes is an old well-known tobacco-looking candy there and the press jumped on it as an example of EU interfering too much. EU representatives said licorice pipes probably wouldn't even have been covered by a ban because they don't look enough like real tobacco. Nothing was actually banned in the end. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PrimeHunter and Stephan Schulz. So, neither of the products described by @Benjaminikuta: as being banned in Nordic countries have been banned in Nordic countries, one may become restricted at some point in the future in one Nordic country, and the other wasn't banned in an organisation which does not include all the Nordic countries, but does include many countries that aren't Nordic.

I think you just answered your question - an ideology that would be "more free," by that definition, would be identical but not ban licorice pipes and gas cars. But, if one defines freedom differently, then that would be a flawed answer. --Golbez (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a concrete example of why "more free" is tricky to pin down, look at the South Schleswig Voters' Association - a political party for the Danish minority in Germany which advocates the Nordic model. Compared to the traditional German social market economy, there are some areas where the party wants the state to exercise more control (eg. welfare) and some where it wants the state to exercise less control (eg. labour policy). So, is the German model more free or less free than the Nordic one? You could argue either way - for instance, different people will have very different opinions about whether a country where companies can fire employees easily is "freer" than one where employers are very restricted? Smurrayinchester 11:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Freedom Index rates countries by a range of factors, and currently has Hong Kong as the most free country in the world (though China is 141st) - followed by Switzerland, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, Finland and Netherlands. The USA is in 23rd place. Wymspen (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Freedom Index is published by a group of organisations with a strong free-market, libertarian and partially neo-conservative perspective. It's certainly one approach to quantify human liberty, but not the only one. In particular, it places a strong value on economic freedom, but does not seem to measure things like the right to organise collective bargaining or to form trade unions, or social security nets that provide the practical freedom to leave bad jobs. Freedom of expression seems to be measured only for economic entities (the press), not individuals. And so on... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It really is a tremendous rhetorical success that conservatives have managed to paint freedom as an inverse binary function of the size of government, regardless of private actors. Doesn't matter if that larger government provides functions that help increase your freedom to do things, because, to them, "freedom" is purely a function of "freedom from the state". To them, a smaller government can't possibly result in less freedom, because potential abuse or oppression by private actors is okay, or simply can't happen due to whatever definitions they come up with. Likewise, a larger government can't possibly result in more freedom, because things that help people invariably lower "freedom" for others, and that is never a net gain in their eyes, despite all the situations where it is: civil rights laws, education, health care, food stamps, and the court system, to name just a few things the government does or can do that create a net benefit. And yes, that can include banning certain types of gas for cars, like leaded gasoline. Definitely a net benefit to all of society there, including enhancing their freedom to live without lead poisoning, despite technically, to the conservative mind, being an infringement on "freedom". (and I say this as a former hardcore libertarian/anarchocapitalist) --Golbez (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're about 2 weeks away from seeing it come to fruition in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It" being what? Not trying to be snarky: I have a genuine interest in political developments and opinions in the USA (which is not in my continent), and the preceeding posts are too extensive for me to figure out the specific "it" you're referencing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC) [Re-signed with previously omitted tildes, so posting time inaccurate – TPFNA87 etc.][reply]

"It" being the inauguration and the total takeover of a new government. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how that is relevant to the OP and the subsequent posts, unless you are assuming (but not thus far stating explicitly) that this new government will make the USA "more free" (than the Nordic countries?) than it was before. If so, your definition of "free" differs radically from mine, but neither of our personal opinions is relevant to the OP. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This branch was initially relevant, as Wymspen was trying to link to published opinions on which countries are "more free" than Scandinavia, followed by increasingly off-course discussion of the opinion-holders' definition of freedom. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP often asks questions that cannot be defined precisely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a feature of the world that questions are not always obviously clear, nor always have answers that are clear, simple, and correct. In many such cases, they can be clarified and hidden assumptions can be bade obvious, leading to a useful quantum of enlightenment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you haven't seen the OP's "cultural upheaval" questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a varied selection of indices, see List of freedom indices. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shieldmaiden = Virgin?

Lagertha Is probably best known shieldmaiden. She is a mother of two children as well. Therefore I can't understand why people think that shieldmaidens are virgins - are they? ברעזרא (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Lagertha story you cited, her marriage and children came after her warrior days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs as I know, like other women she were a shieldmaiden also after she became a mother. For example on the TV show Vikings, her brother in law says she was a famous shieldmaiden, but she and her husband say that she still is. The mother of two is not likely a virgin. ברעזרא (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for a mother of one, in my theological opinion. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what script writers come up with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our article shieldmaiden doesn't mention that they were virgins, but Wiktionary.org defines a "shieldmaiden" as "a virgin who had chosen to fight as a warrior in battle." Given that "maiden" itself can refer to either a young unmarried girl or woman, or a virgin (again according to wiktionary.org), it's quite possible that "shieldmaiden" is used sometimes one way and sometimes the other. Loraof (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 7

Office clothings and skin problems

Some people have the skin problems and cannot wear normal office clothings so what they wear so the boss not scold them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk • contribs) 08:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although most formal wear is basically cotton, polyester or wool, there are a great many alternative fabrics (we have a list at List of fabrics), and many of these are used to craft all kinds of clothing. I'm not going to link to any specific sites, so as not to bias you towards one. But you can basically do an online search for "alternatives to cotton", "alternatives to wool", or whathaveyou, to find out what can replace whatever specific fabric you have in mind that could cause someone a skin condition. Bamboo clothing is allegedly quite comfortable, and the clothing looks just like it was made of cotton, though I haven't found anyone selling a bamboo business suit or dress. Business casual bamboo clothing looks available. Some sites sell linen and hemp business attire. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, you get a letter from your doctor to confirm that there is a genuine medical reason why you cannot wear certain types of clothing - which might be about the materials used, or sometimes about styles (you may not be able to wear a tight collar, or high heels). Then you go and discuss this with your boss to see what sort of compromise can be worked out. Wymspen (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I...really wonder sometimes why this place exists. TimothyJosephWood 14:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should first determine the source of the problem. Is it the material of the clothes, or were they treated with some chemical you are allergic to?Hofhof (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, the Americans with Disabilities Act may provide protection for those told to wear clothing that a medical condition counterindicates. StuRat (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking literature

How much efforts does literary science put on ranking literature? For example, discovering the 100 best English novels of the XIX century, ordered from 1 to 100. Does literary science care about this at all? Is there interest in ranking works further after deciding what belongs to the literary canon? --Llaanngg (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restricting access to contraception and abortion

Will restricting access to contraception and abortion help to significantly raise the birth rate in United States and other western countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.34.100.210 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can we know what "will" happen in the future? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Know? No. But maybe it could be predicted based on event studies of past changes in policy in some states or countries. Loraof (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A complicating factor might be a possible rise in maternal deaths resulting from increased numbers of illegal and less safe abortions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E. Linde

Who was "E. Linde"? He is listed as a creator of this image File:Kalakaua in Berlin (ca. 1881).jpg. Thanks!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a reference to a "Kunstverlag E. Linde", which existed in Berlin in those years, although the actual photographer who ran it at that time wasn't called Linde but de:Sophus Williams. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another image of that person seemingly taken by the same photographer names Bradley & Rulofson, San Francisco. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

Adolf Hitler's plan fr france

What plans did Adolf Hitler have for France after winning World War 2?

SS State of Burgundy gives a general idea. E.g. "Hitler's own objective towards France was to eliminate it permanently as a strategic threat to German security. ... extensive plans were made so that France could be reduced to a minor state and a permanent German vassal kept firmly in the state of dependence". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A little more detail at After the Fall: German Policy in Occupied France, 1940-1944 by Thomas J. Laub: "He [Hitler] promised to undo 400 years of 'robbery' and 'oppression' by restoring Flanders, Alsace, Lorraine, the Ardennes, and the Argonne to the Reich". Alansplodge (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim to Flanders must presumably have depended on its period spent as the Austrian Netherlands, which also incorporated Luxembourg. Surprising the latter wasn't explicitly mentioned. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]