Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2.122.62.241 (talk) at 00:08, 10 January 2017 (→Outsiders looking at medieval and early modern Europe). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
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.
See also:


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 [[1]]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.[2] 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:
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... --Jayron32 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? --Jayron32 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$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 17:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, voter turnout in the United States presidential election has never been lower than 48.9%, so I don't know where you got 20% from, @Sir Joseph: UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 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_1Ø21Repørts 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]
  • The premise here seems to be the odd one that there is a duty to vote, which there certainly is not in the US. I Voted for Perot twice and Nader once, even though I did not support them 100% ideologically. I find the premise that one "should/most" vote absurd and unsupported in the Americann system, and it is the OP's duty to demonstrate otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 8 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]

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]

The problem is not just that the nations may not agree to cooperate - they may not agree on which actions count as "cooperating", and on the relative value of outcomes. The world is full of examples which can be painted as either "single actor putting their own economic gain ahead of the environment/a species/ everyone else" or "NIMBYs/hippies standing in the way of economic progress because they consider beauty spots more important than wealth" (fracking, whaling, CO2 emissions...). The issue with the philosophy of "why can't we all just get along?" is that no-one can quite agree what "getting along" actually means. MChesterMC (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course in the case of nations, the game is the iterated prisoner's dilemma, which is discussed further down that page, along with strategies for playing it. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:40, 9 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 [3] 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. --Jayron32 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. --Jayron32 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. --Jayron32 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 the rule change? 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 [4] for clarity and other reasons but IMO became impossible to understand. I've partially reverted to the older wording [5]. 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 [6]. If anyone has time, they can go through the changes and make sure the other changes didn't have similar problems [7]. 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]
John Z, now I'm really confused: What about the Standing Rules of the United States Senate???--Hubon (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: In the lead of the aforementioned article, what is actually meant by "The stricter rules are often waived by unanimous consent." (That should also be explained in the article, I'd say)--Hubon (talk) 03:05, 8 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? --Jayron32 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. --Jayron32 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 [8]). 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 [9] and here [10] 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. --Jayron32 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 [11][12][13][14]. 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. --Jayron32 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]
See also Bal-Ham, Gateway to the South. 195.89.37.174 (talk) 17:31, 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. --Jayron32 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 made 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]
Because what may seem blindingly obvious to some of us can saeem like an insurmountable problem to others, Wymspen (talk) 15:26, 8 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]

Almost none. Ask 10 people for a ranking, and you'll probably get 11 different answers. People can't agree with each other, and some can't even agree with themselves. Also, it's not a very important question. The only time things like this come up in any impactful way is when considering what books kids should be required to read in schools. Even then, you are usually choosing a few books per year and not restricted to 19th century novels, so lists of reading recommendations are unlikely to be that long. You do sometimes see lists in newspapers or magazines, e.g. [15], but those are there mostly to attract reader interest / sell magazines. They are unlikely to represent a serious act of scholarship. Dragons flight (talk) 08:30, 8 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]
It's not actually huge impact. The death rate from illegal abortions in the years before Roe v. Wade was estimated between about 2.5% and 0.5% [16]. It was likely much higher in the more distant past, as the commonest deadly complication of such abortions was infection. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell, because the proper controlled experiments have not been done. We can conclude from limited epidemiological data and clinical trials that: It's complicated. From a rather raw standpoint, reducing access to abortion or increasing its cost is associated with decreased rates of pregnancy, especially among the poor [17]. However, assessing these results is rather complicated because nothing tends to happen in isolation. Making it entirely harder to obtain obstetric services is associated with an increase in birth rates [18]. This had led to a model where it is assumed that women avoid getting pregnant the more difficult or expensive it is to obtain an abortion, but only if they have access to contraceptive services, which if they do not, drives the trend in the other direction. Some researchers have attempted randomized clinical trials to address these issues, such as offering women who already had access to contraceptive services, even better access to contraceptive services, but this resulted in no significant change in the rate of unintended pregnancy [19], which may indicate there is some plateauing of the influence of access to contraception. The overall trend in the United States over time is for unintended pregnancies to become less common amongst the wealthy and more common amongst the poor [20]. But again, there are so many things going on at once that you can't parse out with certainty what are the causes and effects. For instance, increased financial security seems to increase the rate of deliberate pregnancies. If any offering of access to abortion or contraceptive services, or restrictions thereof, is part of a larger change to welfare policy, the outcome can be unpredictable. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:34, 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]
Or probably even further back to "Imperial Flanders" and the Burgundian Netherlands. Or even further back to Charlemagne, why not? Revanchism knows no limits. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further detail at The French Who Fought for Hitler: Memories from the Outcasts by Philippe Carrard (p. 139):
"Hitler was not interested in creating a Fascist Europe, his only concern was to expand German Lebensraum and exploit the occupied territories. The Nazis' “new” Europe, therefore, would have been a “patchwork”, in which France and Belgium became “rump states" [pays croupions] with "amputated" territories and economies, whose sole function was to fulfill Germany's needs".
And in a footnote: "The Generalplan West presented to Hitler by Wilhelm Stuckart and his team in June 1940 is in this respect particularly revealing. According to this plan, Wallonie, Luxembourg, Alsace, Lorraine, as well as the industrial areas of northern and eastern France (about 50,000 square kilometres) were to be annexed to the Grosses Reich in postwar Europe". Alansplodge (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on Generalplan Ost but not Generalplan West (there's a challenge for somebody!), but the plan gets a mention in Greater Germanic Reich, German military administration in occupied France during World War II and SS State of Burgundy, the latter being a brainchild of Heinrich Himmler. In common with much Nazi strategic planning, the whole thing was somewhat muddled by different departments competing to win the Fuhrer's approval. Alansplodge (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies User:Clarityfiend, I forgot that you had already linked the Burgundy article, I got carried away... Alansplodge (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World War I and II Impact on Global Demographics

Have there been any studies about how the global population would have been different if both world wars had never occurred. The majority of combatants who were killed would have been young men so this must have had a huge impact on the birth rates of the belligerent countries. Given that we know two things, that the death tolls in these conflicts ran across two generations of young people and that the deaths run into the tens of millions, and that birth rates would have been higher (because of the lack of widespread use of contraception), how much of a damaging impact on the growth of the global population did these conflicts have. Is it reasonable to assume that the world population would today be much higher had these conflicts not occurred? --Andrew 16:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One major factor leading in the opposite direction is that Europe would have been considerably wealthier, early on, had they not suffered the destruction of both world wars, and wealthier nations tend to have lower birth rates. The US, on the other hand, might have been considerably poorer, without all it's competitors being knocked out economically as a result of the wars, and therefore have a higher birth rate. StuRat (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search brings up plenty of speculation, but I failed to find any sort of methodical study. Alansplodge (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, for most species, the reproduction rate is nearly completely determined by the number of reproduction-age females, not by the number of males (excluding the obvious limit case). This certainly includes humans. The world wars (especially WW1) killed much more males than females, so their influence of subsequent generations is less than the raw numbers should suggest. The US birth rate significantly increased after WW2 (as did the absolute number of births - also see baby boomers). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The postwar economic boom and people not wanting their children to live in the Great Depression probably contributed to that. And if a woman is working in America and her partner's overseas they can't be having children. A relatively small percent of Americans died in the war compared to other major powers. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...that reminds me of the old joke "...another hunter stood behind him with a real gun". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Sagittarian Milky Way that the USA was atypical of combatant nations. In the First World War, using the worst estimates, Serbia had a war-related mortality of nearly 28%, Turkey 15%, Germany and France both about 4.3%, UK 2.2% and US 0.13% (see World War I casualties). Alansplodge (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically for the Second World War, see our World War II casualties of the Soviet Union article for an example of what research has been going on; among other things, it mentions the 6½ million Soviet women who died via military action, since many of them were partisans or otherwise directly involved in warfare. The more general article on World War II casualties discusses the impact on birth rates. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that genocide was widespread during WW2, committed both by the Germans and Japanese. Those deaths are not heavily weighted towards males, and may even have been weighted towards females, if the males were fighting elsewhere, or more likely to be left alive as slave labor. StuRat (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

1901 regular session journal for Hawaii Senate

I am trying to find the journal for the 1901 regular session. Here below is the 1901 extra session. Please help find the journal for the regular session..

  • Hawaii. Legislature. Senate (1901). First Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Hawaii, 1901 – In Extra Session. Honolulu: The Grieve Publishing Company, Ltd. OCLC 12791672.

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here may be what you're looking for: journal-of-the-house-of-representatives-regular-and-extra-sessions-of-1901-first-legislature-of-the-territory-of-hawaii, hawaii-house-journal-reformatted-from-the-original-and-including-journal-of-proceedings-of-the-house-of-representatives-of-the-legislature-of-the-territory-of-hawaii less probably. It may exist also in Journal of Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the First Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii in Regular Session. A lot of library work. --Askedonty (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is the House of Representatives, each legislative body kept their own records. I have access to the regular and extra sessions for the House of Representatives, what I need access to is the journal regular session for the Senate.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In "Prestatehood Legal Materials" (above, review) there is mention of a First Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Hawaii, Journal of the Senate, 1901. There is not mention of a publishing company unfortunately. I do not think there has been one. --Askedonty (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for an online digitized version. I presume that since the three out of four volumes from 1901 session are available online that the missing Senate regular session should be online somewhere and that some extra pairs eyes could help me scope it out:--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religious question

Since people are mammals that neither chew their cud nor nor have hooves, would properly slaughtered human flesh be kosher? Reventtalk 03:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would violate The Ten Commandments. You may find this of interest. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Baseball Bugs: Nice answer, though I'm unsure if the person doing the 'slaughter' breaking the commandment would render the meat itself unclean. I know that 'products' of the human body (think milk, or biting your own tongue) are considered to be okay. Reventtalk 03:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may find this interesting. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from both articles that cannibalism is forbidden, hence human flesh can't possibly be considered "kosher". One difference in those articles is that the yours says no, not ever; while mine says only if you would die otherwise. That takes the path of the "greater sin" concept - that while eating human flesh is a sin, allowing yourself to die is a greater sin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From an English law perspective, which I know is not your question, R v Dudley and Stephens may be of interest, about murder in order to survive. I don't think Jewish law would allow such conduct, even if the victim volunteered to be killed so that the others might live (otherwise they would all likely die). One must die rather than commit murder. Classic case is, if a person is dying, but, in the eyes of Jewish law, not in fact "dead", one may not take his or her organs for transplant, if doing so will in fact cause them to "die" - and even though the would-be recipient will die without the organ, and the donor will almost certainly sooner or later thoroughly "die" in any case. (I won't go into the Jewish definition of death here, just say it does not always coincide with the medical definition). However, one need not die to avoid eating human flesh from someone already dead - or, for that matter, taking an organ from someone already dead (according to the Jewish definition of death). According to the article quoted by BB, human flesh does not fall under the category of "meat" in terms of consuming it with dairy (one MAY consume the two together), which would be prohibited with meat of a kosher animal. Eliyohub (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bugs. One article/rabbi (the one you yourself found) says it's not only okay in the case of something like Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, but actually required to save one's life. The other one states the Bible doesn't specifically ban it, but infers that it's unacceptable under any circumstances. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's "required" because to let oneself die would be a greater sin than to consume human flesh. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We all understand the reasoning, but it's not clear that this is the general consensus of Jewish religious authorities, rather than just the opinion of one individual Rabbi (Zvi Solomons of Reading, Berks, UK, who was seriously at odds with his congregation last year – they fired him to cut costs and he sued them back for a large sum: "Oy, have we got a Rabbi!" – but I digress). In relation to the Uraguayan case, A Roman Catholic Bishop specifically affirmed this argumant, and as far as I can discover was not contradicted by higher authorities (e.g. the Pope, not the Man Upstairs!), but Judaism is not heirarchically organised in quite the same way. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's either totally forbidden or mostly forbidden. But either way, it's a sin. So it can't possibly be kosher. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Union garrisons stationed in the cotton states at the outbreak of the US Civil War?

According to our article, "Lincoln required Maj. Anderson [of Fort Sumter fame] to hold on until fired upon." We know how that turned out... However, there must have been many Union garrisons stationed throughout the South at the outset of the Civil War. Was there an orderly withdrawn of loyal forces to the North (by water I would assume)? Or were other Union garrisons captured and soldiers taken prisoner? Thanks for helping clarify that blind spot in my historical knowledge. --76.119.230.118 (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on the civil war, Sumter was one of only five forts still occupied by Union soldiers at the outbreak of war. The others were Fort Monroe, Fort Pickens, Fort Jefferson and Fort Zachary Taylor. Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Virginia was occupied by the Union Navy at the time as well. These articles detail what happens at these facilities during the war. Many other military outposts in the South were abandoned and sometimes sabotaged by retreating Union forces before the war formally began - some incidents like this are mentioned in the other articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Razing Fort McHenry in the Battle of Baltimore - what did it hope to achieve?

If the Royal Navy had somehow managed to raze Fort McHenry in the Battle of Baltimore (and they came awfully close, when that bomb hit the powder keg), what in heaven's name would it actually have achieved for the British war aims? The British could not go up-river anyways - the river had been clogged by sunken ships. So even if Fort McHenry had been somehow successfully razed, what would the British have been hoping to achieve by this? My instinctive reaction is "What a waste of precious ammunition! And so few accurate hits, shoot straight!". What am I missing? Would razing the Fort have allowed a land attack on Baltimore itself? Eliyohub (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, or it could have been further revenge, like the burning of DC was. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was common military strategy to destroy an enemy position you had captured if you subsequently had to withdraw from that position. While it might seem an immediate waste of resources, you could never tell if you might be back that way in a few months or years, so it could be to your long term advantage if you didn't have to capture the place for a second time. Wymspen (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most importantly, it stops it from becoming an enemy resource. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio

I'm looking for sources analyzing Norway's switch to digital radio, or similar movements, from various ideological perspectives, particularly cyber libertarian or similar. Benjamin (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a scholarly article that discusses the transition to digital audio broadcasting in four countries, including Norway [21]. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outsiders looking at medieval and early modern Europe

When Europe began to tear itself apart over religion (Reformation and Counter-reformation) and to martyr religious leaders (even in jolly tolerant England), what did non-Christians and non-Europeans make of it? I'm particularly wondering about Arab scholars, or perhaps I should say scholars of the Muslim world. But also Jews, when they weren't being persecuted, and others. Have any Chinese merchants or diplomats left observations on these matters? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that sectarian violence is common to all religions. For example, Muslims have the Sunni/Shiite split. So, it would seem quite familiar to them. StuRat (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A good place to look might be observers from the Ottoman Empire. As the leading Muslim power in direct contact with Europe at the time, they were certainly acutely aware of the political and ideological divisions within Christian Europe – if not out of actual religious or philosophical interest, then at least out of a sense of realpolitik, since it was evidently important to them which European powers could be played out against which others (we seem to have some coverage of Anglo-Ottoman diplomatic contacts during the reign of Elizabeth I, and of a Franco-Turkish alliance in the 1530s). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Buddhists do not fight amongst themselves, and neither do ****. Among Hindus it seems to be more a matter of class than religion. 86.150.26.51 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to have a look at our article Buddhism and violence, particularly the section relating to Japan. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=759232997"