Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 17

Consolidation Act

What was the earliest consolidation bill passed by Parliament? Peel's Acts are the earliest ones that I know of.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The Inclosure (Consolidation) Act 1801 was earlier, no idea which was the first. Warofdreams talk 21:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

If everyone owned an equal number of shares

Imagine every citizen has come to own an equal number of shares in every company in the country. This will cause a large fraction of the country's GNI to be divided equally among them. What effects would this have on the economy? Would it be good or bad for their standard of living? I assume a lot of people would give up working if they could live on the dividends. Would that make the whole thing a failure?--88.81.124.1 (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be a request for "opinions, predictions, or debate", which we don't do here. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I imagine it's something that's been discussed by economists and I'm interesting in reading what they had to say about it.--88.81.124.1 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The dividends wouldn't be enough to live on. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on the estimates here [1], if all US dividend payments were redistributed equally to all US residents, it would amount to about $1300 / person / year. Not enough to make a large difference to the standard of living of most people. Dragons flight (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

A Vatican citizen with a thousandth of the Church would pull in about $75,000 a year, just from American donations. That's an impressive-sounding 130 million lira, or a little over double middle-class Italian. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:40, June 17, 2017 (UTC)

Dividends from shares are supposed to be taken from profits, not throughput. And as to the original question, exactly how would this differ from communism, would it be because people would not get any extra help if they got sick for instance? Dmcq (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

How is the pence not profit? That cash is only earmarked for "the many different needs of the Universal Church and for the relief of those most in need." As long as an ostensibly decent Pope's in charge, those needs will be ostensibly be limited to the decent sort, but the Pope's shadier neighbour could spend his chunk of the daily bread on heroin under the same faith-based agreement. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, June 18, 2017 (UTC)

Note that some approach like this may actually be necessary, at some point, when working for a living no longer becomes practical for most people, due to replacement by robots, computers, etc. The alternative is high tax rates on the corporations and the few who still can work, with everyone else living "on the dole". At least if everyone was given stock they could do something useful, in that they could help guide those companies to act in their interests through shareholder votes, etc. StuRat (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to own certain companies like tobacco but selling them could raise the stock price (however miniscule), what could I do in that world? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yea, rather than giving everyone stock, giving everyone a voucher they can use to buy the stocks of their choice would be better, both for personal preferences and to make the market more functional. StuRat (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

We have a case study: post-Soviet Russia. If there's no restriction on resale of the shares, most people immediately sell their shares for cash, and the rich buy them up. So, you kind of wind up back where you started, or worse. See: Privatization in Russia and History of Russia (1991–present). --47.138.161.183 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

47.138.161.183 -- There were shadier things going on than just poor people selling to rich people. The word "rich" is a little problematic, since most of those who were rich in Russia in the early 1990s were so due to misappropriating government property... AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the answers here are looking at this purely from the perspective of profit paid to shareholders. There is also the issue of ownership and control of the corporate sector being handed over to the population. 196.192.183.14 (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I addressed that in my 1st response. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Making US hundred dollar bills worthless

Are there good sources that discuss the following?

If the US government suddenly declared all US $100 bills held outside the United States as worthless, what would the downside be?

If they decided to do so, how would they handle amounts that foreign governments hoard?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Reading withdrawal and replacement of legal tender might help. Do you mean exchanging old bills for new ones, as for example happened with the 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation? Dragons flight (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure what I mean. I've been reading about it and am a bit confused. I just read part of 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation. Yes, that sounds right. Tell everyone that they have to exchange them for new ones so that baddies with huge sacks of the stuff will be left with worthless currency. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

(ec)If you mean that they would just declare them to be worthless without compensation or replacement, then presumably a) it would hurt the status of the US$ as a reserve currency, and as a widely accepted international currency, and b) it would lead to a a large proportion of these bills making their way back into the US. To stop this, the US would need to install currency controls, but these would be very hard to enforce in practice. Foreign governments are unlikely to hoard huge amounts of US$ bills - they often have huge amounts of US$, but not in the form of paper currency, but rather in the form of US Treasuries and other outstanding balances. In general, in modern economies, cash is a small part of the money supply. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Anna_Frodesiak -- you can read on the Soviet ruble article how on December 14th 1947, paper money in the hands of private individuals was decreed to have lost 9/10ths of its value, while most other things remained unchanged (there was not a general currency revaluation at that time), or on the North Korean won article about something similar there in 2009. The Soviet measure more or less did what it was intended to do, but only under the conditions of a Stalinist police state. The North Korean measure seems to have been a fiasco... AnonMoos (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, those inside the US might be worried that something similar could happen there, and dump their cash in favor of non-cash options. Some businesses might refuse to do transactions in cash, as it already has downsides of being difficult to track if stolen, requiring keeping cash on hand, and bringing armored cars to transfer it, etc., and this just might be the "nail in the coffin". StuRat (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

But StuRat, it would only be about 100s, only outside US, and only after people had a chance to exchange them. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Much of human economic behavior is motivated by fear of what might happen, based on similar events elsewhere. StuRat (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all! And Soviet ruble is very interesting. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Likely downsides: total pandemonium in the global financial markets, and an explosion in smuggling as people try to get $100 bills into the U.S. without being detected. There's nothing physically different about a bill held outside the U.S. versus one held inside it, so as noted above the only way to try to enforce this would be to search everything coming into the country. (For historical interest, see Hawaii overprint note for an example of notes that were created with distinguishing characteristics, so they could be demonetized if needed.) As also noted above, something very important to understand: only a small fraction of U.S. dollars exist as banknotes. Most dollars exist as entries on financial institution ledgers (see money supply). Foreign governments don't hold their U.S. dollar foreign reserves as piles of banknotes sitting in a vault. They hold them mostly as U.S. treasury securities and balances at central banks. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Although, you did mention "baddies with huge sacks of the stuff"; criminals do indeed often deal in cash to avoid getting caught. Fun fact: at its height, Pablo Escobar's cartel spent over $1000 a week on rubber bands for wrapping their cash. But then, offshore banks in a number of jurisdictions have a reputation for facilitating money laundering, so I'm not sure how effective this would be in hurting criminal enterprises. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

AnonMoos, many countries in Eastern and Western Europe, including decidedly non-Stalinist ones like Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and France had confiscatory denominations to reduce the post-War monetary overhang. Actually, the Ruble reform was less confiscatory overall and more sparing of vulnerable segments of the population than in the West. It had a concrete economic purpose and was necessary to transition away from rationing. The mass-robbing-of-the-population-by-the-government view is spin. 80.171.95.11 (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the Alec Nove book (An Economic History of the U.S.S.R.) says. Soviet industrialization was funded to a significant degree by keeping living standards of workers and peasants low (see Primitive socialist accumulation), and Stalin was always particularly opposed to giving peasants producing food crops much meaningful incentives (i.e. "the unfavorable terms of trade imposed on the villages by the practice of compulsory procurements at low prices. ... [Post-war] Soviet agriculture remained in a very weak state until a drastic change of policy occurred after Stalin's death. There is no escaping the conclusion that he delayed long-necessary changes of policy by his obstinately hostile attitude toward the peasantry"). The decree of December 14th 1947 was very specifically designed to impact peasants (who rarely kept their money in banks) much more than others.

Also, regular bond purchases were compulsory for most people in the Soviet Union, and in 1936 and 1947 the interest rates on existing bonds were lowered, while in 1947 the face value of the bonds was reduced by 2/3rds -- which is pretty directly "mass robbing of the population by the government"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Forgot propiska - also basically an anti-peasant measure. Still, what's the cardinal difference between the 1947 reform and the reforms in other countries? Italics mine: "Post-1945 Europe had many of the traits observed today in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union: price controls, shortages, black markets and a monetary overhang. The policy response in most countries was monetary reform - - the deliberate immobilization of liquid assets and in many instances an outright write-off of deposits. [1] 80.171.95.52 (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

PS there's nothing wrong with keeping consumption low, per se, it's called mobilizatsionnaya ekonomika. It's not Russia's fault she was forced into self-preservation mode. 80.171.95.52 (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(machine transl., sorry) In Belgium, for example, according to the law of October 6, 1944, all old banknotes were subject to surrender, and in return new ones were issued only for the amount of 5,000 francs per person, the rest was credited to deposits in banks and savings banks, 40 percent being temporarily blocked, And 60% - constantly. Further, blocking was extended to former bank deposits; Only 10% of the amount of deposits was credited to the so-called free account, of the rest of the 40% - to the temporarily blocked account and 60% to the permanently blocked account. [2](in Russian) 80.171.95.52 (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thus, in terms of rationale and mechanism, the monetary reforms in the countries of Eastern and Western Europe did not differ. In both cases, it was a matter of confiscating (freezing) a permanent or temporary part of the population's savings. However, their socio-economic consequences were not the same. If in Western countries, the state sought to alleviate the situation of entrepreneurs, in People's Democracies reforms were targeted against the affluent strata (ibid) 80.171.95.52 (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

80.171.95.52 -- I really don't know too much about monetary stabilization measures in Continental Europe in 1944 and 1945, but I would doubt that they were an integral part of a consistent conscious deliberate policy (pursued for more than 20 years, from forced collectivization until after Stalin's death) of keeping the living standards of peasants/farmers as low as practically possible, as was pretty much the case in the Soviet Union... AnonMoos (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm reading and learning. Thank you all! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Reason for income redistribution

Is the reason for leftists supporting income redistribution because they believe that since white people are the bad guys while darker skinned people are the good guys, white people deserve to have less wealth than dark-skinned people,given that most wealthy people happen to be white while most poor people are darker skinned?24.130.242.91 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

No. Have you actually read Income redistribution? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.79.194 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Most liberals reject explicitly racial agendas, and believe that there are people of every race who are at the bottom of the pecking order due to past injustices, and that redistribution of wealth should give all of those at the bottom a better opportunity to rise. However, there are some who believe in explicit calls for racially targeted measures (affirmative action, racial set-asides). Note however that even among groups explicitly favoring black rights, there are some who will favor a switch to a universally fair set of priorities -- notably, the "Black Lives Matter platform" favors a long list of very good ideas; in each case they say, this is what they are doing for blacks, and in each case, they propose a non-"reverse"-racist method when you actually look at what they say. In any case I hope this document will make a good read for you. Wnt (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, so many mistaken assumptions in that Q:

1) Income redistribution attempts to somewhat even out income, not make anyone have more than anyone else.

2) As a practical matter, 100% equality of income is not achievable, and whoever has the highest incomes will continue to have the highest income, just not by as high of a margin.

3) One reason for it is that income naturally flows in one direction most of the time, from the majority to a small minority (here meaning a small group, not a racial or ethnic minority). Over time, this leads to a dangerous imbalance, where that small group at the top has all the power, too, and this can lead to social instability and violent revolutions.

4) A progressive income tax, combined with social programs for the poor, such as quality free education, are effective ways to limit income inequality. Racial tests are rarely applied, so all poor people are given help, not only those of certain races or ethnicities.

5) Wealth redistribution is slightly different, and there methods such as inheritance taxes can be used to limit the degree to which wealth inequality is magnified with each generation. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

What size city might host a 600m² cricket administration building with an auditorium?

In an area where cricket is popular. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way: That sounds like a small office to me (6400 sq ft), so pretty much any city. Can you provide more details on where you saw the reference to this office? It will be hard to narrow it down just on size alone. RudolfRed (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Last night I dreamt I was wandering around a building of cricket administration offices in Guelph, Canada, that is my best estimation of the size and I was wondering if that was realistic. I recall that it was just for the town, not the regional/national headquarters of something but whether it was for a commercial team or university or school system or what I don't know. Yes I realize cricket is not as popular in Canada as it is in Australia, South Africa etc. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The England and Wales Cricket Board occupies rather modestly-sized offices at Lord's Cricket Ground and the Board of Control for Cricket in India have offices on the 4th floor of the Wankhede Stadium [2]. I doubt either boasts an auditorium and can't imagine what it might be used for if they had one. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

So I suppose that my unconscious amazement was at something unrealistic. For comparison I looked up NBA headquarters and they have 175,000ft² of office space but the NBA is the top 30 basketball clubs of Earth. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps lay off the cheese at bed time ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Or the fried crickets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

How do Islamic banks earn money

How do Islamic banks earn money if interest is forbidden in Islam?Uncle dan is home (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The same way that any other bank does - by investing the deposits in businesses which make a profit and then pay dividends, or in property which goes up in value, or in commodities which you buy at one price and sell at a profit. Islam bans interest on loans - but not making a profit from a business. Wymspen (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

We have a pretty extensive article on Islamic banking and finance. Short answer: they lend money, and get paid back the principal plus some extra, but they don't use an interest rate and don't call it interest. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know much about this, but I am suspicious that Western banking actually is more "Islamic" in character than it is often given credit for. I mean, the traditional idea of interest is that a homeowner takes out a mortgage on a house, in which the house is pledged as collateral, i.e. the bank can take it and have it sold if they aren't paid. But as I understand it, the homeowners actually end up leaving the title of the house in the bank's name, so that it is not merely collateral but actually isn't theirs in the first place. Same for cars. [3] Though with houses, apparently there's a difference between a "quit claim deed" and a "title" ... I'm not the right one to shed light on this. [4] Traditionally there is an additional requirement that the "owners" maintain fire insurance on the house.

In the UK, (and probably other countries), a mortgaged property is owned by the householder, not the bank. However, the bank holds a lien on the property, which means the owner can't sell the property without informing the bank, and the bank can reprocess (seize) the property if the owner doesn't keep up repayments. The bank can also insist that a buildings insurance policy is in place; this will recommence the owner (and the bank) should the property be badly damaged.

For Islamic mortgages, I believe that the general process is that the bank owns part of the property, and the householder the rest, in general proportion to the loan-vaue / deposit paid. The bank then rents its share to the householder, at a rate commensurate to a traditional mortgage. Part of this payment is used to (slowly) buy the property from the bank; at the end of the term, the householder will own all of the property. LongHairedFop (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Now where the rubber meets the road is whether the banks nowadays (and I have no idea if they have started doing any such thing) are using their ownership to make it ever clearer that the holder of the "loan" is really just a renter, and one with few rights. For example, do they insist that the "owner" of a car allow them access via some kind of electronic module that transmits driving behavior back to them or indirectly via an insurance company? (I think I have already read about bottom-feeding companies that demand tracking devices in the vehicles...) Do they mandate "home security" that is surveillance on the inside of their house? I feel like this is the kind of area where capitalists have never been shy, and typically move ahead of the news coverage, but again, it's not something I know much about. But anyway, such manifestations of ownership would make it clear that the bank is not lending at interest, but charging the customer for some degree of access. Wnt (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Unless there is a law saying that "any money earned from a loan shall be calculated as a percentage of the principal and called interest", then they can just call this money "fees" instead. The only technical difference is that there's no compounding (interest on interest), but if the fees are high enough, the total can equal or exceed the compounded interest. Western banks like to charge both interest and fees (including penalties), making it even harder to figure out the real amount you pay for the loan. StuRat (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the article linked by the IP above, a good article to read would be Murabaha. (Not to be confused with Mudaraba.) As the main article linked by the IP indicates, quite a lot of Islamic banking is controversially in this form. I've never loaned money from an Islamic bank but have held a term deposit in the form of Commodity Murabah, because at the time HSBC Amanah in Malaysia was offering a slightly better "profit rate" than the interest rate offered by HSBC Malaysia. In my case from my POV there was basically no difference between the two other than the slightl better rate. Nominally the Islamic finance term deposit is structured such that I am buying a commodity and then selling it in the future for a profit, and I believe the commodity technically really exists in some form but really, it's not something which affects me. I'm not even sure what the commodity was (I'm pretty sure it isn't said anywhere), and it's not like the collapse of the price of the commodity makes a difference. As an interesting point, compare [5] to [6]. (The new T&C gives palm oil as one example commodity.)

Legally there are likely some differences although the specific one that jumped out to me was that if you have a lot of money, it's actually useful to have some in traditional banking and some in Islamic banking because the government deposit protections were separate so you could double the amount of protection if you had enough. That said it depends on the precise intepretation, and as said in both our articles, nominally Murabaha is supposed to be an intermediate step.

I believe one particular disputed issue when it comes to loans is how to handle late payments, as our article indicates late payment charges are controversial as they tend to be seen as riba/usury. If allowed, there are various ways these are structured e.g. for some info on those in Malaysia [7], but I don't think things there are particularly strict there. (Notably I'm fairly sure when changes do come they tend to be only things that banks have to apply in the future. Our article implies in some other places banks have found themselves in trouble due court rulings or other authority intepretations which have prevented them doing things they were doing with existing customers without a clear recourse. On factor is probably that in Malaysia Islamic finance issues are still largely decided by civil courts [8].)

Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Older/Fat mothers

this is either a question to invite debate or speculation, for which it had attracted much, or it is outright trolling, for which it has been​ well fed. Either way, we've had enough here. Move along--Jayron32 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How would non-pretty older or overweight women get pregnant or have young children? 31.48.57.254 (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Sexual intercourse is the traditional approach. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Like 196.192.183.14 (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Accurate, concise and to the point. Well played. General Ization Talk 05:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Define "pretty", "older" and "overweight". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC) I think the OP has a false assumption that human pregnancy and marriage are based on personal sexual attractiveness. For most humans in the world (most humans in the world live in Asia), arranged marriage is the norm. Even if the marriage is not fully arranged, older relatives (especially parents) tend to have a lot of influence over the choice of spouse. Most humans exhibit bilateral symmetry, which really helps in improving beauty. But what counts as "beautiful" is very subjective. Older women may re-marry to older men. Both of them are old, so youthful beauty is not a priority. Overweight women may actually be favored or appear more attractive, because the appearance of chubbiness is a sign of wealth and that her family can feed her. So, overweight women may be more attractive, not less, than thin women. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC) I think this is an interesting topic with broad implications. The question is, how are people being programmed to distinguish sexual attractiveness, and what makes that change? Traditionally, the ideal is that a young couple marries and continues to find one another attractive into old age, which suggests a gradual change of optimum perceptions is routine. (And subjectively, I know for example that when I was just past puberty, a girl in seventh grade who first started growing breasts was exceedingly attractive, while women in their twenties seemed matronly; now women several decades older seem perfectly fine) One possible explanation is that pheromones cause positive reinforcement of a particular appearance, and average appearances are considered the most beautiful (perhaps by averaging of many pheromone reinforcements?) and that the age of those to whom one is exposed tends to shape expectations, but I'm really winging it with that explanation. Pheromones remain controversial and the rest uncertain. Whatever the reason, it seems very important because so much damage results when people retain a youthful preference or even "regress" to prefer younger children over adults, and yet, there is the bizarre perception that such a thing is an unchangeable sexual orientation, even though nearly all of us go through changes in what ages seem attractive! My feeling is that the idealization of senior citizens drooling after 18-year-olds is nearly as diseased as pedophilia itself; it is a failure of some natural process. Wnt (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Typical misogynistic question and we already have a answers that are calling for debate. So while were at it let's answer the questions "how do non-handsome, older or overweight men get women to let them impregnate them?" and "has anyone seen the birth of older children?" Sheesh. MarnetteD|Talk 04:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Mick Jagger's brother has had about enough of his zygotic shenanigans. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, June 18, 2017 (UTC) The query implies that only slim, young, pretty women become pregnant because these are the only ones with whom any fertile male could achieve arousal to the point of ejaculation leading to impregnation. To which I suggest to the OP: change the channel on whatever mass media gave you this idea (above-called "misogyistic"), and learn about the real world and real people (men and women). -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC) There are various factors which can reduce a woman's fertility. Age is clearly one of them: it is more difficult to get pregnant when older. Weight is also a factor - though both obesity and being underweight can cause problems. I know of nothing which has indicated that being ugly, or just plain, makes any difference to fertility. Wymspen (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Please do not feed the trolls. Blueboar (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Wisdom can come from the mouth of babes, and in a world ruled by madmen, who can call anything too crazy? From a scientific perspective, troll questions are entirely legitimate. Modern quantum mechanics started by people asking why electrons didn't spiral into nuclei, even though they obviously don't. And it is a perfectly legitimate exercise of inductive logic to say that if one boy doesn't want to have sex with an older woman, why does anyone? (Of course, this sauce would work even better on the gander than the goose, since a population does not need every male to inseminate something for maximal reproduction). I would urge people to put aside the tendency to see a question as a position or to resent why someone asks it, and simply think about what, as I went into above, I think can be a productive topic in the social and biological sciences that could, if better understood, save many children from terrible crimes. Wnt (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC) The OP may be a babe, but there's no wisdom in his question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Does this happen in real life? Is it common? 31.48.57.254 (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Define "common". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

June 18

Do Indian Christians eat beef?

The title is about the relationship between Hinduism and Christianity. Hinduism is the indigenous religion of the Indian people. Hindus are known for their vegetarianism and special regard for the cow. Do they carry this over when they convert to Christianity? The concept of dalit in the Hindu-based caste system apparently carries over to Indian Christians. Is there a difference in food/dietary restrictions between the St. Thomas Christians (early Christian converts) and later Christian converts (by European missionaries)? Similarly, do Arab Christians eat pork? (The question in bold is the most important question. Others are similar, but not relevant and can be ignored.) 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Some people will keep their dietary habits after conversion, yes. Also, if in an area where a certain dietary preference is seen as offensive, it might be best to comply with it just to get along. For example, eating dogs in the US would not make you many friends. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Do Arab Christians eat pork? In Israel, Christian Arabs not only eat pork but are involved in raising swine, slaughtering and marketing. Many years ago when a ban on the Israeli pork industry was considered, it would have impacted the livelihood of 40,000 people. Consumers include non-observant Jews, particularly immigrants from the former USSR, and tourists (and the many restaurants serving them). Otherwise, I've rarely seen pork featured in Arab cuisine of the Levant. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a big difference between eating pork in a Muslim or Jewish environment, and eating beef in a Hindu one. Pigs are considered unclean, while cows a considered holy. A Muslim should not be particularly upset by a non-believer eating something unclean, while a Hindu is likely to be very upset by someone eating something they consider to be almost a god. Wymspen (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

By way of a reference, I typed "Do Indian Christians eat beef?" into Google and found on the first page of results: More Indians eating beef, buffalo meat, a report in The Hindu of 29 October 2016, which says: " Consumption patterns vary across religions, data show. In 2011-12, 42 per cent of Indian Muslims reported having eaten beef/buffalo meat in the month preceding the survey compared to 26.5 per cent Christians and 1.4 per cent Hindus". So there we have it. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: The Ethiopia and Eritrea churches of Africa do not eat pork. The mother/sister church of Coptic Egypt does permit it, but many abstain from it there as well (including among the religious hierarchy) but by choice not decree. Furthermore, not all Hindus abstain from eating beef; many South Indians eat beef. South India also tends to be the region with the most Christians in India. DA1 (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, these sources discuss various aspects of beef consumption in India including geographical and caste differences as well as religious ones [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. Note as reflected in those sources, there has been a recent official crackdown with the rise of the BJP including in the federal government on the slaughter, trading and consumption of beef, which has also coincided (many say precipitated) dangerous vigilantism such as 2015 Dadri mob lynching. This has sometimes lead to counter protests of people eating beef.

As also reflected there and Cattle slaughter in India, India has been one of the largest exporters of "beef" for a few years now. As mentioned in our article and sources like [32] [33] [34], it's possible recent legal changes are going to put a significant dent in that, but as also reflected in those sources, not everyone feels that will actually happen and there are already signs a relaxation may be coming [35]. At least one of the earlier sources suggested that the more likely outcome is in a change in the trade probably at the expense of poorer, often Muslim, Indians and to the benefit of the wealthier Indians. (Which is not to suggest this is intentional or that some wealthy people aren't going to lose out.)

A notable point as reflected in the first source I provided and also [36] but not our article, although nominally all beef India exports is supposed to be carabeef/buff from the water buffalo, there is some suggestion a resonable proportion of it is actually beef from cows. Although we should always ve cautious since such claims are often used by vigilantes as an excuse for their behaviour without any real evidence (many others don't even bother to come up with such reasons). More resonable opponents of the trade (as well as competitors) also make the claim but again, I'm not sure how strong the evidence is. In any case, a fair amount if this meat whether legally [37] or illegally imported [38] is simply sold as beef sometimes even if local laws don't allow that. (Competitors clearly have an interest in pushing back against buffalo not correctly labelled but also given the political sensitivities in claiming that it is correctly labelled because it is cow despite coming from India.)

I could actually find any real analyis attempting to determine how much of India's exports were beef from cows. I found a lot of scientific papers developing methods for detecting this [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] but only the first one had very limited results from commercial samples (I think one or two others looked at samples from somewhere). One complexity is that the it's clear it's a fairly murky world with poor labelling practices (and probably legal requirements) so without government sanction I doubt you'll have much success actually analysing it since exporters and importers are unlikely to want to cooperate. I did only look at the abstracts so you're welcome to explore further although I'd caution that while I did try and remove results like [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] which seem to be only looking at identifying buffalo meat (useful if you have a sample you're sure is only from one animal and want to know what it is or if you're trying to detect buffalo meat which wasn't labelled as such, isn't useful if you're trying to determine how much of your buffalo is actually cow).

One final point is that as clear from a number of the sources, besides buffalo raised for slaughter (and perhaps some cows), another source of the meat is from buffalo and cows raised for milk which are no longer sufficiently productive. Several sources suggest about 45% of the milk comes from cows. (I think this may be exclude goats milk etc.) The often poor farmers can't afford to just keep these, and the anti-cow slaughter activists don't seem to be generally interested in taking over these cows so they have to be slaughtered either legally in a state that allows it or illegally in a state that does not, then either sold locally or illegally exported. (As the sources mentions there are also other requirements which may or may not be met which may affect legality.) And a reminder that the politics involved suggests a lot of caution should be placed on statistics.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

MOS: Biography / Place of birth

I am trying to find information about guidelines on birth_place such as that in infoboxes for Biography and BLP articles. Particularly the former. Some people ask questions about replacing historical geographic names (or the closest equivalent we have to them) with modern districts/jurisdictions covering the same area. I can't seem to find anything on the topic. Anyone else have any leads? Edit: All I've found is 'MOS:BIO#Birth date and place' which only covers the issue of date, and not what I referenced above. DA1 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the "official" approach, but check out how they handled the birthplace of Al Jolson. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:PLACE is pretty clear. Use the name that was in use at the time the event occurred. --Jayron32 01:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Thanks, that does indirectly answer my question. Its a shame that there's no direct reference to "birth" or "born" there; nor is that page linked anywhere else on that particular matter. DA1 (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Japan Rail Pass

Reading the Japan Rail Pass article, I was amazed by how cheap it is for unlimited rail travel. Since it's only available to foreign tourists, I guess it's way to subsidize rail travel in order to promote tourism.

1. Is there any publicly available information on how much the JR Pass program is subsidized by? Either per year or per pass issued is fine.

2. Is the Japan Railways Group compensated in any way for providing this subsidy? Either by the Japanese government or other Japanese tourism associations. Scala Cats (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I would not be too sure that the assumption is correct. The price does not seem particularly cheap to me - it's in line with other tourist rail passes around the world. Compare e.g. the German Rail Pass or the Eurail (current prices) (both only for non-Europeans). This may seem cheap compared to the travel you could do, but like an all you can eat buffet, the railway probably calculates averages. Tourists will not travel all day every day, and they will often follow a path of short segments. They will also have a more flexible schedule, and naturally avoid rush hours and other congested times on their own. Moreover, the competitive situation is different - tourists can chose not only the mode of travel, but usually also the destination. As long as the rail pass covers the marginal cost of the extra seats actually used, the railway company will be fine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's an example: I'm landing in Kansai International Airport and plan on visiting Kyoto. The unsubsidized train fare from the airport to Kyoto is 7000 yen[52].

Since I'm a tourist, I can buy the JR-West 4 day rail pass[53] for 6300 yen. So the price for my tourist 4-day-long all-you-can-ride ticket is cheaper than a single round trip ticket out of the airport. I don't know about JR pass users in general, but in my particular case I'm saving a butt-load of money. Scala Cats (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

JR Pass doesn't cover the fastest shinkansen services, and there are often supplements to pay for the more premium services. Obviously some tourists are happy to travel on the slower trains, and equally it is a way for JR to direct tourists towards spare capacity on the less popular services.

If you ar ereferring to the Kansai Area Pass on the website you cited, if you click into "train accommodation" you'll see that a supplement is payable for the Kansai airport express. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

On the Kansai Area Pass page[54], it says: "Valid trains are below; - Non-reserved seats on Kansai-airport Express HARUKA", so the 7000 yen round trip ticket from KIX to Kyoto is covered, with no extra payment needed. Scala Cats (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Where did you get 7000 yen from? I'm seeing "The JR Haruka limited express takes about 70 minutes and costs 2850 yen by non-reserved seat or around 3500 yen by reserved seat from Kansai Airport to Kyoto". For a round trip ticket it would be 7000 yen for a reserved seat but since you don't get reserved seats with the Kansai Area Pass ("Ordinary Car,Non-reserved Seating" is the only option without paying more) it makes no sense to compare the two. The 2 way unreserved price would seem to be 5700. Once you consider other services you're likely to save but it doesn't seem to me that it's cheaper than a round trip ticket, and you are locked in to using the service (as a tourist who may not have appreciated the options before). Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. A better comparison may be 2 one day passes at 2200 yen since someone staying (or away for) more than 4 days is not going to be able to use the 4 day pass for both legs of the airport journey. (It should be said 4 days is a relatively short stay for leisure by most standards, especially if travelling from far away although a person could be going to different places. At least on the page you linked to there's no longer pass for Kansai only. So plenty of people may need more than one, including Japanese if they were able to buy the pass.) 2200 yen is a resonable discount from 2800 yen but amongst other things, the assumption is likely to be many people aren't using it for the airport. For someone living in Kansai, they're probably not very likely to purchase a pass unless it's cheaper than what they'll spend otherwise and they may have a fair idea of what that'll be. And while price will be a factor, it may not always be that significant in their decision to use the train depending on the precise difference. By comparison, while some tourists do plenty of research, plenty of people do not and their decisions are often a lot more flexible (both in terms of timings, mode of transport, and where they travel to) and factors like travel time may compete with how scenic the route is or options for detours. If they can get a good price on a pass, they may buy it and use but may not have chosen the train otherwise and so could easily have spent less money with JR (or whoever). They may also choose to upgrade etc in some cases. And while I didn't see this mentioned for the Kansai pass, one of your links did suggest a discount for JR hotels for some passes. Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

June 19

What determines whether an issue is "liberal" or "conservative"?

Veganism supporters are "liberals". Anti-abortion supporters are "conservatives". Vegans are against the killing of animals; anti-abortions supporters are against the killing of unborn children. Both claim to be defend innocent, helpless beings. Liberals are for the legalization of marijuana. Conservatives are for the legalization of e-cigarettes. What is a liberal? What is a conservative? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Conservatives are against killing baby because that's the way it's been since the days of Hippocrates and the Ten Commandments. Conservatives don't care about eating animals because the Bible doesn't care. Even Jesus ate animals. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sagittarian Milky Way -- the traditional European view was that abortion before "quickening" (sometimes defined as the 40th day) was much less serious than abortion after quickening, and certainly not comparable to murder. In the United States, conservative Protestants didn't really join together with Catholics to make abortion a major political issue until around 1979.[55] -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that. The liberal view isn't "restrict non-incest/rape/birth defect/medical benefit abortions to c. 40 days" though. I'm not sure who's right, it's killing babies but it did help stop the crime wave in the 90s so is it worth it? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

To a significant degree, it also seems to be random. As an example, climate change is not a partisan issue in most of the world, and neither is the theory of evolution. Black emancipation and civil rights was a Republican topic from the US civil war to the Southern Strategy of the 1960s. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

In the civil rights thing the conservative politicians just switched parties and stopped being blatantly racist. The question is about liberals and conservatives, not Republicans and Democrats. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Stephan_Schulz -- in the United States of the 1850s, the real conservatives (the big business wing of the Whig party and such) opposed introducing controversies about slavery or divisive moralistic rhetoric into national (federal) politics in any form. The newly-formed Republican party was not exactly a radical party, but the majority of its members were resolved to vehemently oppose what they considered aggressive maneuvers by Southerners (and their sympathizers in the North) to expand the scope of slavery, so that few would have considered the Republican party conservative at that time... AnonMoos (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a conceptual difference between "liberal" veganism and "conservative" anti-abortionism, if viewed from the "more freedom-less freedom" axis. "Conservative" antib-abortionism is about making laws to outlaw abortion, i.e. it is a restrictive ideology with the aim of restricting others' life choices. It's not the same as a personal choice not to undergo an abortion, which mainstream liberals are unlikely to have issues with. "Liberal" veganism is about a person's choice not to eat / use animal products, i.e. it is a personal restriction. Most, even vocal, veganists go as far as advocating the availability of non-animal-based choices for vegans, but there are few veganists who go further and advocate outlawing the consumption of animal products. Those few extremists who do are quite far from being mainstream "liberal". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That falls apart if you change to different topics, such as gun control. Conservatives support gun control measures that let them choose if they want to own a gun or not. Liberals support gun control measures that ban anyone from owning a gun. An endless set of anecdotes may be used to support any view you like. In the end, it is just one group vs another group. The ideology of the two doesn't really make sense. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that so-called "liberals" sometimes support more regulation and sometimes less, that's why US-style "conservative"/"liberal" are bad labels - it's very odd that "liberal" is used in the US to describe Socialists, when Socialism is decidedly anti-liberal in many respects. "Right" and "Left" are better, and modern political science is a lot more nuanced in analysing what kinds of positions are "Right" and what are "Left", I wouldn't say it "doesn't really make sense", it just doesn't make sense in one dimension.

On guns specifically, the fact that any mainstream political groups are pro-gun in the US is itself an oddity. In almost all other liberal democracies no sane part of the political spectrum would be pro-gun. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• A few comments on this... First, an issue is neither "conservative" nor "liberal"... what can be conservative or liberal is the stance taken on the issue.

Second, stances can change over time, so a stance that was once liberal can become conservative (an example of this is support for non-regulated free trade... once a "liberal" stance, but now a "conservative" stance) or vise versa.

That said, essentially the difference is that conservatives want to maintain the status quo (or to return to a previous status quo) on any issue, while liberals want change. There is an old saying: "If you are not a liberal at age 18 you don't have a heart... and if you are not a conservative by age 40 you don't have a brain". Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The labels are all screwed up, at least in contemporary America. "Big government" liberals should be in favor of the government telling people who can marry, how women should look after their health, and what services ISPs can restrict. "Fiscally responsible" conservatives are supposed to strive for balanced budgets and generally smaller national debt through means such as taxation. Neither is remotely close to the situation today.DOR (HK) (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

News flash: Politicians' words and deeds do not necessarily coincide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, the political alignments in the US are currently in a state of flux... the popularity of both Trump and Sanders demonstrate that both parties are split between "mainstream" (relatively centrist) factions and more extreme populist factions. Who knows... we may even end up with a third party created out of the center leaning members of both parties (although third parties have usually not succeeded). The same thing is occurring (in a very different way) in the UK... support/opposition to Brexit is causing a realignment of which voters traditionally voted Tory vs Labour, and there seems to be an eagerness for someone in the center. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

We do have articles on these topics like conservatism for example. It is always a good idea to look at them first. They are different from left-wing politics and right-wing politics. liberalism is not quite on the same axis as conservatism, and I think it is better to talk about libertarianism instead rather than liberalism when combining it with conservatism, but individual freedom of thought as an actuality rather than as some mantra is rather inimical to conservatism. Dmcq (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What's the woman/blindfold/bird/blood thing?

[56] What does it mean? Is it France-related? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think it "means" anything? It's just a piece of artwork. I don't think it relates to anything in particular. --Viennese Waltz 07:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreeing with User:Viennese Waltz, this doesn't suggest anything from my fund of knowledge in the Arts & Letters. You might try:

• Conducting a reverse image search to get more information about the artist if this image has been used elsewhere
• Query the uploader of the linked content, e.g. with a comment, as to why this image was used. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(EC) I agree. AFAICT, this is a variant of the album artwork on Generation Nothing by Stereo Transmitted Disease [57] [58]. The album was released in 2011 but the art work associated with the album has been around since mid 2010 or earlier as per the links. It looks like the artwork both for the album and in that video was done by Adrian Knopik aka rarr112 aka RARRFC and may be called Hope [59] [60]. (At least my intepretation of that comment on DeviantArt is Adrian Knopik made the artwork for the album rather than this being their own re-intepretation of the album artwork.) Note that at least for me the Behance version shows in the cover for Illustrations but not in the gallery when I click on it. But it shows up in Pinterest and elsewhere e.g. [61] (I'm including this despite copyvio concerns). That version seems to have a signature on the arm, as well as the title at the upper left and seems to be the one generally used on Youtube.

As illustrated in the Deviantart comments, it seems to be very strongly associated with Mt Eden's dubstep Sierre Leone. Unfortunately the original version which I think is [62] is gone due to a copyright claim for Kewl Kid. But there are copies of it all over Youtube which often they have that artwork, the earliest one found was from 1 March 2010. (I'm not linking to it due to copyright concerns because. The mention of Dream Crusher Media recommending Mt Eden Official suggests to me it's likely Mt Eden would be earning royalties from this copy but it still has the Kewl Kid issue even if likely only relating to the artwork, see below.) While I can't be sure, that the image was in the original Mt Eden version (which was release in 2009 according to our article supported by [63]) especially since there are some other copies with different images, this comment [64]/[65] (and other stuff later) makes me think it was. I would expect the versions with different images could be related to Kewl Kid's copyright claim.

Definitely it has become strongly associated with Mt Eden's Sierra Leone as shown in the Deviantart discussion, this remix [66] (clearly a reinterpreation whether copyvio or not), this discussion about a tattoo on Reddit [67] (also this [68] to some extent) and the fact that new versions released by Mt Eden use a variant of that artwork [69] [70]. BTW the Reddit discussion suggests there used to be part of Fuse Collective which Adrian Knopik belong's to further confirming they or he did the artwork for Stereo Transmitted Disease.

Anyway the Dubstep via Sierra Leone connection is the likely explaination for why it's used in the video you linked to and some other dubsteps.

As to how Mt Eden came to use the artwork which I'm now fairly sure they did, the fact that Adrian Knopik makes no mention of Mt Eden or Sierra Leone but does STD (including the former mention on Fuse Collective) makes me think they just came across it somewhere whether in connection with STD or just on Adrian Knopik's work and used it, probably without permission. The Kewl Kid thing is also evidence in this regard as I'm pretty sure that refers to this studio [71] who I think did the album covers's commissioning Adrian Knopik or Fuse Collective for that specific image (or maybe all of it, not sure) [72]. It's also possible the artwork wasn't originally done for STD but instead they (also?) came across it and then got Kewl Kid to use it. There are other reinpretations e.g. [73] [74] who's signatures suggest other illustrates but I'm guessing these are also inspired by the Adrian Knopik work, probably after it took off in 2009. (One of them is dated 2010.)

P.S. I came across [75] who expressed scepticism but I wonder if he's just remembering wrong. 2009 is 3 years from 2012.

P.P.S. Supporting Deborahjay's comment but with the new info, if you want to know more I'd ask Mt Eden to confirm that they used in their 2009 video and got it from Adrian Knopik's work then ask STD about the meaning of artwork and depending on what they say, ask Adrian Knopik for more info on the meaning.

P.P.P.S. [76] shows another artwork with a hand associated with STD and Fuse Collective. The link suggests to me these are from the aforemention page on the Fuse Collective website which was I think http://www.fusecollective.com/#/stereo-transmitted-disease.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

[77] suggests the image has been missing from Illustrations on Behance since 2011 or earlier. It may make sense if STD or Kewl Kid didn't want it there to remove it. As per my earlier comment, it's possible the image on Behance predated it's use by STD and STD and or Kewl Kid just decided they wanted to use it and commissioned Adrian Knopik or Fuse Collective for its use and to make more versions. Someone here [78] says they asked Mt Eden who said they just Googled it (although not sure what they were actually Googling for that they came across it). Frankly if you're only interested in the meaning of the image, there's probably no use even asking Mt Eden IMO, stick with STD and Adrian Knopik. I'm not sure how likely you are to have success with STD. Their Facebook page seems to be gone [79] as is their website [80] and even MySpace page [81]. They do have a dead but still around Google Plus page [82] and I also came across at least one member's Facebook page which I'm intentionally not linking to which hasn't had any public posts for a while but I guess they could still be using it. As for Adrian Knopik's well there are the earlier links, and I also came across a Facebook page which again I won't link to which is active. Although this image seems famous enough I can't help thinking you may not be the first person to ask and he may be sick of such questions. Maybe if you step with indirect contacts like Fuse Collective there could be someone who will filter it if they know Adrian Knopik has no interest. Oh and I forgot I came across [83] which is from April 2010 with a different artwork making me wonder if it was between then and July that the new artwork became available. However [84] and [85] and probably [86] make me think the band existed in some form since 2008 or 2009. Oh and [87] seems to further suggest some variant of the artwork was used in the original Mt Eden version although I'm not sure if this is a different person from the Reddit. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a very thorough answer. After I saw this weird creative thing several times (without remembering where) I wondered if it's political or pacifist or from a film or album cover or some guy who makes anachronistic propaganda posters of very old things or is memorializing the victims of an event or what? But I suppose if it's so hard to find out where it came from then it it's mostly just known for electronic music and some album covers. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Coin with cave painting

I remember coins with cave art, like those figures throwing spears at animals. I think they were Canadian quarters, or they may have been Euros. I've been looking for them to show a friend, but no luck. Anyone? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a Spanish 2 EUR coin (Euro coins have a common and a "national" side) based on the Altamira cave paintings, see [88]. Many of the national sides are short term commemorative releases, so this may not be easy to find in general circulation, but it should be easy to get from a coin dealer (at a premium, but not outrageous - I've see it for EUR 3.35, which means that p&p may dominate cost of acquisition). I also don't find the image easy to recognize ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Google is blocked where I am. But, I found the spanish coin. That's not it. That is what kept showing up in searches. I'm sure it was like stick figures throwing spears, that sort of thing. Odd. This is driving me nuts! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This Mexican 100 peso coin has an image from a cave painting, although nobody is throwing any spears as far as I can see. Alansplodge (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No spears, but maybe this? Matt Deres (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That's the Canadian one, the February 1999 quarter. (If you can't get the linked page, it should come up if you use "petroglyph" in your search terms. The image is from Writing on Stone Provincial Park in Alberta.)

Apparently there is also cave art on a Mongolian tögrög coin. Wikipedia won't let me show you the link, sorry. Search string "mongolian coin cave tugrik" should find it. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean, try 2008 Mongolia gold 500 Tugrik (Cave Painting) for a tiny image. Alansplodge (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd be rather surprised if the French never made a coin to commemorate Lascaux. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Matt Deres, I think you found it! I remember spears, but it was so long ago. Thank you so, so much! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Compass-point orientation of churches

The local Roman Catholic church, which is larger than most, has its altar at the west end. Is this normal for Catholic churches? 86.176.19.17 (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Our article Orientation of churches says that most early Catholic churches had the altar at the east end, because it was traditional for early Christians to pray facing east, but says "The importance attached to orientation of churches declined after the 15th century." Our article Ad orientem explains more about the history of this orientation. CodeTalker (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

My college humanities prof referred to churches with their altar in the west as "apse backward." Edison (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Like the Pope's church, St. Peters? What's up with that? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Chinese economic reform and urbanization

Hi there, I have been reading literature on the matter and haven't been able to understand this issue so I would be grateful if somebody could provide assistance. I have been reading the article Chinese economic reform which is a lot easier to understand than much of research on the area however what I would like to know is how it has resulted in the process of urbanisation. I am not an academic so a short, pithy response would suffice if anybody is able to provide one? Thanks very much. 2A02:C7D:146:C400:3861:547C:DB91:A744 (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The Chinese economic reform has been focused on industrialization, in cities. Agricultural, rural areas largely remain undeveloped. Thus, in order to have a better standard of living, people must migrate to the cities. This is in no way unique to China, however, and industrialization has led to urbanization since the start of the Industrial Revolution. StuRat (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

One of my favourite takes on this topic is the series of short documentaries and sketches that the BBC did at White Horse Village (some videos here). The way the place transformed from a rural village into a completely unrecognisable suburb is astounding - even the landscape completely changed, and the personal stories of the people caught up in the process are revealing. If you can access the videos, I strongly encourage watching it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

In addition to StuRat's admirable contribution, there is also an administrative component to China's urbanization. Local governments often add areas to cities so that the land can be reclassified, for profitable (to the local government) redevelopment. That has added millions of people to the "urban" designation, without those folks having to go to the trouble of actually moving. Rather, the city came to them!DOR (HK) (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Death Penalty In 1930s, For Out of State Resident?

Hello, I'm writing a story, taking place in Florida in the 1930s, that involves the death penalty for the protagonist. However, as of now, my draft has him living in South Carolina, but being arrested for a murder in Florida. I do have within the text that the local police are, essentially, looking for an excuse to execute him. However, legally, would this be a possibility? Thank you! 68.58.222.122 (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the laws where the crime occurred apply, not the laws of other states. The only issue with another state is if they must be extradited from a state without the death penalty, they might refuse. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

According to Extradition Clause, they can't refuse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

According to that article, the governor could not be compelled to do so until a 1987 ruling, after the time period in question. StuRat (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The 1861 case appears to have been a noble attempt to thwart those trying to get fleeing slaves back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep, and it remained in force until 1987, allowing governors to refuse extradition, although with the caveat that had there been a particularly egregious case before this, it might well have found it's way to the US Supreme Court earlier, and resulted in the ruling being reversed sooner than it was. StuRat (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see if a governor actually refused to return an accused murderer to the state where it happened. Willingness to harbor a killer wouldn't likely set very well among the electorate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Picture a case of someone who was a kid in a group that committed a murder, and is considered to be guilty even though he didn't pull the trigger, but now 50 years has passed and he has been an exemplary citizen in his new state ever since, and now his true identity has been revealed. StuRat (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

As with bomb-throwers in the late 60s / early 70s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The case is a bit more nuanced than this -- the constitutional language only applies to people charged in states, of which Puerto Rico is not one. There was an Extradition Act which extended to Puerto Rico. However, the question then is whether a mere law can force the Governor of a State to hand over one of his citizens to be tried in a Territory, which would seem to be infringing on the State's self-governance, 9th and 10th amendment etc. Our article quotes Scalia as saying "no party before us has asserted the lack of power of Congress to require extradition from a State to a Territory." -- he and some others did not join the decision, and now I wonder if that was a hint of his willingness to vote against the demand if the state had made that argument? Wnt (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Izzy Einstein's autobiography

Does anyone know if this book, Prohibition Agent No 1, is available either electronically or for purchase for < $500? I'm astonished that such a relatively recent book should prove so elusive... Amisom (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I would not call it recent... it was published back in the 1930s, and has been out of print for quite a while. Unlikely that there is an electronic edition. I think your best bet would be to ask at a large public library. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess recent in the sense of not like 200 years old (and lots of books from that period are cheaply available!) Amisom (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The availability and cost of a book is driven by supply and demand.... as long as a book is in demand, new editions will be printed... supply will be strong, and the availability of supply will keep the cost down. If there is no longer a demand, new editions will not be printed... the existing supply will dwindle (as existing books are lost or become damaged)... availability shrinks, and (for those who are looking for one of the surviving copies) the cost will rise. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You can try Interlibrary loan to (temporarily) get a copy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Austrian politics

What's the explanation for the sudden turn in the voting intention, as described in Opinion_polling_for_the_Austrian_legislative_election,_2017. Around 2017 April, the ÖVP started to grow and grow. --Hofhof (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The obvious reason would be a reaction to European terrorism from ISIL and immigration from the Middle East, as a result of the current wars there in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc. Supporting the native religion is a predictable response to a perceived threat from outside religions. Note that the chart seems to show them drawing support away from all other parties. See Austrian People's Party (their English name). Note that this is just a recent uptick in an overall downward trend, with their National Council of Austria vote percentage dropping from 49.8% to 24% since 1945. StuRat (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of the increase came after the resignation on 10 May of Reinhold Mitterlehner as chairman of the ÖVP and the take-over by the young and popular foreign minister Sebastian Kurz. Shortly afterwards the date for the next (snap) elections were announced. One of Kurz's conditions for accepting the chairmanship was that the ÖVP's campaign was to be very much focused on him. All this happened in the wake of the election of Emmanuel Macron in France, so I think the ÖVP's current success has very much to do with the person of Sebastian Kurz and a perceived duel with chancellor Christian Kern. After some ten years of grand coalition government (SPÖ/ÖVP), this finally signals some movement in the centre of Austrian politics. The upturn seems to have started a little earlier, though, which I can't fully explain. Some fairly harsh statements by interior minister Sobotka may have contributed, to the detriment of the right-wing FPÖ, usually the go-to party for Austrians worried by migration or anything else. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

June 20

U.S. Olympic sponsors

I know sponsors of the U.S. Olympic Team tend to come and go. One was Kodak (worldwide), another was AT&T (domestic). Pan Am Airlines was their official carrier during the 1984 Winter Olympics. Delta Air Lines was their official carrier during the 1996 Summer Olympics and the 2002 Winter Olympics. But it's understood United Airlines has been, and continues to be a proud sponsor of Team USA. Still, I get confused on how many sponsors (worldwide and/or domestic) are there to stay. Anyone know?2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen http://teamusa.org/sponsors? Rojomoke (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Why was the Grenfell tower in Kensington?

If the Grenfell tower was subsidized accommodation for poor people, why was it in a wealthy neighborhood like Kensington? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clipname (talk • contribs) 19:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

There's housing projects in a pretty expensive part of New York at 10th Avenue and 61st Street. But yes, this kind of thing isn't the norm in some cities. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It's on the Lancaster West Estate in North Kensington (what most of us would call Ladbroke Grove), not the neighbourhood/area of Kensington (a mile or so to the south east) where all the really posh bits are. Both are in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Most council areas, no matter how affluent, have to provide social housing in their catchment area. Lancaster West has approx 1000 other council owned houses/flats apart from Grenfell. The tower itself was a mix of social and private tenancies, with some private flats being rented at up to £2000/month[89] Average rent for flats in the immediate area being around £1500/month and average house prices are approx £220,000 which is around half the average London house price of £471,000 but around the national average of £232,530. Nanonic (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Even the most wealthy areas need people to do the poorly paid and less pleasant jobs. Someone has to empty the dustbins in Kensington - hence the need for subsidised social housing in such an area. People on low wages cannot afford to commute into the city from less expensive areas a long way out. Wymspen (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Are there really no affordable areas within a reasonable Tube commute of Kensington? Do Tube fares have no bulk discounts or unlimited monthly passes or (since Britain's left of America) low income discounts? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

London Transport Travelcards are unlimited travel passes for a fixed flat fee and are available for 1 and 7 days, 1 month and 1 year durations.[90]. Free bus travel is available to London residents over 60. Blooteuth (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I see. The senior fare's $1.35 in New York and the age is 65. Also the day card is discontinued and there are no year cards. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Historically, North Kensington was a deprived area, and the Lancaster West Estate was built to replace slum housing; the construction of social housing therefore made sense. The Right to Buy has led much former council housing to enter the private market, and in some cases to become gentrified, but a fairly run-down tower block is not a very desirable place for tenants to buy, so many of the flats remained as social housing. Warofdreams talk 00:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

London (and for all I know other British cities) is full of places where ultra rich and very poor live cheek-by-jowl. I don't know to what extent this is due to town planning or accidents of history, I suspect more the latter, but government policy on social housing and the amazing work of housing associations, which between them own a staggering proportion of the homes in this country have had an impact, and, for my money, prevent ghettoisation and no-go areas. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

And historically, each borough council in the UK had a duty to clear away slum housing and rehouse the inhabitants in affordable accommodation (the Housing Act 1930 is the legislation). Our article, Public housing in the United Kingdom gives the full rundown. Alansplodge (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

On one view, making rich and poor people live in adjoining buildings prevents ghettoisation and no-go areas; on another, it creates ghettoisation and no-go areas in every borough, especially when council and charity housing is clearly visually marked, e.g. by exposed corridors and standard issue plaques, and especially in areas where council housing is large scale and poorly maintained. An alternative solution that has been tried is to give the former slum-dwellers the opportunity to move to proper housing in the outer suburbs, and it is debatable which solution has been more successful. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 21

Iceland compared to American internet usage

How to Icelanders use the internet as compared to Americans?98.210.29.1 (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Does Internet in Iceland help you?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Internet in Iceland" somewhat helps. I'm more interested in how Icelanders spend their time using the internet--- what sorts of information they are interested in, the demographics of the heaviest internet users, as opposed to how Americans spend their time using the internet. Thank you. 98.210.29.1 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This would be a good place to start, except that Iceland isn't included. You might extrapolate from how similar Icelanders may or may not be to, e.g. Danes, Finns or Norwegians. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!98.210.29.1 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Southern pride

What's the deal with southern pride in the US? I'm from the north, and never heard northern pride. What are they proud of? CTF83! 02:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Being racists.--Jayron32 02:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

LOL while true, I was hoping for a better answer. CTF83! 03:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

They lost the war, and southern pride is a way to try to feel better about themselves. However, southerners are more known for being expressive anyway, while northerners are stereotypically more stoic. (JFK quote: "Washington DC is a city of northern charm and southern efficiency.") Northerners don't talk about being proud to be northerners, they talk about being proud to be Americans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Lots of people are proud of their heritage or region. (Try telling a native New Yorker that New York isn't the absolute most bestest wonderfulest city in this or any other universe.) That said, there's a certain identity to the South as a larger region that the "North" tends not to have. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This reminds me of a joke that to most of the world a yankee is an American, to Southerners a yankee is a Northerner, to Northerners a yankee is a Northeasterner, to Northeasterners a yankee is a New Englander, to New Englanders a Yankee is a Vermonter and to Vermonters a yankee is a Vermonter who eats his porridge cold in an unheated outhouse below 0°F with his long john flap open (or something like that, as a non-New Englander if I remembered wrong I wouldn't know). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Sagittarian Milky Way -- the 1941 Heinlein story "—And He Built a Crooked House—" opens with a discussion about how the world considers Americans crazy, Americans consider Californians crazy, Californians consider inhabitants of LA County crazy, inhabitants of LA County consider people in Hollywood crazy, while people in Hollywood point to Laurel Canyon as the craziest. AnonMoos (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

So like the joke "Did you hear Clark County got a new zoo? They put a fence around Powell County! Did you hear Lexington got a new zoo? They put a fence around Clark County! Did you hear Cincinnati got a new zoo? They put a fence around Kentucky! (context: Powell County, Kentucky is in rural Appalachia. Clark County, Kentucky is between Lexington, Kentucky (300,000 people) and Powell County, Cincinnati (2.1 million) is a Northern city across the river from Kentucky). Apologies to Kentuckians. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps there was one more level where a yankee is any rural Vermonter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It might be considered a sub-culture, based on the Confederate States' secession from the United States on ideological grounds. Look for the iconic image of the flag of the Confederacy, which has been compared with the swastika's having been banned in post-WWII Germany. An essential difficulty is that the Confederacy was racist at its core, and its loyal descendants in our time don't seem to reconcile this with equal status for African Americans. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

CTF83! -- We have a long and detailed article Lost Cause of the Confederacy. Insofar as it was a movement to prevent Southerners from feeling that their ancestors were fools and traitors who had died in a bad cause without accomplishing much of anything worthwhile in the end, it was a natural and predictable reaction to the aftermath of the Civil War. Unfortunately, the resulting ideology contained certain elements of historical falsification, and nostalgically glorified things which involved flagrant violations of modern standards of human rights. AnonMoos (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You might be interested in Shelby Foote, an American historian interviewed in the Ken Burns film, The Civil War. He said the Civil War is more important to who Americans are as a people than the War of Independence. But seriously, you're from the north, and you don't know this? Isn't it something you feel viscerally in the US? Like we in Australia feel the situation of Aboriginal people, either the politically correct side, the racist side, or (if you happen to be Aboriginal) the actual difficulties? Just surprised, that's all. You might also like Gone with the Wind, which is of course about the same thing. But Jayron's answer probably still sums it all up in a single take. IBE (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want a real answer to this question you should ask a real-life Southerner. If you don't know any, there are lots of articles online written about Southern Pride by people who recognize its historical racist elements but are capable of articulating other elements too. Here's one: http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/how-to-show-your-southern-pride-without-being-a-racist-dipsht.php Staecker (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You've never heard of Northern pride? This question is Northern pride. You are bashing an entire region and claiming that your personal region is better. That is pride. But, for the answer you appear to want, it has to do with being put down. If you want to portray someone as stupid, give them a Southern accent. If you want to find an example of racism, just point to anyone from the South. If you want to poke fun at someone being behind the times, pick any small town in the South. Over and over, the South is the butt of jokes and, for the most part, it is unrealistic stereotyping. Any group (South, black, women, gay, etc...) that is continually put down will eventually form a cohesive pride about their identity. Some will become assholes about it and do something stupid like wave a Confederate flag at a basketball game. Most will politely say "That's nice" as you brag about how proud you are to be Northern. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

How long did it take for South Carolina to get rid of the rebel flag on state property? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

54 years. Is there a point or are you stereotyping? 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

By keeping it there so long, their own actions reinforced the stereotype. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a wider point here namely that the idea that "Some will become assholes about it and do something stupid like wave a Confederate flag at a basketball game" which seems to suggest only a small minority who's "cohesive pride about their identity" includes embracing a flag with clear racist history is questionable. Clearly in at least some areas it's a significant proportion. This is not to suggest that those people are racist themselves. This isn't a problem unique to the Southern US of course. It's well recognised that certain figures embraced as heroes by many in the US, especially from the time of US independence, had histories now considered highly questionable. Post WW2 Germany was mentioned above, the way Japan treats their history and historical figures is quite different from Germany and is fairly contentious especially in other East Asian countries. Of course Japan's actions, beliefs and activities during WW2 may not have been quite as bad as Nazi Germany but it's unquestionable there were many atrocities. Then again as much as the Allies may like to present themselves as the good guys, and as much as they may have been better, some of their actions were likewise questionable, e.g. the internment whatever a certain president thinks of it. (Turkey would be another example.) In other words, people often like to gloss over their history and historical figures but the problem for those southerns who embrace the Confederate heritage as a core part of their southern pride is how bad part of that history was and perhaps also how recent it was. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, the South went through some genuine problems such as atrocities under Sherman's March to the Sea (though reading our article, it certainly downplays any such thing; I don't really know enough about it to say), and exploitation by carpetbaggers. They were not always the bad guys in every way, and so they had some genuine assaults on them that they felt they had overcome to form a genuine basis for some sort of feeling of solidarity. Wnt (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so bottom line, they're snowflakes, and are mad they lost the war. CTF83! 19:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

My parents lived in a few different areas (VA,GA,LA) in the south and expressed that there was not uncommon hostility to them as Northerners and Catholics. This was just after the end of segregation. Northerners might have contempt for the stereotype, making jokes of the Southerner, the Midwesterner, or the Appalachian, but I have never witnessed actual personal contempt in the concrete.

(People in NYC often asked me if I was a Southerner due to my South Jersey accent, specifically due to my o-fronting. But there was never hostility, and I got rid of the accent within a few months, so now I code switch.)

The Pineys of the NJ Pine Barrens are an interesting case; they are like displaced Appalachians, with a distinct accent. I was asked at a bar I stopped in to have lunch where I was from, due to my accent, and did not feel well-treated. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

In Columbus, OH everyone seemed to talk Southern. (but still Midwesternish) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

From South Park: "It's time that we retire our outdated, racist flag, which is particularly embarrassing, as we live in a Northern state." StuRat (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the woman who was using this computer yesterday, but I want to point out that I was born in New York. I lived there for just over 18 years before I was drafted into Vietnam. After I was discharged, I moved first to DC, then to North Carolina, and then to South Carolina. I've lived in South Carolina over 40 years if my math is right. In the nearly 20 years that I lived in New York, I experienced far more racism than I've experienced in twice the time living in South Carolina. I strongly disagree with the claim that everyone in the south is racist. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Cave art in France

Why France has so many prehistoric cave art paintings, seemingly more than other countries (perhaps aside from Spain)? Was it because the majority of prehistoric European people settled there? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Lots of factors. Partly patterns of settlement - it was a fairly easy area to live in. Partly geology - not all areas have accessible caves, and prehistoric painting in more exposed areas will simply not have survived. Partly tourism - there is a mass of such art in Africa, but caves have not been explored, preserved and sold as tourist attractions in the same way. Wymspen (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It may also have been a dry climate, thus affecting the preservation of these paintings. There are plenty of similar caves in the UK without such paintings, and probably more due to them not having been preserved, rather than paintings never having been made there. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Most such cave art was painted during the last ice age, when France and Iberia were glacial refugia and Britain was under the ice. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Seek and ye shall find... Unprecedented Ice Age Cave Art Discovered in U.K. (2004): "For many years the total lack of cave art in Britain dating to the same period perplexed researchers... Now more extensive surveys undertaken this year reveal that the English caves may hold the most elaborate Ice Age cave-art ceiling ever discovered. Up to 80 carvings of animals, dancing women, and geometric patterns have now been discovered". Alansplodge (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Our Eartham Pit, Boxgrove article doesn't mention cave art, but our article on the other site mentioned above, Creswell Crags, does. Alansplodge (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread that National Geographic article, the cave art was at Creswell Crags (not Boxgrove) and is already mentioned in our "Cave art" article. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Getting to the Holy Land during the Crusades

Crusaders who couldn't afford or didn't want to go by sea to the Holy Land faced an enormous trek across Europe and Asia Minor in days when signposts were presumably few and far between, maps were very rare and extremely expensive and basic knowledge of European/Middle Eastern geography was presumably poor. So how did they find their way? I think the wiser Byzantine emperors were keen to keep things moving and may well have provided guides to get people past Constantinople, but what about the rest of the journey? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you're greatly underestimating the reach and effectiveness of the European trade network, and of the infrastructure underlying it (in terms of people, roads, vehicles, horses, inns, and knowledge). A thousand years before the crusades, the Romans had an extensive international trade network (map). The Silk Road has been reopened and running for hundreds of years by the time of the First Crusade, interconnecting with an extensive land and sea trade network (map). A Frankish crusader gets to the Levant the same way trade goods do - he rides or walks on the same trade roads. Every town has a road and everyone in that town knows where the road goes; every crossroads of those main roads has either a village or at least an inn, and there is no route in Europe or Asia Minor where he won't find somewhere to sleep and eat and refresh his horse every night. If he's confused as to the best route, he can ask someone in the inn at night - and a couple of silver coins and a grasp of latin can find some priest or trader who will translate. And the crusader is travelling with lots of friends, who will pool knowledge. The crusades are a package holiday, not a wilderness trek. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

(ec) The assumption that knowledge of geography was poor needs some reasoning. By the time of the first crusade, the Roman Catholic church stretched from Italy to Britain. The church had no problem getting money from the shores of Britain to Italy. The Greek Orthodox church covered land from Southern Italy to Turkey. They had no difficulty moving money from city to city. The path many of the original crusade followed was simply a road to Rome (all roads lead to Rome). Then, they went to Greece to get to Constantinople. They obviously knew that Constantinople was the gateway to the Holy land. Then, after reaching Constantinople, they just headed south to take over the cities, one by one, until they got to Jerusalem. There was a group that followed the Danube instead of the road to Rome. From what I remember, they mostly starved and were inconsequential to the whole crusade. Now, after Constantinople, I said they just headed South - and that is exactly what they did. They first took Nicaea, which is a stone's throw from Constantinople. It was an easy battle. Then, from there, they took the main road south that ended in Dorylaeum. They took that. The road out of there went Southeast to Antioch. I believe they used a siege on that town, took forever. From Antioch, the road South goes straight to Jerusalem. So, as they did to get to Rome, they just followed the main road in a Southward way. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Dweller -- I wonder about your presumption that a land journey would be much cheaper than a sea journey. Until the rise of railroads in the 19th century, transport of commodities by water was almost always much cheaper than transport overland outside of a small local area, when distances were comparable. There are various examples of importing grain into a landlocked area to relieve famine being economically quite infeasible, though it would have been practical if the area had been accessible by seaport or navigable river or canal. In the early Christian era, there was a kind of special relationship between Christians in southern France and Christians in Egypt, which was made possible by ship journeys, and only cut off by the Islamic conquest of Egypt... AnonMoos (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Correct. By the third crusade, King Philip and King Richard took port cities between Italy and Jerusalem to aid in transport. However, they were still very weak when they finally landed. That is commonly attributed to the siege of the port of Acre. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

There were stories that the first batch of crusaders, the People's Crusade, did not know where they were going and thought every city they came across was Jerusalem. But that is probably not true, and in any case, they knew where they were going because Europeans had been travelling to Jerusalem for centuries already. Some of the crusaders may have even been there before. Robert II, Count of Flanders, who was one of the leaders of the crusade, had not been there, but his father had; Bohemond of Taranto and some of the other Italian Normans had not been all the way to Jerusalem but were quite familiar with the Byzantine Empire. There was also a large German Pilgrimage of 1064-1065 only a generation earlier. Once the crusade reached the Byzantine Empire and Asia Minor, they knew where they were going because they had guides (a Byzantine general named Taticius, among others). Asia Minor all the way up to Antioch had been part of the Empire only 20-30 years earlier, it wasn't a mysterious wonderland. And as mentioned, sea travel was the preferred method of transport once it was feasible - but they had to conquer some ports and islands first, so they couldn't travel by sea for the First Crusade anyway. Later crusades were largely, or only, conducted by sea. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Grenfell fire: how many survived/escaped?

Death toll is currently at 79 dead or missing. The article infobox says that there were an additional 74 non-fatal injuries (although I can't see the source for that), and that the building housed "up to 600 people". What I haven't been able to find, either in the article or any of the news reports, is how many people are known to have escaped (or even how many are being rehoused). Has anyone seen this information given anywhere? (At the very least, it would give an indication of how accurate the casualty figures are). Iapetus (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If anyone knew this it would already have been publicised, because everybody wants to know. There are several inter-related problems, including:

(a) the Local Council's Emergency Plan (or whatever it's currently called) was either poor, or badly implemented, or both (to the extent that some of those responsible were forcibly replaced by Whitehall in the aftermath);

(b) in the circumstances of such an event it's difficult to compile centralised and complete records, because some lesser- or un-hurt victims will undoubtably have dispersed to friends or relatives and not reported to an appropriate authority;

(c) while the Council probably knows the names of those who were officially living there, some of those individuals will not have been present, while an additional number of others will have been living there unofficially, being homeless and in some cases being unregistered illegal immigrants. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.9.80.133 (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Even if people were living there perfectly legitimately, they might not be known to authorities—or not all known to the same authorities, so it might take time to gather the information. For example, voter records will not show immigrants who cannot vote because they are not yet citizens; school records will only show people who are of an age to be in school; income tax records will only show people who have (or have had) taxable income; the landlord's records may not show family members sharing an apartment unless the tenant is required to disclose them all. I'm not familiar with the details of any of these things in England, so I can't cite references on the subject, but the general principle will apply in any country that doesn't have a requirement for all residents to keep the government informed of their residence, and I don't think England has that. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

See also Mayor of London Sadiq Khan backs amnesty on illegal immigrants who lived in Grenfell Tower at time of fire. Alansplodge (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

NB sublets (whether of council-owned or privately owned flats) may be against the rules or the law, without the individuals in residence being illegal immigrants. They may be British citizens or others with no reason to fear immigration authorities, eg EU nationals. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't want people to get unduly alarmed about this. There's a difference between subletting part of the property (usually legal) and subletting the whole of it (usually illegal). Council tenants have the right to take in a lodger subject to the council's permission (which must not be unreasonably withheld) and private landlords/mortgagees may make similar provision. Taxpayers can let out a room (up to a qualifying amount) and do not have to declare it to the Inland Revenue. Leaseholders, of course, have full powers to grant tenancies. 94.195.147.35 (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Democrats changing their stance on illegal immigrants

Has anyone proposed that the Democrats change their stance on illegal immigration in order to win more votes?Uncle dan is home (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? Be harsher on illegals? The "more votes" they might gain, would be at the expense of votes they lost due to a more hard-line approach. CTF83! 19:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Unless it's reverse psychology. If the Dems start taking a hard line on immigration, the Reps might decide to soften. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Such a sudden shift would be great news for the Green Party.

But sure, lot's of people have said things along those lines. here is a couple of articles roughly like what you want. ApLundell (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a good long-term strategy, as the percentage of Hispanic voters is steadily increasing, many of which were once illegal immigrants, have family members who are illegal immigrants, or may have, in the future. Also, being stopped and asked to present their papers by police or immigration agents is annoying, even if they have such papers. (There are some Hispanics who are Republican/support tough actions against illegal immigrants, but that's a small percentage.) StuRat (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• There is no such thing as "the Democrats" in the way there are, say, the Mammals, or atomic gold. Certain politicians who run on the Republican or Democratic tickets and caucus with those nominal parties vote differently from their colleagues on different issues, and the typical party line varies over time. The parties have even pretty much given up having or promulgating platforms. The fallacy here is treating loose, non-uniform coalitions whose real purpose is to obtain office by getting the votes of disparate constituencies as real things such as cars which can either move in reverse, rather than the cumulus clouds they are. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Lord Milton

Who was 'Lord Milton' in early 19th century? Say, before 1820, and who were his children at that time? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

In that period, "Lord Milton" would probably have been a reference to Charles, Viscount Milton, only son and heir of the 4th Earl Fitzwilliam, who was styled by that title by courtesy between his birth in 1786 and the death of his father (whom he succeeded as 5th Earl Fitzwilliam) in 1833. Our article has details on his children. There's also an outside chance it could be a misspelled reference to the 2nd, 3rd or 4th Earl of Milltown. Proteus (Talk) 20:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, excellent (got another one coming up). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The other possibility (depending on the context of the reference) would be George Damer, 2nd Earl of Dorchester who was styled Viscount Milton until 1798 - though that is a bit early, perhaps. Wymspen (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

3 per cent reduced

I'm looking at a (UK) Will dated October 1820. The Will refers to "...I give and bequeathed to my two sons ... all of the money which I may be possessed on at my decease, which said money is now principally in the 3 per cent reduced, together with the interest and profits arising therefrom...". What is the '3 per cent reduced'? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• This [91][92] sounds as if it may be related, apparently some type of government bonds? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This dictionary gives as a meaning of the word percent: "[pl.] Brit. securities bearing regular interest of a (stated) percentage: the four percents". Not in wiktionary... AnonMoos (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right, a government bond issued by the Bank of England in 1757, usually referred to as 'three per cent reduced annuities'. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 22

Second World War

Our article Phoney war relates that there was virtually no action until the spring of 1940. The winter of 1939/40 was the coldest since 1893/4. Was this the underlying cause of the inactivity? 94.195.147.35 (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason for some idea which the article about it does not consider at all to be in any way relevant. Why should anyone be keen on escalating a war so soon after the first world war? Chamberlain for instance was keen on finding some peaceful agreed solution. Dmcq (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was certainly a factor but a) the campaign in Poland had shown up some weaknesses in the German forces, and much equipment had been lost or damaged,. Rectifying these issues took time in an economy not yet fully geared-up for war. b) The Allies, the UK and France, planned an offensive in the west in the spring of 1941 when they would have built up their forces somewhat. In the meantime, it was hoped that the British naval blockade would weaken the German economy. The Germans were good at finding ways round the blockade, chiefly through Scandinavia, hence the Norwegian Campaign of April 1940. Although there was considerable naval activity, see Battle of the River Plate, the RAF's large bomber arm limited themselves to dropping propaganda leaflets, for fear of provoking German retaliation against British cities. Alansplodge (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the article is pretty clear: the French and the Germans spent eight months staring at each other from two massively fortified lines, the Maginot and Siegfried. World War I had ground down to a virtual stalemate in its day, and now they had deluxe trenches that had been built up for decades. So I doubt anybody was all that eager to blow the whistle and send their men into the kill zone... they might need them later. Then on May 10, you have two separate things happen: a) Churchill takes over from Chamberlain, and b) the Germans invade via Belgium. I don't know which prompted which, but after that there was no longer any diplomatic no-go zone keeping the armies apart away from the trenches. Wnt (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The resignation of Chamberlain and the appointment of Churchill are unconnected with the start of the Battle of France, the former lost the confidence of Parliament over the failure of the Norwegian Campaign. Nobody in the west knew about Case Yellow until the day it happened. The Siegfried Line was much less formidable than the Allies thought (propaganda photographs of the fortifications were actually taken in Czechoslovakia), but even so, they lacked the wherewithal for a full-scale offensive in 1940 and thought they could just bide their time.

For the Germans, Hitler had wanted to attack France on 25 October 1939, but it could not be organised in time. Various plans were considered by the German OKH (general staff) between October and January 1940 but on 10 January 1940, part of the plans fell into Allied hands (the Mechelen incident) requiring the whole thing to be re-planned. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems like a remarkable coincidence that Britain would switch to a hard-liner on the same day as the Germans attacked. I have to be suspicious that in some way, someone had to know something was up, even if they didn't want to admit they had foreknowledge of the coming attack to avoid recriminations. Wnt (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Results of French legislative elections before 2002

I'm beginning a project to clean up and correct old French election articles and have been having some trouble locating results of old elections. Right now I'm attempting to locate results of the 1973 legislative election; data.gouv.fr has 473 out of 490 constituencies, with the source being the CDSP. These numbers also correspond to the totals on the france-politique archive (hobbyists). The National Assembly also has published results for the 1973 legislatives which differ from the above, but I can't find the original source it cites. What is more, neither the French nor English articles on the topic seem to cite sources for the numbers they use (inserted into their articles in 2006) – which differ from both of the previous. Any help locating complete results (by nuance, with seat numbers, etc.) would be greatly appreciated. Mélencron 12:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Literary device like a nested metaphor

I remember reading about a type of writing that is like a nested metaphor but I can't find what it was called. It was sort of absurd and there was an example on the Wikipedia page where the first layer was like: "her eyes were an ocean." Then the second layer might have been: "her eyes were an ocean, glittering sapphires of azure" then the third absurdist layer was like: "her eyes were an ocean, glittering sapphires of azure draped around the neck of a middle aged Manhattanite whose nicotine stained fingertips combed through her platinum blonde hair like the whiskers of a manatee delicately prodding the seafloor.

Maybe they weren't metaphors? Anyway I just remember that they kept going deeper to the point where it was effectively nonsense.

EDIT: Figured it out, it was a pataphor.

204.28.125.102 (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

190 Personnel LLC

I'm looking for sources on the company "190 Personnel LLC". Benjamin (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not contact the owner? His name and address are listed on just about every business listing, such as this one [93]. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

June 23

How well is Qatar preparing for invasion?

Today's list of demands in the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis is truly remarkable - things like allowing the Saudi Arabian bloc to censor all the country's media, control its foreign policy, and demand open-ended reparations. These seem like demands far outsized for any blockade, however serious, and more like a call for unconditional surrender.[94][95] Understandably enough the Qataris don't seem interested.[96]

So the question is, how does a country in this day and age prepare for an imminent invasion, when it has some hope for support from external powers? I mean, the obvious thing is to mobilize the army; I found one item about them abruptly pulling out 450 peacekeepers, presumably to have them ready elsewhere.[97] But the Saudi Arabian hegemons seem primarily known for systematically starving the Houthis, so is the Qatar government effectively stockpiling for a siege, caching large amounts of food as well as weapons and explosives in distributed locations? Are they arraying people with cameras on the border to establish the facts when an incident is claimed, recruiting or even drafting soldiers? Are there reviews of everything a modern regime would do to prepare? Is Qatar following it? Wnt (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The main thing that Qatar will be doing is trying to make sure that its opponents do not discover what it is doing or planning to do - so any answer to this would be guesswork. Wymspen (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true. Qatar could also want to publicly suggest that their enemies threatened actions will be fruitless / ineffective. For example, Qatar is proudly announcing new imports of food from both Iran and Turkey to replace food shipments loss from Saudi Arabia, et al. Dragons flight (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

What they are announcing may not necessarily be true either! If they did have a serious food crisis, they would not want to reveal that. Wymspen (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

An interesting aspect is that the entire military power that Qatar can summon is probably less than what the US has in their own country: the Al Udeid Air Base, the largest US air base outside of the USA. This base is used by 11,000 US troops and flights leave or land every every 10 minutes [98], so, military activity around it (it's on the path from Saudi Arabia to Doha) that was not supported by the US would seems unlikely. Basically either the US support Qatar and the Saudi will not dare to invade, just continue the blockade, or the US joins on the side of the Saudis, in which case Qatar does not stand a chance. But the US won't just let fighting happen around the base. IF the Qatari think they are in danger they could demand that the base be abandoned (major drawback for the US as it is heavily used for bombing ISIS), and then the US would have to breach Qatari sovereignty to keep the base. But that would become nasty, there is also Qatari military personnel inside the base [99], and they might fight to defend their country's sovereignty. --Lgriot (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Regional banks

Many banks in the US are not nation-wide, and on their application forms there's a "only for residents of X, Y, and Z state" restriction. What happens when someone signs up to one of these regional banks and later move to a different state? Do these banks just immediately close your account and mail you check? Or do they give you like 90 days or something in order for your to move your money out first? Or do they let you keep your account (due to a grandfather clause or something similar)? Scala Cats (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Banks having branches in more than one state (much less nationally) wasn't all that common in the U.S. before the 1980s, and there was no federal law allowing interstate banking before 1994, so nationwide banks are fairly recent. I would find it surprising if banks are often aggressive in closing out accounts because of an address change; that certainly wasn't the traditional practice for savings accounts... AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)