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 28

AFL-CIO

Does AFL-CIO get any government funding? Benjamin (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Not in any direct sense. Unions are funded by dues paid by their members; a number of government employees are AFL-CIO members and hence it could be said that there is "indirect" funding because money is directly deducted from federal employees' paychecks and sent to the union, but that could be said for literally anything whose employees have decided to join a union. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

What about this? http://washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/30/labor-unions-awarded-millions-from-federal-agencie/ Benjamin (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Those appear to be competitive grants for particular purposes such as job training which unions (among other organizations) have competed for and been awarded. Unions often operate apprenticeship and training programs in the trades, so it stands to reason that they could successfully apply for federal grants that support job training. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to say that they receive some public funding? Benjamin (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Depends on what you're writing. The AFL-CIO is not a single union, but an umbrella organization of unions, and it's unclear whether the AFL-CIO itself has received any public funding. You'd need to speak of a specific union receiving a particular grant — that grant doesn't go to the AFL-CIO, but to the Carpenters Union or SEIU or the IAM. It would also be reasonable to note that those public funds have been provided for specific public purposes, not simply as a general subsidy for the union's operations. It's pretty common nowadays for government agencies to provide grants to private organizations to carry out government work, rather than directly hiring government staff to do it. It's like the government and Lockheed-Martin; the United States Navy can't build its own F-35 fighter jets, so they contract with Lockheed-Martin to build them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Care for an AFL-CIO link anyone ? StuRat (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I had no idea what that was. That's a horrible acronym. Surely they must be able to come up with a better name and rebrand. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Compare SPEBSQSA. --Trovatore (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The "A F of L" was formed in the 1880s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Dweller -- the AFL and CIO were originally distinct organizations with divergent philosophies. The groups that made up the AFL tended to represent highly skilled "aristocrats of labor", often without much interest in other workers who didn't possess that particular skill. The CIO was based on an approach of recruiting all workers within a given industry (auto workers etc.). The Wikipedia articles are craft unionism and industrial unionism... AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware that craft unionism required horrible acronyms, but I'll go edjumacate meself now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's another: SEIU 32BJ. It's the largest property services workers union in the country (i.e. janitors, doormen etc.) and makes me wonder why they chose to end it with BJ. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

What's so horrible about it? It's only 6 letters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

And 6 or 7 syllables, since the "of" continues to be pronounced at least sometimes! But there is a history of labor unions using long names. Reading an old newspaper story from 1959 recently, I noticed that the labor union representing public transit workers here used to be called the "Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motor Coach Operators of America". --76.71.5.114 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

That's fewer than WWW. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

76.71.5.114 -- The naming of unions is a whole sub-area of onomastics. In the 20th century, a lot of unions which had members in both Canada and the United States put "International" in their names (on the same principle as the baseball "World Series" )... -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Dweller, we do it over here too, see NASUWT. Rojomoke (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Heck yes. They need a rebrand too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This has been an issue for a while, e.g. NUSMWCH&D or ASBSBSW. Warofdreams talk 16:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Apparently the longest pronounceable acronym is MOTFOFATUSA (Member Of The Federation Of Free African Trade Unions Of South Africa) [1] Alansplodge (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

At the other extreme of the pronounceability spectrum is this fantastically stupid Russian acronym:

* NIIOMTPLABOPARMBETZHELBETRABSBOMONIMONKONOTDTEKHSTROMONT, which stands for: The laboratory for shuttering, reinforcement, concrete and ferroconcrete operations for composite-monolithic and monolithic constructions of the Department of the Technology of Building-assembly operations of the Scientific Research Institute of the Organization for building mechanization and technical aid of the Academy of Building and Architecture of the USSR [2]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Indonesian institutions are supposedly also fond of long acronyms, though I don't have any examples to hand. AnonMoos (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

None in List of Indonesian acronyms and abbreviations seem particularly bad, the longest is Kelompencapir which is pronounacable Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I seem to vaguely recall that 1970s editions of the Guinness Book of World Records listed a much longer example, but I'm unable find it through a little Googling now... AnonMoos (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Voice of transgender woman

Are the voices of transgender women something that they train to do, is it something that you reach after an operation or is it caused by female hormones? Could they speak with a male voice of they wanted? Do they do it? For example when talking on the phone, to avoid any discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.7.125.186 (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on that: Voice therapy (transgender) — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:90BF:36D1:C424:982A (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The most relevant sentence from that article is: "While hormone replacement therapy and gender reassignment surgery can cause a more feminine outward appearance for male-to-female transgender individuals, they do little to alter the pitch of the voice or to make the voice sound more feminine". I'm sure such people are often working hard to do their best, but the result is sometimes a Dustin Hoffman "Tootsie"-ish type voice which is perhaps not all that convincing. In past years, I picked out M-F transgender voices several times while listening to NPR, before being told the speakers were transgender. AnonMoos (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

See falsetto. StuRat (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No, falsetto is quite different.

A falsetto has a different tone to it and lack of harmonics - except for some particularly skilled falsetto singers, who can sing in a falsetto that still sounds 'rich'. It's obviously a falsetto, no matter who is using it, and sounds primarily like a falsetto, rather than belonging to any particular gender. Even if the male falsetto matches the pitch of the normal female modal voice (it would be too high anyway), it sounds wrong.

The gender difference is a question of pitch, not tone, and comes from the size and tension of the vocal cords. Gender reassignment can change this, but not fully or easily: f-m transitions with testosterone beginning in teenage years can develop the adam's apple structure and give a male pitch. Some m-f transitions manage to learn a convincing higher pitch, without the Tootsie voice, but this is far from universally achieved. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

June 30

European obsession with exotic spices

Salt from Africa, Tea from China, Spices from India. Why were Europeans obsessed with spices? Were indigenous European dishes extremely bland and boring? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you've mixed several things together; there was salt in Europe, and the habit of tea-drinking didn't become significant until the 18th century. The spices that Europeans famously wanted during the period of voyages of exploration (16th century and end of the 15th century) came as much from Indonesia as India. Some were considered to have medicinal value, and some made meat preserved according to the techniques of the time more edible, etc. If you couldn't even get what we now consider ordinary pepper except through long and sometimes-unreliable trade routes where every middleman took a generous profit, you might develop an interest in spices too... AnonMoos (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The use of exotic spices is by no means unique to Europe. For example, spices were a huge part of the import trade into China along the Silk Road. It might be difficult to imagine Chinese cuisine without chili peppers or pepper, but both were introduced to China relatively recently (at least measured relative to the length of Chinese dynastic history). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There were plenty of native plants in Europe which could be used to improve flavour, and aid preservation of food - though there does seem to be a correlation between the strength of spices and the local climate, so that those which grow in the tropics tend to be hotter and stronger. Salt is a different matter - it is essential to life, and was widely available (as sea salt or rock salt). However, the main impetus for the import of exotic items of any kind (not just spices) was wealth and the desire to show it. The wealthy have always been in a sort of competition to show just how well off they are, and how much better off they are than their neighbours. Exotic spices, Chinese porcelain, silk, Italian marble, wine, olive oil - all helped show just how wealthy you were. Wymspen (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

See History of Spices which shows that there had been a spice trade since ancient times. See also Spice and Status which says: "Spices were both the status symbols and ­high-­yield investments of their day. Expensive and coveted, they were the mark of a wealthy household". Alansplodge (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

We have an article on the spice trade. --Viennese Waltz 14:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The fallacies in the question include the idea that there are "European dishes." The cuisines of Europe are numerous and vary widely - and wildly for that matter. While some might be considered bland others are not. It should also be noted that the use of spices - exotic or otherwise - is not restricted to Europe. MarnetteD|Talk 16:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The eurocentricity and recentism of the premise is absurd and exhibits such lack of thought and knowledge that the OP need not have signed it. The Arabs, for example, set up trading posts from Zanzibar to the Spice Islands of the East Indies. Look at the history of coffee and ginger. Roman soldiers were actually paid a salary in salt. Chili peppers are used throughout south and east Asia, although they originated in the Americas. The recent book 1493 addresses this at some length, but TRIGGER WARNING!!!: it would require work to acquire and read. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

How about a link ( 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created ) instead of needless aspersions? It is eminently practical for people with idle curiosity to avoid spending money to be allowed to read one particular reference when others are available. We have an article on spice trade. I would think many of the factors going into spice consumption are the same as today -- I mean, just to spout off a guess, it makes sense for us today occasionally to pay roughly 50% of an item's value in shipping, if it is unusual, interesting, and worth the 50% base price even at its home port. I would speculate it is more useful to think about history under the assumption that people were the same as we are rather than different. Even so ... this leaves room for some remarkable high-end items: according to [3] "a pound of cinnamon could be used to purchase three sheep" at one time. But then again, the cinnamon you buy at the store today, which is still somewhat pricey at the retail level though you can find Google hits for $2 a pound in bulk, is not actually cinnamon; it's cassia. I have no idea how much it costs for bona fide cinnamon or where to find it. I'm also not entirely sure about the value of a sheep or what kind of sheep that site is talking about. But I could believe hard-core foodies would spend like that to get some elite item to impress the right person at the right time, then or now. What I don't believe necessarily is the "food preservation" explanation, where it comes to the high-priced items in foreign ports. I mean yes, it's been shown that several spices have bacteriostatic effects, but nobody is going to pay the price of three sheep for something that can't preserve even a single sheep. Does that make any sense? That said, looking again I find [4] which says that a pound of cinnamon in London in the 15th century was about 3 days' wages - which is of course still extraordinarily pricey, but I doubt Londoners made a sheep a day. That source casts doubt on the preservation idea, and points out that around 1650 the demand for spices dropped substantially, but there were no refrigerators in evidence. You might as well ask why Americans are willing to spend so much on cocaine... Wnt (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Do we have an article on the use of spices to preserve food? I found Food preservation and Curing (food preservation), but nothing specifically about using, say, pepper to preserve food. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

here are several articles on the topic.--Jayron32 22:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that spices could also be used to mask "off" flavors in foods that had started to spoil. Of course, it's not a good idea to eat such foods in our time, but back then, if you were facing starvation, it might well be better to risk eating slightly spoiled food, provided you could choke it down with the help of spices. Also, many of the foods we eat now have been heavily bred to appeal to our tastes, while back then many were not nearly as tasty, and spices could help there, too. And note that the sugar we add to just about everything these days to make it tasty was not as available then. Spices would have been an alternative then, and remain a healthy alternative now. For example, cinnamon can give foods a slightly sweet flavor without adding any sugar.StuRat (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Humpty Dumpty

When did Humpty Dumpty become an egg? Hack (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean. The nursery rhyme is generally considered to be a riddle about an egg, in somewhat the same tradition as the Anglo-Saxon riddles etc. AnonMoos (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a good question, and I've often wondered the same. The verse makes no reference to eggs, shells, yolk, albumen, cracking or any other words you'd expect for an egg-related rhyme. The 1842 text in our article implies that Humpty Dumpty isn't an egg ("sinews") unless, rather revoltingly, it's an egg close to hatching. Certainly, by the 1870s, we have depictions of him as an egg in the Alice books. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to have been Lewis Carroll who first made the egg connection in Through the looking-glass and what Alice found there (1872) according to this (which may not be the most reliable source in the world). Alansplodge (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I think your research is sound A. I think it fair to mention that, while Carroll started the connection in his writing, John Tenniel gave us the visualization in his illustrations for the book. MarnetteD|Talk 17:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I did find Mother Goose's nursery rhymes and nursery songs (p. 30) which very graphically illustrates Humpty Dumpty's smashed egg-head with the contents flowing out onto the ground, but it is annoyingly undated, although the New York Public Library has catalogued it as the 1870s, so may well have been influenced by Carroll. The Nursery Rhyme Book (p. 129), dated 1898, has a version of the rhyme in a chapter called "Riddles & Paradoxes" and gives the answer as "an egg". Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought I had it, but The book of nursery rhymes, tales, and fables. A gift for all seasons (p. 96) (1846 or 1847) infuriatingly has no illustration. Alansplodge (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Keystone Folklore Quarterly, Volume 11 (Fall 1966, p. 169) quotes Archer Taylor from English Riddles from Oral Tradition 1977 (p. 1) that the rhyme was originally a riddle to which the answer was an egg.

How Literary Worlds Are Shaped: A Comparative Poetics of Literary Imagination by Bo Pettersson (p. 128) says: '“Humpty Dumpty” was originally a riddle about what cannot be fixed, but owing to illustrations, especially Sir John Tenniel's drawings to Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, most adults familiar with it since the late nineteenth century know the answer: Humpty Dumpty is an egg (see Opie and Opie 1997: 252-257)". Alansplodge (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The riddle hypothesis is confirmed by The St. James's Magazine and United Empire Review, Volume 2 (p. 493) published in 1861 says: "Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall ; Not all the king's horses, nor all the king's men, Could set... VERY true, very true indeed; for, if I mistake not, this is a riddle about an egg". Alansplodge (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• The Beastie Boys already said "Humpty Dumpty was a big fat egg", so that should be authority enough for his status. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Beastie Boys? Some sort of popular beat combo perhaps? Alansplodge (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Formerly, yes. RIP MCA. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Taryn Brumfitt

To equate Taryn Brumfitt with the film Embrace (film) is not correct and not serious. Thats reducing to not even 1% in this case! To reduce somebody just about one work of this person, is that serious?--2A02:1205:34E4:4200:E9C4:C75E:740F:A8D0 (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has written an article about that person. They have only written an article about a film. If you feel the topic of Taryn Brumfitt satisfies WP:NOTABILITY then please go ahead and set up such an article. Relevant principles for new editors contributing to Wikipedia are summarized at WP:5P, and WP:Tutorial is a general introduction to editing. Good luck. Dmcq (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Or you can add it to the list at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession but you may have to wait some time for a volunteer to get around to it. Alansplodge (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The original poster is apparently complaining about the redirect. I think it is common in Wikipedia that if a person is only mentioned in one article then their name is made to redirect to that article. If it later happens that an article about that person is created, there is no problem with changing the redirect. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

music and alignment of the planets (well sort of)

I read a long while back, Nick Cave said in an interview that he played Papa won't leave you Henry for his band with just him and his piano, and they went, "Hmm, maybe we could use that." The recorded version quickly became famous. Does this happen often, with popular music or any other style? I'm referring to the way the finished product seems to be rather sensitive to the way it just happens to come out, whether through features of the arrangement, the production, or the sound of the singer's voice (I'm calling it all, alignment of the planets, for want of something better). Note that any styles, and any related commentary on the alignment of the planets aspect of music, is most welcome. IBE (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you define what you mean by "the way it just happens to come out"? Every song has to come out at some point. Do you mean songs that were written from start to end in just one sitting? 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to define, which is why I gave an example. But the best definition would be a song that no one thought was anything special when it was demoed, before being put together. At the opposite end of the scale would be "We Are Young" by Fun. Read that article, and see Jeff Bhasker's reaction. IBE (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"Serendipity"? There are a number of songs which were hurriedly put together (more or less as filler material), but went on to become huge hits, such as Kung Fu Fighting and Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye. For literal alignments of the planets, see the "Music of the Spheres", unfortunately inadequately covered in Wikipedia's Musica universalis article (which doesn't discuss Kepler at all or mention the 1979 Ruff-Rodgers collaboration...) AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• AnonMoos, the road is long, the road is hard, and many fall by the side. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Also see (or hear) Holst's The Planets. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• For a discussion of Said, the stars aligning, and the Beastie Boys, see this article. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Where's that pre-Montgolfier brothers image where

There's lots of stuff in the sky that shouldn't be there. It looks like an ergot hallucination. I saw it once and don't remember where. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Vädersolstavlan? Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The Flammarion engraving is 19th-century, but often mistaken for medieval... AnonMoos (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Those weren't it. I remember balls in rectangles or cylinders in the sky and no guy sticking his head through the edge of the world (though I've seen that one too and also thought it was Medieval) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way: Late to the party, but maybe 1561 celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg? If not, try UFO paintings. Brandmeister^talk 11:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That was it, thanks. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

July 1

Planned Parenthood, hospitals, and doctors' clinics

I am not sure what the controversy of defunding Planned Parenthood is about. I know abortion plays a big role in the controversy. Anti-abortionists want to defund Planned Parenthood, because they argue that Planned Parenthood uses the government money (public money) to pay for abortion services. Pro-abortionists want to support Planned Parenthood, because Planned Parenthood offers sexual health services to poor people. But my concern is, how will defunding Planned Parenthood have an impact on abortion and sexual health services? Why does no one talk about the existence of hospitals and doctors' clinics? They exist too. They may also provide sexual health services. And both Planned Parenthood and hospitals accept health insurance as payment. So, what's the big fuss about defunding Planned Parenthood? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• PP fulfills a totemic function in American culture, and thus its role as an abortion provider is overstated by Christian conservatives. No one wants to talk about hospitals and clinics because that's not really sexy, and it's hard to make hospitals pawns in culture wars. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Aside from abortion, s-e-x is wicked so anyone who provides contraception or s-e-x-ual health services is doing the devil's work. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

0) Not all hospitals and clinics offer the services Planned Parenthood provide.

1) Not all health insurance covers the services Planned Parenthood provides.

2) Many Americans have no health insurance.

3) In many red states, there are very few medical services offered for poor women, due to legal restrictions, and this will reduce that even further. StuRat (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Point 0 and 1 sound very interesting. Do you have any sources about the number of hospitals and clinics? How much is "not all"? Is it possible to quantify that number? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

50.4.236.254 -- First off, the phrasing "pro-abortionist" is a little clumsy (and not what people refer to themselves as).

Second, Planned Parenthood actually very rarely uses federal funds to perform abortions, as mandated by the Hyde Amendment. Some GOP culture-warriors are trying to cut off all government funding of any kind from Planned Parenthood due to its overall organizational connection to abortion, even though in many areas Planned Parenthood clinics have been the main providers of care for women's health issues, and many of the clinics involved don't even do abortions. Rather clumsy and heavy-handed attempts to defund Planned Parenthood in Texas corresponded with a sharp rise in maternal mortality there.[5] -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

To elaborate, "anti-abortion" is a correct term, because it means "discouraging anyone from having an abortion" (although some do make exceptions for rape, incest, and health reasons), but "pro-abortion", which would mean "encouraging everyone to have an abortion," is not correct. (There are actually some radical groups that think people should all die off, leaving the Earth alone, and they might support such a stance, but this is not what the "pro-choice" groups support.) StuRat (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

In the OP, I wanted to avoid political framing, so I didn't want to use the term "pro-choice". I wanted to use a term that just meant "for legal abortion" and "against legal abortion". My use of "pro-abortion" means "for legal abortion", and my use of "anti-abortion" means "against legal abortion". 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The terms "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice" are the closest to being accurate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"Pro-abortion-legalization" would also work, although in cases where it is legal, it may sound a bit odd, but it means "keeping it legal" in those places. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but since AFAIK it isn't actually used, this is irrelevant. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The situation with Planned Parenthood is historically complex. Bear in mind that, as the article explains, its controversial status predates when they did abortions, or even when they dared discuss abortions because of the infamous Comstock Act; they were originally a birth control organization. Margaret Sanger is described in the article as criticizing abortion, since she believed she could prevent it with adequate birth control (which is of course true, and remains the case today; Republicans may promise abortion bans but Democrats deliver declines in the actual abortion rate) Sanger is widely criticized to this day for supporting eugenics, which originated in the U.S. (Indiana Plan) and was very popular in her time; and of course to this day abortion still takes more black fetuses than white. The most mysterious part is trying to sort out the position of the organization versus competitors: somewhat relevant information can be found [6][7] [8] I don't understand if the organization has preferential access to funding or won market dominance by more or less ordinary capitalism. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I find the links you provided most helpful. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

A form of eugenics-lite was pretty mainstream in the United States in the 1920s, and supporters of Eugenics could be found among most broad social / cultural / political alignments in the U.S. at that time. If something is discredited because its precursor in the 1920s included prominent or vocal eugenics supporters, then a lot of things in the U.S. would be discredited, including both the Democratic and Republican parties, a number of state governments, the Supreme Court (Buck v. Bell) etc. etc. We choose to remember the 1920s as the "Jazz Decade" instead of the "Scientific Racism Decade", but both names would be accurate... AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I think abortion is a kind of eugenics. However, eugenics doesn't have to be a bad thing. If pregnant mothers are screened for birth defects, then they can check to see whether the baby has any birth defects. Raising a defected baby is very expensive, especially for the poor and uninsured. If that defected baby is born, then it will just consume resources, leaving the able-bodied individuals to care for that parasite. Meanwhile, investment in able-bodied children may yield a return: that they will take care of the parents in old age and contribute to society. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

And eugenics itself isn't always totally evil. For example, we still legally discourage incest, as it may result in genetically damaged offspring. The NAZIs having misused it to say that everyone besides them was genetically inferior and should be exterminated or enslaved certainly gave it a bad name, though. StuRat (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Incest taboos have been pretty much universal among human societies for thousands of years before anyone knew much about scientific genetics... AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Except for several royals lines, where they actually thought that concentrating their "superior traits" was a good thing. Cleopatra, for example, married her brothers. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That's kind of "incest as the privilege of an elite/royal few" in a small number of cultures. It's still the case that incest taboos long predate any form of scientific or pseudo-scientific eugenics. AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that the lingering legacy of eugenics should be taken seriously, because it does come up in some ugly contexts to this day. Most notably, it is frequently proposed to have "rape and incest" exceptions to various anti-abortion laws. Yet the rationale given for anti-abortion laws is typically that "abortion is murder". Does this mean that it is considered acceptable to murder a child because he or she is the product of rape or incest? The best face I can put on it is that maybe the anti-abortion law in those circumstances is not really seen as a ban on murder, but just a way to punish women for screwing around - but proponents rarely admit such a thing, and there are some flaws to that idea e.g. the same groups don't openly object to contraception. Another tangible but more philosophical expression of all this are some controversies (Richard Mourdock, George Faught) regarding whether pregnancy from rape is "God's will". [9][10] If "God's will" can be said to be behind the existence of one child, which would not have been possible without an endless number of wars, slavery, conquest, injustices that brought parents together (especially where a colony like the U.S. is concerned), then how can a child of rape not be God's will? It would seem to imply that such children are seen as not even human. (Personally I would be receptive to the story of Yeshu ben Pandera as a rational explanation for the Immaculate Conception, in which the miracle of Mary becomes a total, heartfelt love for her child without regard for any circumstance...) Wnt (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Re your closing sentence, Wnt, the article Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera might be a more useful link. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.58.120 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No - the Talmud mentioned some guy Panthera/Pandera/Pantera. Someone in Germany dug up a monument with that name. But I know of no evidence that that is the Pantera - it was probably a common name. It's like the question of whether that ossuary for the brother of Jesus was actually brother of the Jesus. Now that said, it is theoretically possible to answer the question, because it is possible to get DNA out of soil under some circumstances, and it is possible to go through all the relics said to be the True Cross until some speck of actual DNA can be obtained. Nanopore sequencing might help. But the odds of success at this juncture seem unacceptably low... obviously, we don't want to ruin any material before we can get an authentic clone (to cite a film as much better than Dan Brown's imitation as its budget was less). Wnt (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Neither I nor anyone else is suggesting that there's any proof that the Panthera buried in Germany is the same Panthera claimed by some near-contemporary Jewish reports to be the father of Ye'shua son of Miryam. It is nevertheless interesting that (a) from all the records of names from the Jewish milieu, Panthera is known but was not common (I believe there is only one other recorded instance of it, on a (clearly Jewish) burial in Judea; (b) the German-buried individual also corresponds with the reports, in being a soldier in the Roman army; (c) he was Jewish (Abdes being a Jewish name – he was also a freed slave, hence the "Tiberius Julius"); (d) he was from Sidon, which is only a couple or three days walk (60 miles) from Nazareth; (d) records of his unit suggest he was probably serving in Galilee at the right period, and; (e) he was a young man at that time.

Re the ossuary: there is circumstantial evidence that it came from the same family tomb as nine other ossuaries (it being stolen during their transit to a museum and being claimed as accidentally destroyed); names from the other ossuaries include all of the known names of Ye'shua's family in the right relationships, and while they're common for the milieu (though Miryam's's was one of the more unusual variations of the common form of hers), the odds of this particular combination are low. However, we have somewhat digressed from the OP's topic of enquiry! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.58.120 (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The article Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera says that "Historically, the name Pantera is not unusual and was in use among Roman soldiers", citing two sources. You are quite welcome to take up your argument with it, and to make some of those other details you give above more clearly. This is indeed interesting - please pursue it where it matters most! Wnt (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The odds that any object purported to be a piece of the True Cross is a piece of the True Cross is so small as to be equivalent to impossibility. Any DNA obtained from such an object is many magnitudes more likely to be contamination than it is to be something from the purported time of origin of the object. And it would be impossible to validate which of the many many DNA specimens you'd obtain in such a search would correspond to a historical figure from which you have no DNA. Similarly the DNA obtained from a Holy Foreskin. If you cloned something based on one of the many Holy Foreskins you're more likely to wind up with a pig or a cow than a human, let alone a deity. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand of course that skeptics have ruled the day on this one since Mark Twain... hmmm, I'm having a hard time running down that quote, not sure it's genuine! Well, yes, there's every reason to doubt. Even so, there seems a chance that genuine pieces were maintained, and being made of wood, they can readily be dated... I would not discard the idea out of hand. Wnt (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

While most Mark Twain quotations are falsely attributed, I would agree that one can actually find an occasional actual Mark Twain quote in the wild. But you won't find any real 2000 year old relics. And frankly, regarding the "True Cross" there's no chance that the "genuine pieces" were even found 200 years after the crucifixion. - Nunh-huh 01:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The whole "Panthera" thing originated as a Greek-language joke -- the word παρθενος means "virgin, maiden" while the word πανθηρ means "panther". Some Greek-speaking scoffers claimed that the word παρθενος was inserted into Christian texts by consonant metathesis (the letters nun and rho switching places), and this was picked up by various non-Christians... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

As of 2014, 59% of US abortions occurred in specialist clinics (defined as clinics where more than half of all patient visits were related to abortion services). A further 36% of abortions occurred in non-specialist clinics (defined as clinics where less than half of patient visits where related to abortion). Just 4% of abortions were performed in hospitals and just 1% were performed in the offices of a doctor in private practice. [11] Due to political pressure, many hospitals have decided they won't allow elective abortions to be performed in their facilities. [12] The 650 Planned Parenthood affiliated facilities in the US account for ~75% of the medical clinics that are performing abortions. Planned Parenthood provides a very large share of the abortions provided in the US. For some communities, they are also the primary provider of other sexual and women's health services, especially among poorer communities. Dragons flight (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

As a side note, abortion is a relatively new phenomenon. Humans have always been plagued with infant and maternal mortality during childbirth, and during childrearing, not all children survive infancy. So, even if there is no abortion, a sick child or malnourished child will just succumb to disease. The only difference between elective abortion and die-by-disease is that the former involves human intention and the latter is just a process of natural selection. High infant and maternal mortality may limit the amount of humans entering the world and counterbalance with the number of humans exiting the world, putting a population in check. Without legal abortion, women will probably choose the illegal route to obtain an abortion, thus harming herself and the unborn. In such a case, both lives may perish. In a situation where there is legal, safe abortions, only one life perishes. If you want to control the population, then eliminating 2 lives is the better way to go. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No, abortion is not "a relatively new phenomenon." It is referenced in the Hippocratic Oath (ca. 200-400 BC) and the earliest mention goes back more than a millennium before that. See History of abortion. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected on that one. Your History of abortion link points to pro-abortion. There really is such a term to describe the abortion rights movement. So, a supporter of the pro-abortion stance is pro-abortionist, and a supporter of the anti-abortion stance is anti-abortionist. Pro-life/anti-choice/pro-choice/anti-life words are just political framing words. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that link redirects to Abortion-rights movements, a much better title. Sure, the term "pro-abortion" is used, but it is neither accurate nor politically neutral. A support of abortion rights is, arguably, "pro-abortion-rights", but very few, if any, are "pro-abortion". Let me say that if the occurrence of one link (to a non-existing article) sways your opinion, it may be because it was pre-swayed ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Fine. I'm making up my own terms. "Anti-legal-abortion" and "pro-legal-abortion" are the terms I will use to describe the groups against and for legal abortion. That's what politics is about anyway. People who are against legal abortion are "anti-legal-abortionists", and people who are for legal abortion are "pro-legal-abortionists". 50.4.236.254 (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Sexual health services for poor people

Aside from abortion, Planned Parenthood offers contraception, especially to poor people, and accepts payment from patients' health insurance companies. But, there are also hospitals that have sexual health clinics. Is there a difference between how a hospital conducts business with patients and how Planned Parenthood conducts business with patients? Does Planned Parenthood have the ability to lower prices because it is government-funded while hospitals are privately funded? But what about public/state hospitals? Those are government-funded too. Okay, now I'm really confused. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that some conservatives also oppose contraception and providing info regarding the human reproductive system. This may lead some hospitals and clinics to avoid providing it, so as to not be punished by politicians and protesters, especially in red states. As for US hospitals, they all pretty much accept all private medical insurance, but not the government Medicare/Medicaid plans, which at times pay too little. I believe PP also acts as a charity, taking donations from individuals to provide services for free or low cost to those who can't pay. StuRat (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like social conservatism mixed in with financial conservatism. Rich people have boatloads of money, so they can afford luxuries, a comfy lifestyle, and a longer life. Poor people want what rich people have and think they are entitled to it. The government may force rich people to pay for the expenses of poor people (such as healthcare) by raising their taxes, but then this raises a problem of having freeloaders. So, rich people try to use their power to prevent that from happening, but still give in to poor people enough to keep them satisfied and the system running smoothly. Yep, another class conflict between the rich and the poor. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Dmcq (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Tsuchida Gozen: Conflicting info?

Hi.

I visited the Tsuchida Gozen article and noticed the boldface reiteration of the title isn't the same as the article title. It reads Dota Gozen instead.

There are clues that tell me this isn't because of vandalism or anything. It is seemingly a matter of history or Japanese language that I seem not to understand.

Can anyone please shed a light on this matter?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The alternate name in bold text indicates a redirect for that term to the page. However, if you click on Dota Gozen, it should redirect to Tsuchida Gozen, but currently is a redlink. This matter might better be addressed over at the Help desk, but the article itself should mention the relation between the two names (if any), or perhaps there is an error (?). -- 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A975:997:5261:F444 (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that the page should be moved (renamed) to Dota Gozen and Tsuchida Gozen redirect there, since page names for people should be the name most commonly used. The article should probably begin something like:

Dota Gozen (土田 御前, Tsuchida Gozen, 1511 – February 26, 1594) was...

2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A975:997:5261:F444 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, I already surmised as much. My question is: Why?

Let me clarify with an example: If I go to the "Dick Cheney" article, I see that the boldface name in the lead is "Richard Bruce Cheney". In this case, I exactly know why: "Dick" is the short form of "Richard". So, if one drops the middle name of Richard Bruce Cheney and convert the first name to its diminutive form, one would get Dick Cheney.

But in case of this Japanese first lady, I don't know why. How can a woman have two different family names and none of them be the family name of the husband? In this case, the husband is Oda Nobuhide. "Dota" is implied to have been the maiden family name.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Just for the benefit of folks looking into this: The Tsuchida → Dota change in the article was made here by an IP editor who has made no other edits (at least with that IP address). Deor (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Also note that articles about her husband and children—Oda Nobuhide, Oda Nobunaga, Oda Nobuyuki, Oda Nobukane, and Oda Hidetaka—all give her name as Tsuchida Gozen. Deor (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"Tsuchi" is the common kun reading of 土, "do" a common on reading of it. Thus "Tsuchita" and "Toda" are both possible readings of 土田 (the difference in the final syllable is due to rendaku). Kun'yomi is normally used for names, but there are exceptions. I don't know if there is any reason why an on reading would be appropriate for this person. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you (or somebody) feel confident enough to fix the article? The IP that made the change did not have authority to move the page (nor do I). Note Deor's link above; there were also other changes made. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A975:997:5261:F444 (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was a frustrating half an hour or so. The only thing close to a good source I can find was on the website of the Buddhist temple in Mie Prefecture where her grave is and that only says her actual family name might have been 花屋 (Hanaya or Hananoya). The corresponding article on the Japanese language (ja:土田御前) has どたごぜん (Dota Gozen) as the pronunciation. Tsuchida would be what you'd expect it to be, though. Hmm... is actually improving articles what the ref desk is about? No, surely not. I'll go ahead with the change. Pete AU (or ピ-マン, as the Minami-Chu junior high school kids nicknamed me. Yes, I know what it means. And yes, I was on the JET Program, so it's OK to hate me.) --Shirt58 (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't supposed to be about improving an article. The OP assumed that the article has no problems, only he/she can't understand it properly. To quote: "It is seemingly a matter of history or Japanese language that I seem not to understand." 37.255.80.119 (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I suggested the Help desk. Often ref desks find something wrong or inadequate in an article. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A975:997:5261:F444 (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2

Swedish source

There's a picture of a Sweden girl with bloody face, which was a victim of a Muslim gang. Just google for 'sweden rape bloodied face'. I am having difficulties finding the original article (from 2005). Can someone provide it?--Hofhof (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Providing original sources of the purview of WP:REX. Maybe someone there can help?--Jayron32 04:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to this photo [13]? That photo is used [14] and elsewhere in association with a story which blew up on the web around the end of November 2005, but I'd urge strong caution on trusting any details on such sites.

Using a Google reverse image search, I did find [15] which seems to be a photo of the Expressen tabloid frontpage from 26 March 2005 with the same photo. A search on their site finds [16] which seems to confirm it was really their front page. That story also suggests they appeared on a TV programme in Sweden called Wanted. It's possible the image was broadcast there as the story suggests the victim wanted the image to be shown at the time. However the photo on the above blog clearly isn't from the newspaper cover (the one on the blog has more details including a time stamp) and I can't find any other variant on the Expressen site. I don't think, but can't be certain that it's a screen cap of a still from TV either.

The blog does mention another source however that [17]/[18] doesn't seem to have the photo. (It also links to a search of the TV3 page, what it's supposed to find I'm not sure but unsurprisingly it doesn't work and I don't think you'll have much luck find an archive.) But I noticed our article on Expressen mentions Aftonbladet as the other main Swedish tabloid.

Sure enough a search of their site of images using the victim's name and age finds a story with the photo [19] including the details cut off in the other tabloid's front page. (It is possible the other tabloid has or had it somewhere on their webpage too. It's very hard to know precisely what was and wasn't available after such a long time most of the time.)

Note since the victim at the time wanted the photo to be published, it's possible it was also shown elsewhere so there may be multiple sources depending on what you mean by 'original source'. Aftonbladet lists SJUKHUSET as a source. I think this probably just means it came from some hospital (which makes sense since it looks like it was taken in a hospital) rather than the TV programme Se:Sjukhuset (TV-serie) but don't know for sure. Since the victim wanted the photo to be published at the time, it's possible that she was the direct source for some places rather than it coming directly from the hospital. (It seems likely the hospital or whoever took the photo would have provided it to her on request.)

P.S. Many years later, the same photo became that of the victim an an alleged attack in the UK [20] showing why you should take great care with sources which don't properly document their work and don't have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough answer. And yes, I know that this picture (of a young blond female with big blue eyes, bloody) can and is used by scaremongers. Hofhof (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

How do farmers pay taxes?

Their income seems to be the plants they grow. So, how do they pay taxes? Are they allowed to pay in terms of plants, or does the government estimate the value of the harvest? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Please tell us which specific jurisdiction. The world is a varied place, and helping you research tax codes in a specific place requires you to tell us which place you want to find the tax codes for; also note that some countries like the US or UAE are likely to have different codes in each federated state, so if you want US, you'll need to specify a specific state as well.--Jayron32 04:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's see. Most humans in the world live in Asia. I'll pick India. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The National government of India does not collect taxes on agriculturally products. However India, like the US, is a federation. Individual Indian states have their own tax codes, so some may collect agricultural taxes. Any other jurisdictions you need help finding?--Jayron32 05:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

What is a tax code? How is it used? Why does it have to be a code? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

In the context of laws, a "code" is the term for the body of laws on a topic. See Code of law for a more comprehensive definition. The term "tax code" means "the body of laws dealing with taxation". For a concrete example, the full body of active laws issued by the US federal government is called the United States Code. The use of the word "code" in this context is unrelated to other uses, such as a synonym for cipher.--Jayron32 06:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Note however our article Income tax in India#Income partly agricultural and partly business activities suggests certain agricultural products (tea, coffee and latex/cenex) are part counted as business income so may incur income tax. I presume this is mentioned in the act above, but it talks about various boards so I couldn't be bothered working out what it's referring to. But although uncited our article is specific enough I strongly suspect it is or was right. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Usually they sell their crops for money, some of which they use to pay taxes. Modern governments don't want to be paid tax in kind because it's way too much trouble for them. One exception, noted in the tax in kind article, is North Korea from 1947 to 1966, but then North Korea isn't your average state. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't of course unique to governments. It's likely that anyone else the farmer is involved with e.g. those supplying fertiliser, equipment or seeds, etc expect the same. Even workers tend to want cash salaries. Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I would add this isn't unique to farmers either. People in manufacturing or mining may be producing something. They make an income by selling it. Not just to pay those who help them make that income, but also because if they want clothes (for example) for personal use unrelated to their work, these people generally want money not crops. Barter exists and there's perhaps a renewed focus on it, but even considering the developing world, exchanges generally involve money or some other intermediary in some form, not barter. ([21] suggests 15% of international trade is on a non cash basis although this doesn't actually tell us much about how much farmers use it. [22] suggests 20% up to 40% in Brazil of operational costs via barter. Don't know about India, I see many sources e.g. [23] [24] [25] discussing an increase after the cash crunch due to the demonetisation but not estimates of percentages.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Of course before anyone points it out, yes one difference between goverments and others is that you may be able to find someone who will give you clothes etc for your crops. If the government expects cash and as said by others they nearly always do, then you have little chance convincing them to accept your crops. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

... and, of course, not all farmers sell crops. Some have an income only from animals, so there used to be an arrangement with grocery suppliers that the bill would be paid only when animals were sold. For modern farmers, a bank loan is more common. Here in the UK, farmers' taxes are usually paid after the end of the financial year, so wise farmers save money from crops or animals to cover this commitment. Dbfirs 10:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does the United States enter so many wars?

Back in social studies class, I learned that the United States didn't want to enter any of the European conflicts until they were drawn in during the Great War. Then, the Great Depression and World War II followed. After World War II, the US entered the Korean War and the Vietnam War and the War on Terror and the Iraqi War. I'm not really sure if the United States has ever been in peacetime or if it has always engaged in war. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

They were terrified of communism. Recently, however, they've been dialling back their involvement. 86.2.21.152 (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

As George Orwell famously explained, war is peace. Or at least it is now. (that was actually the second seal of the Revelation; see spontaneous symmetry breaking, though really I mean the reverse...) Is the U.S. at war in Pakistan? Nobody knows! Is the Pakistan government for or against us? Nobody knows! See Drone strikes in Pakistan. Is the Mexican Drug War a war or law enforcement? You tell me... your guess is as good as anyone's. Some relevant theory in low intensity conflict. Wnt (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The Great Depression was not a war, although it may have felt like that to many people. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Countries like France, Germany or the UK also entered many wars, but unlike them the US is a superpower, so it historically wanted to influence foreign affairs by military means. This was especially true during the Cold War. But there was a period of the United States non-interventionism. Brandmeister^talk 11:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

See also From Korea to Vietnam: The Origins and Mindset of Postwar U.S. Interventionism. Alansplodge (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are there war criminals and war crimes?

Back in the olden days, I thought warriors on the winning side could just take the land, rape the women, kill the men and children, or enslave all enemies and their relatives. Captured prisoners of war could be tortured to death. Nowadays, why are the losing side's enemies of war taken to trial and not, for example, sentenced to a life of indentured servitude or slavery for the winning side? Isn't war supposed to mean fight, torture, kill, loot, rape, and dominate the opponent? 2600:387:0:805:0:0:0:56 (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're sad to see that go there's still countries on this Earth where they still do that. Heck, there's still countries where they not only kill the children but force them to beat their parents to death, kill with machine guns, be raped and they even rape babies. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The concept of War crime emerged at the international level with the adoption of the treaties during the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. Trials of Axis war criminals established the Nuremberg principles and the Geneva Conventions in 1949 established that states could exercise universal jurisdiction over such crimes. Blooteuth (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The roots go back much further -- see Peace and Truce of God. Though Quaker-like Christian pacifism has long been rare, the overall concept of just war theory emerged from an idea that these things were evils to be avoided. Wnt (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You may be interested in How to Fight Like a Gentleman – Six Astounding Rules of War From the 18th Century if you skip the anti-Trump polemic at the beginning. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of war is to force another government to do something that you want and they don't. That could be "give us your land", "trade with us on our terms", "stop supporting our enemies", or "stop trying to make us do all those things". Merely killing/maiming their soldiers and civilians isn't necessarily the most effective way to do that, and may actually be counterproductive (if you want them to change sides and support you, or produce stuff for you). Furthermore, you ultimately have to make peace with the enemy, and (often) live/work with them afterwards. A lot of things that are banned as war crimes are things that either aren't actually very effective at defeating the enemy, and/or would make it more likely they do the same to you, and/or would make it harder to make peace at the end. For example, torture isn't a very reliable way of getting information, and most soldiers probably don't know enough to make a difference anyway. But if you torture your prisoners, people will be less likely to surrender to you. (Ditto for any other mistreatment of prisoners). Conversely, faking a surrender in order to sneak-attack the enemy tends to encourage them to kill people rather than taking prisoners. Finally, to do well in a war, you generally need the support of both your own population and of allies. If one side is being particularly brutal or evil, then they are less likely to get such support, and their opponents are more likely to.

I would say this goes back at least to the Roman Empire. They figured out that if they wiped out all their enemies completely, this left just burned land of no use to them in the long term. Better to co-opt the enemy, by giving them some degree of self-rule, in exchange for tribute, providing soldiers for the Empire, etc. For example, they tried this in ancient Israel, until a series of rebellions led them back to the "kill them (almost) all and enslave any survivors" concept. Even the NAZIs figured out that they needed allies and co-opted many local factions to gain them, rather than wipe them all out. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Michael Flynn

Will Michael Flynn be granted immunity?4.16.42.123 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The article says immunity was refused, but "a compromise" was reached, however the article does not expand on the nature of the agreement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about this particular case. But a common compromise in this sort of situation is some sort of formal guarantee that any evidence they provide (in this case, to the senate) in such a setting will not be admissible in any trial against them. This doesn't stop them from being potentially charged based on other evidence. I know in many jurisdictions, there are laws allowing such guarantees to be given (such as when a person is ordered to testify against a co-accused), but I'm not sure if the U.S. Senate has any similar power? Come to think of it, wouldn't testimony given in a Senate hearing fall under Parliamentary privilege, preventing it from being used as evidence in a criminal trial? Can someone clarify this point? Does Parliamentary privilege protect incriminating evidence of criminal activity given in parliament from being used in a criminal trial, or even as evidence to get a judge to issue a search warrant? Eliyohub (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: here is a useful rundown on immunity law and Flynn, which covers the issues I've raisd, and will provide some general answers. Eliyohub (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

what is the circle pattern on the chinese shirt

https://tanailee.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/traditional-chinese-ethnic-dress-men-kung.jpg http://image.dhgate.com/albu_402472539_00/1.0x0.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.212.253 (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what they are called, but they look a lot like the circular flowery works of art you find in Chinese paper cutting. Some websites selling clothes call them "Chinese folk circle". They seem to be a popular pattern on tangzhuangs. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It's similar to a Japanese mon described as a crest.
Sleigh (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Such clothing is traditional changshan, but don't know about the circles. Brandmeister^talk 10:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Some information about the symbolism of circular patterns (in ceramics) is at The Meaning of China's Most Ancient Art (p. 136) by Anneliese Bulling. Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

July 3

What are some of the most prescient predictions of WW2, Naziism, Pearl Harbor, the Great Depression or the Holocaust?

Any kind of prediction: Fiction (i.e. a 1919 film), persuasion (i.e. a politician's quote), speculation etc. Doesn't have to include more than one (i.e. a novel with a great depression but no world war(s), or Germans invade Europe but Japan's against them like WW1 or unimportant like pre ~1900). Napoleon predicted China two centuries in advance after all so it can be done. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... just searching, I find those who give great credit to Winston Churchill - [26]. There are others who make much of the Three Secrets of Fatima, though I have to say so far what I've seen about it seems unimpressive at first glance. Then there are other things like this that seem like pure chaff. H.G. Wells gets some credit here. Presumably there are more impressive predictions by less known people that do not come up as quickly in a search... and I have scarcely looked. Wnt (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The Great Dictator was made in 1940, so perhaps more of a condemnation of the (then) current events than a prediction of future events. Still, well worth watching. StuRat (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hear hear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The best known for non-fiction is probably John Maynard KeynesSeraphim System ^(talk) 00:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Read about Billy Mitchell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ferdinand Foch on the Treaty of Versailles: "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years".--Jayron32 01:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• As already mentioned, H G Wells, notably Things to Come. See also:

Handwerk, Brian. "The Many Futuristic Predictions of H.G. Wells That Came True". Smithsonian. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A975:997:5261:F444 (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• The attack on Pearl Harbor was anticipated with great prescience in 1932 by Admiral Yarnell as part of a US Navy war-game exercise. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

July 4

Aristotle conversion to Judaism and letter to Alexander

Hi, this is my first time using the Reference desk. So if I've formatted this incorrectly, or this is too long, or any other thing I've done utterly wrong, I apologize. I've seen possibly dubious references to a letter that was supposedly written by Aristotle to Alexander the Great about his denouncing his own works and converting to Judaism. I know that the letter is written, in full, in the book Meam Loez (a Jewish commentary on Tanach.) I was wondering about the validity of the claim. I have found that the source of the Meam Loez is another book, Shalshelet HaLabalah, but I haven't been able to go any deeper, nor do I know how much validity these sources get in the historical community. I saw on this website: https://www.jerusalemlife.com/?p=3749 the claim that it was posted on Wikipedia before but was taken down (you can also read the letter there, as well as another version from it's source). So my question is as follows: How believable is this source and is there any reason to believe that Aristotle converted to Judaism near the end of his life? And, if it's not a believable source, why not? -- Askaqp (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

If you don't want to visit that site here is an excerpt from the English version of the Meam Loez (originally written in Ladino):

Collapsed content.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
″There is a true story of a great philosopher renowned throughout the world, whose name was Aristotle – that at the time of his old age he wrote a letter to his student Alexander the Macedonian – the king of Greece (See source Shalshelet HaKabalah) this text: Blessed is Hashem [the G-d of the Jews – the sole G-d of the universe and of all], that opens eyes of the blind, that shows the sinners the straight path. He is exalted with praises that are worthy of Him – For I do not know how to praise Him upon all of the mercy and great kindness that he bestowed upon me. That he took me out of this foolishness that I was immersed in all the days of my life in dealing with wisdom of philosophy to explain everything according to nature – that’s understood through rationalization. And I made many books on this wisdom – like the sand that is on the banks of the of the sea. Until I was rebuked now by the mingling of my life with one (Jewish) sage from the sages of Israel. And in his speaking to me, he demonstrated his tremendous wisdom. And I recognized the high level of the holy Torah, that was given at the Mount Sinai. And he drew my heart with the words of the Torah that showed me and explained to me true novelties and wonders that were done [by Hash-m, the G-d of Israel]. And I was uncivilized that I did not understand that most of the things that are driven by the Holy One Blessed be He [Hashem – the G-d of Israel] in a wondrous manner that’s external to the way of nature. And from the time that I saw this – I took to heart to expound and to investigate [or fathom] the wisdom of the Torah. For all of its words are founded on foundations of truths, and it is not like the wisdom of philosophy that is vanity. And therefore, you my student – Alexander the the great king – Do not push my works [for people to learn them]– not you and not my fellow philosophers. For if it was in my hands to gather all of the books that I authored using this wisdom, surely I would burn them with fire in order that they would not remain any part of them. However, this matter is not in my hands for my books are spread throughout the world and it’s impossible to gather them all. And I know well of the stringent punishment that my Creator will punish me for this great sin that I transgressed. That I lost my time with my own hands and that I caused the multitude to sin. Therefore, my son Alexander I wrote this letter in order to inform you, you and all of your fellows – that most of the things that people want to explain in the way of nature in order that they will be understood by the intellect are matters of falsehood. For surely, the Holy One Blessed be He (Hashem – G-d), He is the Solution to the world and He leads it with great force. And because of my fate that caused my books to be spread throughout the western lands – I hereby inform on all of them – that one should not waste his time with them. Do not look at them and do not touch them with your hands. For it is a great sin to waste time on my books of philosophy – for it is a lie that has no legs [to stand upon]. And now I have saved my soul with this that I proclaimed my error and my guilt – it [the Law of the Torah’s punishment] is not as stringent upon me for the past [faults of mine] for I didn’t know. However now that I revealed this matter to the creatures – that I lived in error and my heart burns for the time that I destroyed with vanities. Woe is to those that their hearts continue [to follow] after my books. Surely under them will be the grave. And know that according to what that same sage taught me – I found many matters in the book of proverbs that King Solomon authored that a person should not be drawn after the wisdom of philosophy in his saying to “Guard yourself from a strange woman from a foreign female whose words are smooth.” (Mishlei / Proverbs 7:5) Woe to the eyes that thus they see. Woe to the ears that they thus is what they hear. Woe is to me that I destroyed my body and my strength – for these damaging matters. And this that you praise me by saying that my fame has spread throughout the world because of the books that I made. And they admire me with great admiration. Surely death is better than this – that my books are spread throughout the world. Surely those that are diligent in [the learning of] the Torah will inherit [eternal] life in the world to come. And those that deal with my books will inherit purgatory. And even I am prepared to be punished for them all. And the reason why I did not write you this letter before now, for I suspected that you would be angry at me and you would do me evil. However now, I decided to say, to inform you of this. For I know that before this letter of mine will arrive in your hand I will have already been placed in an ark of wood – for I reached the end of my days. And Peace from the Teacher Aristotle – that separates from [life in] the world – to Alexander the great king of Greece.″

I added a collapse box. Here's links to Aristotle and ancient Israel, for anyone who wants to research this further. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Carians

Churchward's map in Mu (lost continent) shows two populations, Negroid and Carian, spreading out over the rest of the world once Mu sank. In his writings, are these Carians related to the Carians of Anatolia? Rojomoke (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)