Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • 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.



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.
 
Choose a topic:
Humanities desk
 
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual


March 23

Origin of names: Khalid Masood

What is the origin of these names? Khalid Masood?--Llaanngg (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

See Khalid and Masoud. - Lindert (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Notice that Khalid Masood was from Kent, UK, not from the same place as these names are. His real name was Adrian Elms, but after becoming a Muslim convert he adopted a new one. Converts to Islam are likely to adopt a new one.--Hofhof (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I think you mean his birth name was Adrian Elms. People can change their names to whatever they like within certain limits, and their new name is as much their "real" name as their birth name was. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I get your point, but his birth name was Adrian Russell Ajao. And he went by several names, including these three and Khalid Choudry too. Don't know which one was the prominent or used daily.--Hofhof (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
His birth name was Adrian R Elms (probably Adrian Russell Elms), as you can see by searching the freebmd website. At least you can find a registration in Dartford in the first quarter of 1965, consistent with the report that he was born on Christmas Day 1964. His mother married a Mr Ajao a year or so later, so he may well have been brought up as Adrian Ajao. I don't know why the papers are saying this when the birth and marriage records are easy to find. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I recall Jack Benny once referring to a "Kubelsky" and then adding, "that's my right name, you know." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, some years back, someone found an old driver's license once held by Marilyn Monroe. At the time, she was married to Joe DiMaggio, and the name on the license was "Norma Jean DiMaggio". Then there's sportscaster Jim McKay. His birth name was Jim McManus. In an interview, he said that the mailbox on his farm reads J. McManus, and as far as being addressed, he said, "I'm comfortable with either one." This is in contrast to Muhammad Ali, who publicly rejected his birth name Cassius Clay. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
But to answer the question; Khalid '...is a popular Arabic male given name meaning "eternal"' (Google also suggests "immortal"). Masood or Masoud '...is a given name and surname in many countries, meaning "fortunate", "prosperous", or "happy". Although some experts believe that the origin of this name comes from Arab countries, it is a very popular surname in Iran and Turkey'. Alansplodge (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
D'oh! I've just noticed that User:Lindert has already linked these WP articles. Apologies... Alansplodge (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Stage names are a rather different beast to a change of the name you use in your non-professional life or to a legal name change. MChesterMC (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

March 24

Captain Brinell

Who is the Captain Brinell mentioned here and here? I am guessing he was probably American, from New England and maybe a whaler. What was his full name and the name of his ship at that period (c. 1803). Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I could only find the two references that you have linked. Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Evidence that Obama spied on Trump

Is there any real evidence that Obama spied on Trump?Uncle dan is home (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

No. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
There isn't even any fake evidence. There are insane conjectures by a conspiracy theorist. Nothing that wouldn't be barred from Wikipedia under WP:FRINGE. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, the Reference Desk! Home of references! Here's what's currently referenceable, and certainly falls under the category of evolving current events: "In plain English, that means Trump officials had spoken to a foreign national whose communications were being monitored by US intelligence, so their conversations were picked up despite the fact that they weren’t targets of surveillance." There's plenty more context in the linked story (or in other outlets' coverage of the same). — Lomn 16:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
That's what it is. And the answer to the OP's question remains "No." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Huh. It seems to me that the story I linked says "maybe, depending on how you want to stretch definitions". Do you have a reference for a flat "No" answer? — Lomn 19:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Obama was spying on Trump. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
What Lomn is asking for is some reference that says there is no evidence, not just your personal statement that there is no evidence. (Unless maybe you've become an official spokesperson for the Trump administration; and even then, this wouldn't be the place to make such an official concession/backdown ... mind you, with Trump's choice of Twitter(!) as his organ for important matters of state, anything's possible, I guess ...) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing in Lomn's link which indicates that Obama was spying on Trump. And it's moot anyway, as Nunes has now said he's not certain any of Trump's team were actually monitored. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: Removal on grounds of WP:BLP reverted; see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures. This is a well-documented allegation and the source is directly noted without sensationalistic adjustment. — Lomn 02:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Per request to alleviate BLP sourcing concerns, here are other recent takes on the matter: LA Times, "Inadvertent surveillance of Trump transition team raises far-reaching questions", CNBC, "House Intelligence Committee Chair Nunes says documents show no indication of wiretap of Trump Tower", US News & World Report, "Report: FBI Info Suggests Possible Russia-Trump Team Coordination", CNN, "House Intel chairman: Trump's personal communications may have been collected". This is admittedly a fast-moving story and much of the question here of "Did X do Y?", for many variations of "X" and "Y", hinges on how those terms are defined. If the question is "did Obama", does "some portion of the Obama administration" qualify? Does it have to be with Obama's knowledge? With his approval? If the question is "did wiretap", does it have to be a literal wiretap, or is does communication surveillance qualify? Questions like this -- which are not simple to answer, and which different high-level politicians disagree on, is why a simple "Yes" or "No" to the original question, however satisfying it may be to offer, is not particularly accurate or helpful. — Lomn 14:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A spike on the steering wheel

A commonly-heard philosophical remark is that people would drive more safely if they had a spike in their steering wheel (ie. guaranteeing their death in even the slightest collision) than with seatbelts, airbags and othe devices intended to make them safe. The article Tullock Spike attributes this idea to Gordon Tullock, albeit with two extremely wishy-washy references. Does anyone know whether it was actually Tullock who came up with the idea and if so where I can read more about it from the guy himself? (Or alternatively who did come up with the idea and where they wrote about it?) Thanks Amisom (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This source cites The New World of Economics (1981) by Gordon Tullock and Richard McKenzie for the idea of the Tullock spike, though originally it seems it was a dagger. Here's a snippet view of a 1994 edition of that work. Actually The New World of Economics was first published in 1975 but maybe the dagger idea was only introduced in the 3rd edition. --Antiquary (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Risk homeostasis is the general idea and Peltzmann effect (ibid) as it applies to road safety regulation Asmrulz (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
According to Professor Gordon Tullock: A Personal Remembrance by Richard B. McKenzie (Tullock's co-author cited above), it was originally a remark made during an informal discussion at the Public Choice Center at Virginia Tech:
'I remember, as a young graduate student in the early 1970s, listening to several faculty members in the foyer discussing the case for regulating the internal safety of automobiles, then an emerging hot political topic. They were refining standard arguments regarding mandates for the installation of seatbelts, collapsible steering columns, padded dashes, and airbags, all proposed to save lives. Gordon emerged from his office on hearing the discussion and insisted: "You have it wrong! Interior safety features in cars will reduce the costs of accidents for drivers and encourage them to drive more recklessly, causing more pedestrians deaths. To reduce deaths, the government should require the installation of a dagger at the center of the steering wheel with its tip one inch from the driver's chest. Who would take driving risks then?"'.
The article is viewable online but on a site blacklisted by Wikipedia (see the first result here). You may be able to get the block lifted for this specific article at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Alansplodge (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Satire, perhaps in the Jonathan Swift tradition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
That one isn't bad either. --Askedonty (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
As a kid back in the 50's & 60's, saw several very bad automobile accidents. Didn't really need a knife on the steering wheel, because steering columns where non-collapsible back then. The driver got impaled on the hub -driven into his chest on impact. Cars also had hood embellishments mounted on them which would cause serious injurious to a predestination even at low speeds, should the car hit them, (once ownd a 55 Chevy with a zamak casted airplane upon the hood. Because of being aware of its danger..though person observation... removed it). Will not elucidate on that further but you can image the effect it had on me as a child. Then Ralph Nader came out and published Unsafe at Any Speed which was a watershed. Nobody wants to be in and accident, and they happen when you lest expect them. Often when it is of no fault of your own but that of another driver. It takes me back to when the top-brass of Air Corps (for runner of the RAF) didn't consider parachutes were a good idea as it would encourage the air crew to abandon their aircraft. Oh. How times have change and enlightenment finally shone forth. You can be the safest driver in the world but what about the idiots on your same stretch of road?--Aspro (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Many traffic authorities have dispensed with kerbs, road markings and signs having discovered that when motorists and pedestrians have to watch out for each other the accident rate goes down. 2A02:C7F:BE18:CF00:50DC:4A16:B6BA:9408 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Name one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Drachten. Alansplodge (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
See also Shared space (WP:WHAAOE), which has numerous other examples, a few even in the USA. Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Do interest-only forever mortgages exist?

Or longer than 40 years? For people who will never have children. Probably still cheaper then renting? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

There are various schemes available. See, for example,
[1] and [2]. :2A02:C7F:BE18:CF00:50DC:4A16:B6BA:9408 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
These links go to interest-only mortgages that have a finite maturity date, not "forever mortgages", which I doubt exist anywhere. Loraof (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Perpetual bonds do. Why can't you give a fixed percent of the CPI-adjusted amount you borrowed each month, gain no equity and owe the bank the house when you and your spouse's death stops your ability to pay? Or for a bit more APR you only have to give back the CPI-adjusted principal (instead of the house) so if it appreciates you could still buy a smaller property free and clear with what's left over after selling it? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem with everlasting interest-only mortgages is that there is no incentive to maintain the value of the property so the lender runs an extra risk that the value of the property will reduce rather than increase. Who would be responsible for replacing the roof when necessary? This maintenance cost is the difference between a mortgage payment and a rental (give or take a few administrative charges and profits). To some extent, issuers of finite interest-only mortgages run the same risk. Dbfirs 20:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that's why. If it wasn't invented by 2008 then it must be really risky. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Electronic Frontier Alliance

Are there any sources on the Electronic Frontier Alliance? Benjamin (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The Electronic Frontier Alliance appears to just be a list of organizations considered allies of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. See [3]. It's not an organization unto itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Virtual filibuster

I'd like some information about virtual filibusters. The only thing that Filibuster in the United States Senate says is that their used to "remove the need to speak on the floor in order to filibuster". Can you tell me what the rule was before 1975 and how the new rule is applied now? How is it invoked? Beside cloture (and the nuclear option), is there anyway to stop a virtual filibuster? Is there some table (similar to the one in Filibuster in the United States Senate#21st century) that lists talking filibusters versus virtual filibusters? Prior to 1975, would the Senator who started the filibuster have to remain standing on the Senate floor? There was some talk in Talk:Filibuster in the United States Senate about a long speech isn't necessarily a filibuster. Does this rule about standing apply to virtual filibusters, which can last many weeks or months (I think)? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a slight misconception on your part -- this is not a rule or a special kind of filibuster, but an unintended effect of a rule change. In 1975, the threshold of cloture was lowered from two-thirds of all present to three-fifths of the entire body. Prior to 1975, in order to filibuster something there needed to be enough supporters on the floor to number one-third of those present, and there needed to be bona fide oratory as the rule was interpreted. This gave rise to the famous talking filibuster. Since the rule change, anyone not present is a vote against cloture. There is no need for the talking filibuster anymore -- it is only done to draw attention, such as by Sen. Paul a few years ago or a bunch of Democrats earlier this year. Now a senator may indicate that 41 senators oppose a bill and it is not brought to the floor in order to not waste time. This is the virtual filibuster. Because of the cloture rule change, the deciding factor is there either are 60 votes or there aren't, and there is nothing that can be done about it. There is no list because it has become routine that any proposals or nominations of significance are subject to filibuster just as a delaying tactic. Xenon54 (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

John D. Rockefeller's percentage ownership of Standard Oil

What's the approximate percentage of Standard Oil that was owned by John D. Rockefeller before the company was broken up? Even just a a rough estimate would be fine. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

At the beginning in 1870, Rockefeller owned 26.7% of Standard Oil of Ohio (with the rest of his family, it goes up to a cumulative 50%), according to A History of Corporate Governance around the World: Family Business Groups. The same book says it dropped to 25.7% in 1878. The History of the Standard Oil Company - Ida M. Tarbell's exposee (sic) of Standard Oil - extract says "probably nearly one-third [of the stock] was owned by Mr. Rockefeller himself" in 1899. Still digging for later percentages. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Some non-profit organization called the Constitutional Rights Foundation published an article that states Rockefeller owned 25% of the new companies arising from the breakup of Standard Oil, which sort of implies he owned the same percentage in the parent company, possibly, maybe. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much, you two! Excellent references. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
He was 41% trustworthy in the '80s. Unless Wikipedia made that number up, it should factor in somewhere. People who run trusts still get to have and use the trust's stuff, even if their persons don't technically own it. They approximately own it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, March 25, 2017 (UTC)


March 25

Tax breaks and the Equal Protection Clause?

Large corporations get tax breaks for locating their factories in a certain state, e.g. Tesla[4]. Why isn't this a violation of the Equal Protection Clause? Wouldn't the tax code be required to treat all corporate entities equally?

To clarify, I know that it isn't a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. I just don't know the specific legal argument behind it and want to learn more about it, i.e. the mechanism of how individual companies can have special exemptions in the tax code. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The workaround is that the law doesn't say JohnSmithCo. will get a tax break. It says that any company manufacturing X and employing Y number of people in an impoverished county shall receive a tax deferral of... It strangely happens that the only company that meets these criteria is JohnSmithCo Inc. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!
Doesn't that mean the exemption can be "double-dipped"? Company Z can read the news, learn about the new law, then go to the same county and employ Y number of people too. Has this kind of "double-dipping" ever happened? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Here's a reading on this general topic, which you may find interesting.[5]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
ECS LIVA Z, you asked about a basically corrupt process. Under such circumstances, the definitions and the economics will be such that no other company can compete. Lots of small-town politicking regards zoning, limited plots of land, and exclusive deals for people with the right contacts. I won't give the specifics, but a town in which my relatives live made a deal with a specific company exclusive rights allowing them to develop a plot of land below cost, and now there is a lawsuit because the town and the developer which is making further demands on the municipality. No other party can take advantage of this situation.
But in other cases, towns build industrial parks to lure in whomever can meet the requirements to get a lease. The state of NJ has identified certain towns or areas as impoverished Urban Enterprise Zone and allows them to charge a lower sales tax than the next town over. For a time, my choice of pharmacy depended on the fact that the town in which my doctor was located was "depressed", while my hometown, the next one over was not. So I waited for drugs to be filled (at the cost of over a thousand dollars a month) in the other town, 15 minutes away, rather than at the store just down the street. (Sales taxes on drugs have since been ended, but this was a while back.) μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Adversarial/collaborative sectors

Why are some sectors more adversarial/collaborative than others? What determines this? 82.132.235.134 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sectors? Bus stop (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
It is an easily observable fact that some Wikipedia topics (IBM System/360, The IT Crowd) attract a bunch of cooperative editors who get along fine, while other topics (Donald Trump, Age of the Earth) attract a bunch of people with pitchforks and torches ready to burn down each other's villages. Why the difference? And why, in general, are the ones that are battlegrounds more-visited? This Youtube video [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc ] presents one theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Guy Macon—the Wiki-centric focus in that response seems unjustified. The question does not imply a focus on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but the OP didn't give us any details whatsoever so we're left with asking for details and/or making guesses. My guess would have been business sectors, but as our article implies, that's just a term to refer to some portion of the economy or some group of companies. It may refer to industries, business types, ownership types, etc. Our article mentions the Three-sector theory, promptly redefines the term completely, notes the lack of citation, and then moves onto another topic. The term is meaningless without context. Matt Deres (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
It is known as Internet trolling. Bus stop (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

German vs English

Germans tend to combine words. For example "air force" (two words) becomes "luftwaffe" (1 word). Why? And does this mean that there are more words in German dictionary (in general). 92.19.181.95 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

That happens in English too. Are you aware that "baseball" was originally spelled "base ball"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
See Compound (linguistics), however the Germans are particularly fond of these: Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz means "law for the delegation of monitoring beef labelling".
'In theory, a German word can be infinitely long. Unlike in English, an extra concept can simply be added to the existing word indefinitely. Such extended words are sometimes known as Bandwurmwörter - "tapeworm words". In an essay on the Germany language, Mark Twain observed: "Some German words are so long that they have a perspective."' [6]
By the way, you might find some more competent answers over at the Wikipedia:Language reference desk. Alansplodge (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
So is a word that means "a 3 month old skinny puppy that scratches its left ear with its hind leg but then stops?" grammatically correct? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
See Synthetic language Wymspen (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
"Synthetic language" doesn't really fit this too well; that term is more commonly used with respect of the combination of grammatical morphemes in a single word with lexical morphemes. As far as compounds are concerned, it's important to keep in mind that German and English are not, in fact, fundamentally different in this respect: English is just as ready to form nominal compounds as German is, and they can grow just as complex (and I seriously doubt they are significantly less frequent) – they are just not regularly spelled without a space as they are in German. But that's a purely orthographical convention, not really a structural difference between the two languages. Fut.Perf. 18:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
The term wanted here is polysynthetic languages, in which the arguments (subject, object, etc.) of a verb and/or adverbial components are incorporated into it. μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
The Duden is the de facto official dictionary of the German language. The longest German word that has been published is Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft made of 79 characters. However compounds consisting of more than three or four nouns are usually found in humorous contexts. (English also has some long words.). Blooteuth (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
The longest I've seen in an everyday context is Fahrtreppenbenutzungshinweise (on a placard beside an escalator). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
A placard is a signature. Many users of the escalator after reading aloud would probably change the noun into a sentence, or even drop the word "Fahrtreppen". --Askedonty (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Dictionaries don't attempt to make entries for everything written without a space, but may include many things with a space. It generally depends how big the dictionary is and whether the authors view it as an established term which has a life of its own and may not be 100% understood by somebody who only knows the parts. For example, our sister project Wiktionary has an entry for wikt:boarding school. In Danish it is the unspaced "kostskole" and also in my Danish dictionary. But Danish can make lots of arbitrary compound words, for example combining animals and body parts to make unspaced words like Danish versions of dogtail or giraffeneck. Listing such combinations in dictionaries and say "A giraffeneck is a giraffe's neck" would be a ridicolous waste of space. I'm sure there are lots of both English and German dictionaries of varying sizes. It probable doesn't make much sense to ask which language "in general" has the largest dictionaries. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out an advantage of the compounds in German: They make it instantly clear that those words belong together. Especially in a language with little inflection, such as English, this can well lead to confusion. Take as an example the sentence:

Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.

All of the words in the sentence except "friction" and "to" are ambiguous and can belong to several word classes. I was very hard for me to understand the sentence. The subject seems to be friction. The friction locks something. What does it lock - a cause? The cause that a throttle, for some reason, levers anything to a stick, whatever this is supposed to mean? If the noun groups friction locks and throttle levers were identified in any way, reading the sentence would be much easier. --KnightMove (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

English permits the insertion of a hyphen to improve clarity: Friction-locks cause throttle-levers to stick., though the original would be clear to those familiar with the subject, or in an article about friction locks. Dbfirs 11:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm native to Dutch, and we see the same sort of compounding here. This way anyone can form new words while speaking or writing. Although correct, these are often one-time words. Other compounds, like verjaardagstaart ("birthday cake"), have made it into the dictionary.
We see this compounding in most germanic languages (German, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic and perhaps more), it looks to me like English is the exception.
In Dutch we see a tendency to avoid compounding (by splitting words up and/or rephrasing sentences). Not sure about other languages.
Note that the English language has a milder form of compounding too (we would translate the Dutch verjaardagstaart into "birthday cake" and not "birth day cake"). Other examples of compounding in English: football, workman, anyone, and website (not too sure about the last one). More on this in the wikipedia article English compound.
Also note that most German examples in this thread are extreme, unreadable and unusable. They can (and should) easily be avoided in writing. Jahoe (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
At first I parsed that as verjaardag-staart "year-day-queue". μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 :) I like that one. Here's the word split up into syllables: ver-jaar-dags-taart. Staart would more likely translate to "tail" than "queue". Jahoe (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
English is my native language, and I've studied German for 6 years. Occasionally I'll come acrost a Dutch text, and only realize it's not German when I get to a word I don't know, or see a pronoun. I do the same with Portuguese, being fluent in Spanish. Unfortunately the ability to read basic or familiar Dutch or Portuguese does not translate into being able to understand them as spoken. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
In my Collins German Dictionary, the German-English section is longer than the English-German section. But that's a page count, not a word count, so it doesn't answer your question about number of words. The writers of this page think that it's likely that English has the largest vocabulary of any language, though they admit it's hard to be certain. Herbivore (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Something similar happens in Latin with the naming of species. The names can be as long as you wish - for example in 1927 the Polish entomologist Benedykt Dybowski named a species of weevil Gammaracanthuskytodermogammarus loricatobaicolensis.81.151.128.189 (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Seriousness of undesired touching

Is touching someone on the buttocks too different from touching the shoulder? Anatomically, they seem pretty much as the same type of muscle.

If a feet fetishist touches someone's feet, is that sexual harassment?

How does the US law deal with such cases. Does the law explicitly defines how bad is putting a hand here or there? --Dikipewia (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It depends on the culture of the person being touched. Let go back to basics. This ref is a bit long winded but it should get the point across [7]. What it doesn't mention (because it is about chimpanzees) is that human females often make the first move to touching. But human males don't make a song and dance about it when they think they have been touched inappropriately. Even though they might experience it as an unwelcome contact. --Aspro (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a general article about Sexual harassment and specific articles about evolutions of sexual harassment laws in the US workplace and in US education. Unwanted touching is more inappropriate near an Erogenous zone of the body such as the Sacrum (bone behind the culturally sensitive buttock area) than on the Shoulder. Blooteuth (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
The question asks "is touching someone on the buttocks too different from "touching the shoulder" but of course it has not been established by any stretch of the imagination that "touching the shoulder" is acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Good point.--Aspro (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you prefer taking a pounding on the buttocks or a pounding on the shoulder? Llaanngg (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Here's a series of body maps that attempt to illustrate the norms regarding touching. Broadly speaking, males are slightly more easy-going when it comes to contact, but it is highly context dependent and variable. Football players slapping each other's bums after a touchdown get a very different reaction when they try it in the shower afterwards (YMMV, of course). Matt Deres (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Dikipewia -- every so often, there are stories in the news of men trying to do things to women's feet under tables in college libraries, and some of those individuals have definitely been arrested. On the other hand, in the late 19th century, some people considered it an extravagant gesture of gallantry for a man to drink champagne from a woman's shoe (few people did so, but those who did were very open about it at the time). AnonMoos (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

From a legal standpoint, Sexual harassment is essentially sexual behaviour which is unwelcome, where the perp knows (or ought to know) that the recipient is finding it unwelcome. It need not involve any touching. Sexual interest (e.g. love letters, or the like) can be enough to qualify. If the person on the receiving end genuinely doesn't mind it, or enjoys it, it's not harassment. But in practice, if you're the person doing the behaviour, I suggest being VERY mindful of how the recipient is likely to be feeling. Particularly if they are subordinate to you, and thus unlikely to voice their discontent.
"Indecent assault" law in my particular jurisdiction does not specify any body parts as such. It's defined as "Assault which includes an element of indecency", or words to that effect. A form of "aggravated assault", if you like. What is or isn't considered "indecent" would be subject to the Reasonable Person test, and, in a jury trial, would be a question for the jury. The jury would be told to attempt to apply "community standards" as they perceive them, not their own personal views. Other jurisdictions, I gather, take different approaches. Some do specify certain body parts, I believe. I wouldn't personally be familiar with them. Eliyohub (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Why do you need to touch another human being who is not related to you? Unless it is part of your job, doctor, fireman, surgeon, sportsman, soldier, policeman. There is no reason for you to (intentionally) touch another human being. If you do need to feel the touch of another human being and you have no one related to you to give you the human touch, then you should legally hire a professional to do so. 148.182.26.69 (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous thing to say - and completely unsupported by references. Humans require personal contact in order to develop and function normally. Haphephobia is the clinical name for the disorder used to describe people who share that point of view. Matt Deres (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Humans do need to interact - but touching requires permission. That's true whether it's a touch on the shoulder or anywhere else. Generally, unwanted touching is a violation of personal space, even when it doesn't necessarily have a sexual context. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily. If someone is stepping off the kerb into the path of an approaching car you might well grab their arm to restrain them. 86.169.56.176 (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
That might be termed extraordinary circumstances. Bus stop (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
That's why I said "generally". In a life-or-death situation, necessity can override ordinary cultural norms. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

1992–94 Crimean crisis

National Guard of Ukraine has a link to 1992–94 Crimean crisis, but that's just a redirect to the Crimea article. What's the 1992–94 Crimean crisis? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@ECS LIVA Z: The page history of the redirect shows a former article [8] but the discussion at Talk:1992–94 Crimean crisis had no support for the alleged crisis. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've gone and removed the link from the National Guard of Ukraine article. What about the redirect? I'm not sure what's the policy here. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:RFD is the way to go. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

News in the United States

Where do average Americans get their news? I was reading Media of the United States and it didn't quite answer my question. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's any such thing as an "average American" in this context. It varies greatly depending on age, demographics, level of education and so on. Here is an analysis from a respected research center. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
DuckDuckGo has search results for Where do average Americans get their news.
Wavelength (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict] I question the validity of the concept "average American" (or any other nationality) in this context. In political and other cultural milieux, people tend somewhat towards polarised positions on whatever axes are being considered (though a minority may adopt middling positions too). The average of an extreme conservative and an extreme liberal may be middle-of-the-road, but that doesn't mean that "on average" they read a m-o-t-r newspaper. Similar conceptual errors arise when considering questions such as the "average (mean/modal/median?) amount of tax people pay, which may not be an figure that many actual individuals actually pay.
My nitpicking aside :-), the quantified range of news sources employed is indeed an interesting question: to it I would add – where do non-Americans (like myself) get their news about America? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.80.28 (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
These polls ([9], [10]) from the Pew Research Center are enlightening. Increasingly, the answer is "Facebook". --47.138.161.183 (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Journalism.org is helpful. Duckduckgo is blocked in China. Okay, what I guess I am really after is: how many Americans get their news from big, corporate media compared to smaller, more independent sources, like say, DemocracyNow!. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are the first ten search results from my version of the DuckDuckGo search which I mentioned above.
  • Where Do We Get Our News? | News War | FRONTLINE | PBS
  • How Americans get their news - American Press Institute
  • TV Is Americans' Main Source of News | Gallup
  • The Personal News Cycle: How Americans choose to get news
  • How Americans Get TV News at Home | Pew Research Center
  • I. Where Americans Go for News | Pew Research Center
  • How social media is reshaping news | Pew Research Center
  • Americans Spending More Time Following the News | Pew Research Center
  • Survey: More Americans get news from Internet than newspapers or radio - CNN.com
  • How people get local news and information in different communities | Pew Research Center
Wavelength (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ooooh, http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/the-modern-news-consumer/ and http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/ look good. Thanks for those I'll give them a good read later on. Many thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • The first website I check upon waking is Drudge, which aggregates the sensational headlines with a quick turn-around and a simple format that loads quickly without a lot of clutter. I then check the aggregators RealClearScience and RealClearPolitics at lunch, and Accuweather at least once daily, or before I leave home or work if the weather is dubious.
I'll hear the news updates when driving, and sometimes listen to the traffic/weather/news-every-10-minutes station when driving if concerned about breaking news. I stopped buying the NYT in the 90's due to their biased agenda.
The straw that broke the camel's back was a human-interest story about how hard it was to be a lesbian scientist (who was either an ethnic minority or disabled, I forget which) as the lead story of the science section of the Tues. edition of the times. They had gone from objectivity to patronizing in one fell swoop.
I stopped buying any newspapers at all just after 9/11. I have had a longterm policy of avoiding the local TV news, since it is all about murders, fires and accidents. I stopped watching any TV news during the Iraq War, it was all opinion and speculation, no objective factual analysis or investigation.
Finally, I get some interesting news I might otherwise miss (often foreign or niche news) from ITN here at wikipedia. The bottom line is that in the 80's I got all my news from TV and the papers, and now I get none of it there, yet my elderly parents still get theirs from those sources and the radio. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

See Nightcrawler for a nifty and on-point analysis of the focus American news channels. Also, see Fox News which is where the President of the United States gets his information on foreign homeland security policies, e.g. Sweden. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Nightcrawler 's subject matter hardly a new topic; I find Paddy Chayefsky & Sydney Lumet's treatment of the American news media in Network to be timeless in this regard; it still hits nerves even 40 years on. There's also Buck Henry and Gus Van Sant's dark satire To Die For, which is actually based partly on a true story. --Jayron32 14:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you all! Very helpful indeed! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

March 26

Great Depression/World War II differences

what was the difference between the Great Depression and the Second World War? 86.157.244.193 (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

See Great Depression and World War II. MarnetteD|Talk 19:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Briefly: a depression is a period of economic trouble and poverty, a war is a period in which countries fight each other with armies and weapons. Yep, quite some difference. The great depression was a very severe depression, causing poverty in many parts of the world, lasting from 1929 to the beginning of the second world war, which was a very severe war, lasting from 1939 to 1945, because many countries took part, 60 to 100 million people were killed and large parts of the world were left in ruins. Your textbook has more. ;) Jahoe (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
One of the most interesting questions about this section is that although WWII technically began in 1939, for the purpose of eras of U.S. history WWII is considered to have begun in 1941. Any other era whose starting date depends on how it's looked at?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
China might see WWII starting in 1937 with the Second Sino-Japanese War (not an answer you your Q, but another date range of interest for WW2). --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
And the Chinese government has just this year declared that the "War of Resistance Against Japanese" is now 14 years instead of 8 years - presumably to help legitimise the Communist guerilla war against the government of the time. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Georgia guy, when I was at university, "medieval" history was designated as starting from the crowning of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor, unless looking at Britain, in which case start dates were really fuzzy and mostly a century or even two later, some even considering 1066 as the 'start'.
I also seem to recall that the end of medieval and start of early modern were cunningly designed so that both excluded the Wars of the Roses - deemed too complicated for undergraduates.
Presumably, historiography regards all of this as nonsense, but hey ho. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
When I was at school (in England, 1980/90s), we were taught that "medieval" ran from 1066 to the ascension of Henry VII, so it definitely included the Wars of the Roses. (This still seems to be a relatively common understanding, judging by general-level history programs, although I think the more academic notion that the early middle ages (post Roman until 1066) are medieval is becoming more popularly acknowledged). This definition I think does make sense in a British (or more accurately English) context, because both event marked major changes in the way society was ordered. But they are pretty irrelevant to the rest of Europe, and the concept of "medieval" itself isn't particularly meaningful outside of Europe, the former Roman Empire, and anywhere closely involves with those. Iapetus (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Also consider: eras such as the "stone age", "bronze age", "iron age", and prehistory generally are defined by the presence of certain technologies, and began or ended in at different times in different places depending on when that technology was adopted there. For example, the Iron Age began in Britain about 800BC, but Greece and the Middle East and India had been Iron Age since about 1200BC. Similarly, geological eras/periods/etc are defined by geological changes, which may occur earlier in some locations than others. Iapetus (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
In a depression people kill themselves. In a war they kill others. I think that is about the biggest difference. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The television family drama series The Waltons which focused on a Virginia mountain family in the 1930s-1940s, was set during the Great Depression and World War II. 31.49.30.19 (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Usage of exonym Indian for Oceanian

Are there any discussion in sources regarding James Cook's (and presumably other Europeans) use of the term Indian to refer to the indigenous people of Oceania and Australia? About how prevalent it was and how long it was used for.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Article is East Indies... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Nope.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes it is -- in the 18th century, there wasn't necessarily any clear or well-defined distinction between the "East Indies" and the "South Seas", and the habit of calling inhabitants of the East Indies as "Indians" was not yet deprecated... AnonMoos (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if it was, but the Wikipedia article you linked itself does not state that claim and does not include anything beyond Papua New Guinea . Maybe it should be added (if that is actually in the sources).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
All I can find is that our disambiguation page Indian says that "Indian" was used for Aboriginal Australians until the 19th century. Loraof (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionary shows the term used thus ("An indigenous inhabitant of Australia, New Zealand, or the Pacific Islands. Now hist. and rare.") from 1769 to 1872. That is, that is the range of dates of their collected examples. The first example is from Captain Cook's diary for Oct 9 1769; he uses "the Indians" to mean the Maori people. They also have Joseph Banks on the same voyage using it in 1770 for indigenous Australians. In 1790, William Bligh used the term in his account of the mutiny near Tahiti; and there is another Australian reference dated 1830. However note, that the last example, dated 1872, explicitly says the term was already deprecated by then: "The ‘aborigines’, as they are now styled... Captain Cook would in his older time have called ‘Indians’." 174.88.10.107 (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 September 29#Use of 'Indian' to refer not only to natives of the Americas, but other indigenes. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

March 27

U.S. Federal Law and State-level diplomatic immunity

In Medellín v. Texas the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is not "self-executing". Congress may have the power to pass laws implementing the obligations of the Convention. But the mere ratification of the Convention does not make it binding on the states. This would seem to throw doubt on the entire Vienna Convention in U.S. law, not just the particular clause in question in that case (consular notification when a foreign citizen is arrested).

My question, given this, is: Which Federal Statute, if any, obliges State (and county/city) level authorities to respect Diplomatic Immunity (a Vienna Convention requirement)? Or is there no such statute?

Second question: If such a Statute exists, under which of the enumerated powers of Congress was it passed? Presumably the Treaty Clause? Or a different power? I presume Congress has power over foreign affairs, but is that "treaty clause", or something else? Eliyohub (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have not read the entire 51 page document, but this may be a place for you to start your research. --Jayron32 00:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Eliyohub: There are multiple Vienna Conventions: the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (which provides for diplomatic immunity), and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties are among the more notable. While the consular one is not self-executing, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations one almost cetainly is.
The backdrop is the Supremacy Clause, which binds state courts to respect treaties made under the authority of the United States: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The U.S. Supreme Court has never directly addressed the issue you raised, but it did address a similar issue in Nielsen v. Johnson, 279 U.S. 47 (1929). That case dealt with the State of Iowa imposing an inheritance tax on a Danish citizen who died in Iowa, leaving his estate to a Danish citizen. An 1826 treaty between the United States and Denmark provided explicitly for tax immunity. The Supreme Court decided that Iowa could not impose the tax because it would violate the treaty: "And as the treaty-making power is independent of and superior to the legislative power of the states, the meaning of treaty provisions so construed is not restricted by any necessity of avoiding possible conflict with state legislation and when so ascertained must prevail over inconsistent state enactments."
The diplomatic immunity issue has been directly addressed by lower federal courts. In Brzak v. United Nations (2010), which was of course post-Medellín, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations was self-executing and applied in American courts without implementing legislation. The full text of that decision is here. Likewise, in United States v. Enger (1978), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations was self-executing. Judge Lacey wrote: "Its detailed provisions, and the absence of language requiring implementing legislation, lead me to hold that it is a self-executing treaty. ... Thus, upon entry into force, it at once became operative as domestic law of the United States." The full text of the decision is here. Neutralitytalk 03:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You

When people are referring to YOU, are they talking about your brain or your body? It seems that a person who has lost a part of himself by amputation or surgery is still regarded as a complete person. Maybe only the brain is important? Or maybe they are referring to your consciousness? But what about a person who has had a major brain injury, damages his prefrontal cortex, and completely changes his personality or has no recollections of the past? In this case, is this person the same person as before or a different person even though the body is the same? Or maybe the brain is behaving abnormally and "telling" the consciousness to commit suicide, but when the person holds his breath for a really long time, the brain forces the person to breathe. So, somehow, the brain is resistant to suicide, but "you" (whoever you are) want to commit suicide. Then, who are you if the brain or the organs that make up you are not you? Has anybody observed this before? Is there a word to describe this phenomenon? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Your question addresses two perspectives—that of the self and that of another person. As regards another person, I think another person is unlikely to pay sufficient attention to you to regard your separate components as distinct. But from the perspective of oneself, perception of multiple "persons" is a reasonable possibility. At one moment we may perceive ourselves as occupying a significant position at odds with a significant position occupied at a different time. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
50.4.236.254 -- You seem to be asking your question from a perspective of dualism which others may not share... AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
"You" is really nothing more than the grammatical pronoun to be used when speaking to another person about himself or herself. It makes no judgement about that othjer person, but simply identifies him or her as the one being addressed. Discussions about an individuals self-identity are really about the "me" - try Psychology of self as a starting point. Wymspen (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Sufferers from schizophrenia may have several personalities which are discrete. From the point of view of the persona they are assuming the others are "you". 86.169.56.176 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
That's Dissociative identity disorder you're talking about. Not the same condition as schizophrenia, although they're often confused in the public mind. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
We have an article self which will give you some leads on these questions, and a more detailed one on consciousness. I think these will help you know more about the questions you are interested in. Just on the "you", though. If I say "you" to a person who is in the room, I am saying it to someone who I know is capable of listening. They also have a body but I am addressing myself to the hearing and understanding part (although that is a dualist way of talking). I can also say "you" to someone on the telephone or the Internet, a newborn, a sleeping person, a cat, a car, or a computer. Some of these entities may communicate back. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Saint Peter & Co.

Hello, as explained on the talk page, I saw the need to make appropriate changes in the introductory section as to the anachronistic use of the title Pope. Consequently, I would like to ask for your advice for how to deal systematically with the respective articles about the successors in the office of Bishop of Rome, since these articles also use the title of Pope as if it were the most natural thing in the world... Hoping for your understanding--Hubon (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In another subject-matter area, what was known at the time as the "AFL-NFL World Championship Game" is now titled Super Bowl I... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
And the NFL itself was originally called the American Professional Football Association. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
???--Hubon (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hubon -- I don't see how Baseball Bugs' comment is too relevant, but mine is -- it's another act of "retroactive institutionalization". If Wikipedia refused to recognize the name "Super Bowl I" and insisted on calling it only the "AFL-NFL World Championship Game of 1967", then we'd be taking a position that today's NFL has no current connection with it or custody over that event to be able to retroactively rename it. Similarly, if we refused to call St. Peter a pope, then Wikipedia would be taking a strongly-expressed position that the Roman Catholic church has no meaningful connection or continuity with him -- which sounds like a very definite point of view to me... AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This is all also explained at the article Pope. Under Roman Catholic doctrine, the Pope is the temporal and spiritual head of the followers of Christ, which derives from St. Peter being tapped as Christ's chosen successor to lead his church after he was gone. Since a) Peter was, by tradition and scriptural interpretation Christ's successor as leader of Christ's followers and b) The Pope is the title given by the Roman Catholic Church to the leader of Christ's followers, it follows that Peter was the first Pope. It's a simple syllogism. Now, that doesn't mean that Peter called himself pope, or indeed anyone did, the formalization of the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Christian church took centuries to occur, and is not recognized by much of Christianity through the various schisms and protestant revolutions and the like. See History of the papacy, Primacy of Peter, Papal primacy for more background reading. --Jayron32 14:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: For reasons of transparency, I would kindly ask anyone willing to join in this discussion to do that on Talk:Saint Peter. Thank your for your cooperation.--Hubon (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hall Pass?

I have seen the film "Hall Pass", it is about a pair of marriages that come up with a strange deal: the wife gives the husband a "hall pass", a week where he is allowed to do whatever he wants, even have sex with other women, and it wouldn't count as cheating. Like some sort of vacation from the marriage.

Are there people in the real world doing this king of thing, or was it something completely made-up for the film? Cambalachero (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

See open marriage and polyamory. --Jayron32 16:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Large error in List of US Presidents page

I just looked something up on the List of Presidents of the United States by date and place of birth and the table is WAY out of order.

I'd fix it myself, but I'm at work on a deadline and may not remember to come back to it. I don't know if there's a provision to flag this sort of thing so someone else can fix it -- I get that y'all are volunteers -- but if so, can you let that someone know?

(If it's not clear, for example, Trump is not the 41st President. The order is totally out of whack.)

Thanks, -John — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreatyOak (talkcontribs) 18:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The ranking you are seeing is that of date of birth. So Trump was born before Clinton, GW Bush and Obama. The order is correct. And there are 44 people listed because of that guy who got elected twice. It's a strange way to list things, but that's Wikipedia for you. The normal list is at List of Presidents of the United States. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
As a side note, it isn't Wikipedia. The official convention for numbering Presidents was established LONG before Wikipedia ever existed. Wikipedia had nothing to do with it. See Here where it notes that the convention had existed at least as far back as Harry S Truman who complained about the convention, which only proves that the convention was well established as far back as 60 years before Wikipedia even existed. So no, Wikipedia has nothing to do with it; as you should be aware, Wikipedia does not create information, it reports it, and the information that Cleveland gets counted twice has existed for a LONG damn time, and is well established by reliable sources. Wikipedia sure as hell isn't going to change that. --Jayron32 19:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the subject on newspapers.com (a pay site), I randomly selected "30th president" to see what would come up, and the first item the search engine found was from March 1929, a debate over whether Hoover was the 30th or 31st. It seems that it was not standardized at that time, but it was certainly on the radar. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to ranking presidents by date of birth, which is a very Wikipedia thing, causing reactions such as this one. Are there any reliable sources which place Trump at number 41? They don't seem thick on the ground. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Column 1 clearly says "birth order", but it could be confusing. Maybe there should be a separate column that gives the "official" president chronological number. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The birthdate of every President is clearly cited to reliable sources. --Jayron32 19:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's in question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how a column clearly headed "Birth order", in a table that is headed List of Presidents of the United States by date and place of birth could be interpreted as anything but the order in which the presidents were born. Now, clearly, the OP has misinterpreted it; but one misinterpretation does not constitute a badly labelled table.
That said, I think the title of the article is misleading. The primary order is order of birth. All the other columns - including place of birth - are sortable; but the title says nothing about state of birth, president's name, or term of office in the title, yet they're all readily available too. I'm considering moving it to List of Presidents of the United States by date of birth-- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
That table is sortable in various ways, but its title indicates that it's correct. If you want just a straight list of our 45 presidents, see List of Presidents of the United States. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Angata

When did Angata die? Additional sources needed to pinpoint for precise death date. This states: "The only two occasions on which Katherine was part of a large social gathering were funerals: one for a friend's child and, on January 29, 1915, the other for Angata. Angata's funeral service took place in the village church."[11] while Katherine Routledge claims she died six months after their meeting something (not specifically dated either) in 1914. Now I just need some help to know if the death occurred in December or January? I mean I can guess but I need help finding a exact source with a date or a month. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

March 28

Mana Expedition to Easter Island

Resolved

Where are the original photographs of the Mana Expedition to Easter Island held at the present? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

According to the Katherine Routledge and William Scoresby Routledge articles, William (having survived Katherine) deposited most of the "artifacts" from this and other expeditions in the Pitt Rivers and the British Museum, and her papers to the Royal Geographical Society, which in due course acquired his as well. I'm sure contacting those three institutions directly would yield an answer. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.83.127 (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I find the answers by IP users most helpful even though other vandal IPs may be a nuisance for the admins here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Majority of professors being conservative

Was there ever a time when the majority of professors in United States were conservative? -- 07:50, 28 March 2017 Uncle dan is home

See the article Liberal bias in academia. It also really depends on what you mean by conservative. Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
One of my history professors quipped that when he started teaching (in the 50s) he was considered a liberal... by the 60s he was derided as being a conservative... and by the 80s he was back to being seen as liberal again. He said his views never changed... what changed were the political views of his students, and how his students reacted to his views. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
LOL! Yes I can see that happening quite easily :) Dmcq (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Uncle_dan_is_home -- I strongly doubt whether there is much useful statistical information more than a few decades old, but in the late 19th century, it seems like a lot of academics were influenced by Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner, and so would have been opposed to just about all attempts of government to affect the economic system. According to Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought: "In the three decades after the Civil War, it was impossible to be active in any field of intellectual work without mastering Spencer. Almost every American philosophical thinker of first or second rank... had to reckon with Spencer at some time. He had a vital influence on most of the founders of American sociology..." -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I really don't know why "Social Darwinism in American Thought" is a redlink, since it's been a reasonably influential book for 70 years... AnonMoos (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I can tell you exactly why. It may well be on various people's lists of articles to write, but nobody has yet got around to writing it. Or maybe nobody has ever planned to write it because they all assume, like you, that someone else would be doing it. In the end, it comes down to YOU. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Why Lee Harvey Oswald's tax records are classified?

Resolved

If the Warren Commission, and HSCA believed he was acting alone, then under what reasoning his tax records were classified? I am trying to ask here is, what explanation did these committees provide to make these records classified? —usernamekiran (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

According to Tax return (United States), that information is confidential. More specifically, were they discussed anywhere in the Warren Report or House Select Committee report? And besides that, how do you know there were any? He only got back in 1962. Did he file one for 1962? He wouldn't have filed for 1963, being dead. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Where does the OP get his/her information that his tax records are classified? --Jayron32 15:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Usernamekiran -- there's a difference between being "classified" in the sense of a national security secrecy classification, and merely being personal and confidential information (like all unreleased income tax returns, or census forms less than 72 years old). Is there any indication that his tax returns are "classified" in the strict meaning of this word? AnonMoos (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Good point. The OP is assuming facts not in evidence. The OP also appears to be a conspiracy theorist, so that may be why he's asking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Some of this information has been released: [12]. As to the rest, the OP may have been influenced by this: [13] 81.151.128.189 (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
erm, he did file tax assessment in 1962. But these tax records have been withheld.
@Baseball Bugs: I've studied JFK assassination extensively, and I still do. But I'm not a conspiracy theorist. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean by "tax assessment"? That sounds like property tax. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
What others seem to be saying is that it isn't a case of the US government making a special effort to "withhold" Oswald's returns.... everyone's tax returns are considered confidential for a certain amount of time, and are thus unavailable for research. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Can I ask, as a practical matter, who would have the power to obtain or authorise the release of a dead person's confidential records? The Next of kin? The executor of the estate? Regardless of the chances of them saying "yes", if the OP wanted to ask, whom would Oswald's records belong to, such that s/he could request them from the IRS and give a copy to the OP, if they were so minded? Eliyohub (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 26 U.S. Code § 6103: is relevant here. Quoting relevant passages:
    (a) [no one] shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee or otherwise or under the provisions of this section (does not include exceptions for people releasing information to placate conspiracy theories)
    (c) The Secretary may...disclose the return of any taxpayer...to such person or persons as the taxpayer may designate in a request for or consent to such disclosure.
    (e)(1) The return of a person shall, upon written request, be open to inspection by or disclosure to: that individual, the spouse of that individual [under certain conditions] and the child of that individual (or such child’s legal representative) [under certain conditions]
  • The rest of the document consists of specific procedures for disclosing the information to various agencies for specific purposes. It does not appear to have any expiration for general confidentiality; that is unlike census records, which become publicly available after 72 years, tax records never become public. This is standard procedure, and is not being done specifically for Oswald. The only people who may release the information are the President themselves, and under specified circumstances "the Secretary" (which is vague in this section, but I presume is the United States Secretary of the Treasury) may release the information to the filers designee (presumably through power of attorney), a spouse, or a child. There is no provision under, say, the Freedom of Information Act (United States) for someone not so related to the filer to request and expect a tax return. --Jayron32 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There is some provision for bypassing the confidentiality. There are a few tax records included in the Warren Commission. There are other instances where someone's tax records were disclosed (even though not to "public") to investigating angencirs, and in some instances the tax records were made public. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Well yes, but I noted exactly that. There's a LONG list of disclosure procedures to various agencies and for various reasons; but there are no provisions for disclosure to the public as a matter of course. --Jayron32 18:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Laws for police powers in the US

Afternoon (for me anyway!),

In the UK, a large proportion of police powers stem from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (as well as some subsequent legislation like the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, and a few others including an upcoming Policing and Crime Act 2017.

Is there an equivalent of PACE for law enforcement in the United States? A body of legislation which contains the majority of police powers in one act/bill/whatever you call it there? If so, if there a copy of it online, if there is an American version of legislation.gov.uk.

Regards,

2A02:C7D:7B04:BE00:958D:5473:D2E5:F255 (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In the US, there are 50 states, each with their own police forces which are locally regulated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
that must cause issues, you would imagine. Is there any notable example of one comprehensive piece of legislation for a particular force, that from which - say - the NYPD derives its powers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:7B04:BE00:958D:5473:D2E5:F255 (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You could read Law enforcement in the United States. The NYPD is locally controlled. The Fed may make their services available to local police forces to aid investigations, and also to hear civil rights complaints and the like, which are matters of federal law. But otherwise, each state and city will have its own laws about how the police departments operate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
A quick survey of the articles on the NYPD, the Chicago PD, the LAPD and the FBI leads me to the conclusion that they were mostly created by executive action, rather than by an Act of the relevant legislature. For example, the FBI was created by the Attorney General while Congress was in recess.. However, the NYPD was created by the Municipal Police Act in 1845. Rojomoke (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Here's a DOJ article that describes more fully what federal restrictions exist on local police departments.[14]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there a body that would codify good practice? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Best practices are generally codified by accreditation agencies, such as Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies or lobbying groups such as the National Criminal Justice Association. --Jayron32 15:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

What is this place

It is in relation to a reference in Werner Weber who worked here in 1951. Cant find it. It is some kind of German advanced school. Cant find the Dr Brechtefeld anywhere. I've looked all over the shop. Weber was a heavy duty mathematician and cryptographer. End of his carer I guess, but can't locate it.

Institut Dr. Brechtefeld" in Hamburg scope_creep (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The address for that school is given as Holzdamm 36, Hamburg. That later appears as the address of a different school, which now appears to have moved round the corner. The building now appears to be either offices or residential. By the way, the link should be Werner Weber (mathematician) - the one you picked is a Swiss canoeist. Wymspen (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Assessing damages in defamation case - pre-lawsuit situation? Or post-lawsuit?

(Obligatory "not legal advice" notice: I do not consider this a "legal advice" question, as it does not relate to what is or isn't legal, in either a criminal or civil sense - merely how damages are calculated. Nor can I see it influencing any reader's actions, either in or out of a courtroom).

My question relates mostly to jurisdictions outside the United States, as the requirement to prove Actual Malice is a massive obstacle to defamation lawsuits in the U.S., which does not exist anywhere else in the world, to my limited knowledge. However, U.S. precedent or case law on this question would be of interest to me too.

It has often been pointed out that when someone sues for defamation, they often attract significant attention to the very material they are suing over. The so-called Streisand effect is a specific example, but the issue is broader. Take this common situation:

A relatively anonymous individual sets up a relatively obscure blog or facebook page. The page attacks a prominent individual with defamatory material. The page attracts few readers, and thus, limited damage is done to the victim's reputation.

The prominent victim then sends the blogger a Cease and desist letter, which the blogger refuses to comply with.

The victim then sues. Given the victim is high-profile, the lawsuit gets significant attention in the mainstream media and elsewhere. Readers curious to "see for themselves" what the fuss is about, now flock to this previously obscure blog / facebook page. The blog's readership swells massively - often by an order of magnitude. The page or blog can now easily have fifty times as many readers as it did previously. Readers which it almost certainly would never have attracted, had the victim not sued.

If a Judge finds that the material is indeed defamatory, on which basis would they go about calculating damages:

On the pre-lawsuit situation, where the defamatory material had a limited audience, and thus inflicted limited damage on the person's reputation?

Or on the post-lawsuit situation, where, as a result of the lawsuit itself, and the associated publicity, the defamatory material has now been seen by a massively larger audience, and thus the damage to the victim's reputation is far greater?

@John M Baker: and @Newyorkbrad:, as our resident lawyers, do you have any thoughts on this? Anyone else have any legislation, case law, or precedent to quote on this question? Eliyohub (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This isn't my area, but I don't really see an argument for excluding post-filing damages. Defamation law is included to cover even future damages, if non-speculative. In your example, the blogger was on notice of the defamatory nature of the material, but continued to disseminate it to a wide audience. The defendant cannot now be heard to complain that a smaller audience was intended. In addition, the defamation lawsuit, if successful, will in theory give the plaintiff a complete remedy (assuming the defendant is not judgment-proof), in the form of corrective information and damages. This is really different from the Streisand effect, where the plaintiff does not want any disclosure at all and the plaintiff's efforts to seek a remedy are self-negating. John M Baker (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

French presidential election 2017 quebec and francafrique

What are the policies of each candidates on the Quebec sovereignty issues and Francafrique issues? Donmust90 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, suggest you read the French wikipedia article. Beneath each campaign logo is a small text link "Positions" which will take you to summaries of what is known of the published positions of each candidate. At least Cheminade, Dupont-Aignan, Fillon and Le Pen have mentioned Africa. Le Pen's article has a reference to the lukewarm reception she received in Quebec. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Effectiveness of suicide prevention hotlines

I know suicide prevention hotlines are over the place, but a long time ago, one of my instructors said that suicides are actually very rare. If suicides are rare among the total population, then how can one estimate the effectiveness of suicide prevention strategies, let alone the effectiveness of specific hotlines? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=772692269"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA