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

November 10

Which king?

I'm not entirely sure which king is referred to here, in: "At last that child, which was yet in the Queen's Womb was elected for King, and being yet unborn was prefer'd in that Assembly before his elder Brothers". Is it Edward the Confessor and is that statement factually accurate? Thanks. Brandmeister^talk 10:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be talking about Edmund Ironside, who was also king before his older brothers, and a son of Ethelred the Unready. Later on in the next paragraph mentions the death of Ethelred and succession of Edmund. Wikipedia's article cites the very same passage you cite for the statement "The Life of Edward the Confessor, written fifty years later, claimed that when Emma was pregnant with him, all Englishmen promised that if the child was a boy they would accept him as king." Him being Edmund Ironsides. --Jayron32 11:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The text says it is Edward the Confessor: "sc" means scilicet 'that is to say'. It clearly does not mean Edmund, since it refers to him as having invincible strength of body, while the boy named is the one in his mother's womb. I don't know about the event described: Edmund Ironside in fact succeeded Aethelred, but that doesn't of itself disprove the account in the text. --ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you may be correct. Looking later on in the same text, it says that "Ethelred, died at London, leaving his son Edmund heir...that Edmund Ironside was chosen king after his Father's death". It seems that there are two events here 1) The first election of the unborn Edward the Confessor as King to succeed Ethelred (perhaps as a Junior king, c.f. Henry the Young King for a similar situation) and 2) The naming of Edmund, by Ethelred later on as his heir, and a second election confirming same, upon Ethelred's death. If so, then the statement in the article Edmund Ironside needs to be amended. --Jayron32 13:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

One thing that needs to be noted here, is that many of these statements of "elections" and "inheritances" were made as part of the political maneuvering which occurred during the complex political landscape that was 11th century England. During the 11th century, there were often many claimants to the English throne, based on various conflicting principles of inheritance and what passed for constitutional law of the time. The House of Wessex (various branches thereof) and the House of Godwin were each native English dynasties which laid claim to the throne, as well as the House of Knýtlinga (Sweyn, Cnut, Harthacnut) which had claim by right of conquest and subsequent inheritance, as well as the upstart House of Normandy. During this time of transition, it wasn't always clear WHO got to decide who the next King of England would be, whether the king was a purely elective position selected by the Witenagemot; whether the primogeniture ruled, or how the Will of the sitting king in selecting a successor among his sons, or even others more distantly related to him, would factor into the succession. When a claimant came forth, they often had only their own word that they had been "named" the next king by any one of those principles (election, primogeniture, Will of the last king, Conquest). Ultimately, the ability to take and hold the throne was all it took, "justifications" for the "right" to do so often invented for the purpose of doing so. The succession of kings upon the death of Æthelred the Unready until the Norman Conquest demonstrates how messy it was for over 50 years. --Jayron32 13:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Witchking? The Witchking of Angmar. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Identifcation query on File:Marshall Kiev 2014.JPG

I can identify a British Foreign Secretary, but are there any other notable officials in this image? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sovereign nations whose subnational units have their own constitutions

Each state in the United States, as well as its territories (such as Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas Islands), has its own constitution. Is such a practice unique to them, or are there other federations and unitary states with similar arrangements among their constituent sub-national divisions when it comes to constitutions or equivalents thereof (such as basic laws)? The most similar case I can think of is the Bangsamoro Basic Law of the proposed Bangsamoro autonomous region in the Philippines; however, the law (which is actually, as far as I know, just a bill/law rather than an actual constitution) has yet to be passed (and depending on the political situation the country, might not be passed at all), and should it be passed the law would be unique to it as none of the other provinces or regions of the Philippines have a constitution-like charter (cities have charters but they are laws rather than constitutions or basic laws). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe each of the constituent republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had its own constitution. The Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR is mentioned in some places at Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic mentions a "Constitution of Soviet Georgia", though we don't have any Wikipedia articles on them, they all existed as far as I can tell. The Autonomous communities of Spain each have their own Constitutions, called the Statutes of Autonomy. Those are just some examples I can think of. --Jayron32 13:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The SSR constitutions were mandated by the Stalin Constitution; I'm not familiar with other union constitutions, so I don't know about SSR constitutions before the 1930s, although I'd guess that they all had constitutions after the 1970s union constitution. State constitution (Australia) is relevant. A quick scan of Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Politics of Saarland, and Politics of Baden-Württemberg doesn't mention anything (as far as I saw) about constitutions or Basic Laws for the German Länder. Administrative divisions of Mexico says that all 32 states have their own constitutions. States of Brazil only mentions the federal constitution. Federal subjects of Russia says that all the federal subjects (oblasts, okrugs, krais, etc.) have their own constitutions. Nyttend (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

And of course there is Hong Kong Basic Law and Macau Basic Law --Lgriot (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The German Länder have their own Landesverfassungen. Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 20:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There is the Constitution of Quebec, which is an uncodified quasi-constitution containing things such as the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Neutrality^talk 00:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK all of the Malaysian states have their own constitutions. See e.g. Selangor#Constitution, Kedah#Governance, Negeri Sembilan#Constitution, 1966 Sarawak constitutional crisis, Kelantan#State Executive Council, Terengganu#The State Executive Council, Penang#Legislature, Pahang#Politics and Government, 2009 Perak constitutional crisis, [1], [2], [3], and either Johor#Monarchy or State governments in Malaysia#Heads of state (which actually applies to all). Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Does Category:Constitutions of country subdivisions help? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Both the White Russian and Ukrainian S S R's had seats at the United Nations. 80.44.165.173 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Who is the signature "A.C.J." in the Jewish Quarterly

Hi. I wonder if anyone knows who the signature "A.C.J." in this short article in the Jewish Quarterly, Volume 15, Issue 1-2, 1967 is? Thanks – P. S. Burton (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly A. C. Jacobs (Arthur Chaim Jacobs, 1937 - 1994), himself a poet, who wrote reviews for the JQ in the 1960s and 70s (and later). There is some more information about him in a review of one of his poetry collections by Charles Hobday or in this obituary by Anthony Rudolf ---Sluzzelin talk 17:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

November 11

the superstitions/beliefs of people who used bamboo as a construction material

Hi - years ago I read an excerpt of an account by a Westerner working with Asian construction workers in the early 20th Century. Their primary material was bamboo, about which they had some interesting ideas - I can remember only one of them, though, and that only vaguely: that the stems were to be laid in a certain way when stored, lest the spirit run out of them.

Can someone point me to this record, or something like it?

Thank you

Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like Feng shui, as applied to bamboo. StuRat (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Stu. I found this today - haven't read it in detail yet, but it looks like just the thing. Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Strange that they use "bamboos" as the plural, I always use "bamboo" as it's own plural. Reminds me of a spoken joke: "Be careful to avoid bamboo slivers". "What's a bamboose, and why do I need to avoid it's liver ?" StuRat (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

When was the District of Columbia named?

The District of Columbia was originally created as simply a 'federal district' in March 1791. In September 1791, the commissioners supervising the planning of it termed it the "Territory of Columbia". The 1801 organic act specifies "District of Columbia". However, it seems to indicate in the text of the act that the term "District of Columbia" may have already been in use (for example, "in that part of the District of Columbia" in the first section of the act); was it? Basically, for Territorial evolution of the United States, should I say "created March 1791, named Territory of Columbia September 1791, organized District of Columbia 1801"? --Golbez (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A surprisingly complex answer to a seemingly straightforward question. See William Tindall, "Naming the Seat of Government of the United States: A Legislative Paradox," Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, D.C. Vol. 23 (1920), pp. 10-25 (available on JSTOR and Google Books):

The first statutory mention of the name "District of Columbia" in an act of Congress, is in the title, but not in the body, of "An act authorizing a loan for the use of the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes therein mentioned," approved May 6, 1796; but a previous statutory use of the name appears in the fourth section of the act of the Maryland legislature, approved December 28, 1793, entitled "A further supplement to the act concerning the Territory of Columbia and the city of Washington." The seat of government is mentioned in at least one act of Congress as the Territory of Columbia and the District of Columbia indiscriminately. (2 Stats., 193 and 194.)

The territory at the seat of government is referred to in a number of subsequent statutes as "the District of Columbia," but it was not until February 21, 1871, that Congress directly legislated on the subject of naming it, which it did in the act of that date, entitled "An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia," as follows:

"That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes." (16 Stats. 419.)

It will be noted that this statute does not name it "The District of Columbia" as the designation of the seat of government; but only created it into a local government for municipal purposes, by that name. ...

Congress again legislated on the subject, in the act entitled "An act providing a permanent form of government for the District of Columbia," approved June 11, 1878, as follows:

"That all the territory which was ceded by the State of Maryland to the Congress of the United States, for the permanent seat of government of the United States, shall continue to be designated as the District of Columbia." (20 Stats. 102). ...

...In brief it appears that Congress sought by the acts of February 21, 1871, and June 11, 1878, to name the territory at the seat of government of the United States, "The District of Columbia," ...

Tindall goes into great additional detail about the complexities of this, including Congress's confusing 18th and 19th century references to the "Federal Capital," "the City of Washington," "the Territory of Columbia," and "the District of Columbia." Neutrality^talk 05:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you! --Golbez (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A number of things in American culture have acquired their names via popular usage before they became "legal". In 1878, I expect everyone would have said "The Star-Spangled Banner" is the national anthem. But it wasn't "legally" so until the 1930s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the capital of the United States is popularly thought to be named "Washington" or "Washington, D.C.", but it's (apparently) never been so styled; the City of Washington embraced only part of the District at one time (most of the rest was part of Washington County), and none of the District has officially been named "Washington" since the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. Nyttend (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't "Washington, D.C." an accurate reference to the City of Washington, in the District of Columbia? It's not implying that the entire District is called Washington, just like "Los Angeles, CA" means the city of Los Angeles, in the state of California. According to the article on the Organic Act, the City of Washington appears to legally still exist in its original boundaries, although it has no government separate from that of the District as a whole. These are the kinds of technicalities a lawyer would love. And it's true that "Washington, D.C." is commonly used today to refer to the whole District, but that's just an example of how common usage of names often differs from official naming. In a somewhat similar vein, Tokyo today is legally a prefecture containing dozens of individual entities, each with its own government, but in non-legal contexts, "Tokyo" is generally considered a single city. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A song is a bit different from a territory or a state, though. --Golbez (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Paul Grignon: English and French language versions of his DVD "Money as debt"

You may be familiar with Canadian Paul Grignon's theories, but his theories is not what my question is about.

Watching the French and English language versions of his 2006 DVD "Money as Debt" (in French: "L'Argent dette") I was startled by the following:

Towards the end of the DVD the English sentence:

"Few people are aware today that the history of the United States since the Revolution in 1776 has been in large part the story of an epic struggle to get free and stay free of control by the European international banks. This struggle was finally lost in 1913 [etc.]"

is translated into French (or vice versa) as follows:

"Peu de gens savent aujourd'hui que l'histoire des États-Unis depuis la révolution de 1776 a été en grande partie une lutte épique pour se libérer du contrôle des banques mondiales dominées par les Rothschild. Cette lutte a finalement été perdue en 1913 [etc.]"

The animation in both DVDs is identical, showing at that point a "financial octopus" living inside a "Central-Bank-somewhere-in-Europe" and busy (presumably) siphoning resources from the whole planet into that "Central Bank" building.

Now my questions: Any narrow explanation for this discrepancy in this particular case, e.g. an original contribution from the French translator (if the English version is the original one, which I don't know)? Can a larger conclusion be drawn regarding the cultures of the French vs the English speaking world (admittedly this is a very small sample, but this is why I am asking the question), e.g. that there is more tolerance for antisemitic tropes in the French-speaking world than in the English speaking world? Have you come across this sort of discrepancy in other French language version vs English language version of some material?

Thanks.

Contact Basemetal here 10:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

For a larger conclusion about tolerance for antisemitic tropes, I think we would first need something more convincing than just comparing "banques mondiales dominées par les Rothschild" with "European international banks". As it is in this translation example, one could equally not convincingly enough, draw a larger conclusion about censoring in the English version, certain names that could help a better understanding of the world banking system of the past century? Akseli9 (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. To prove something about antisemitism, it would have to say "banques mondiales dominées par la famille juive les Rothschilds" or something like that. Theoretically, it could be a covert attempt at encouraging anti-semitism but it's hard to prove without something explicit. Munci (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The use of an octopus based in central Europe in the accompanying image is telling, although it's not as obvious a smoking gun as your hypothetical text would be. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that including the Rothchilds makes this an antisemitic trope, whether the "juive" is explicit or tacit. You'd have to use the release dates to determine if it was added for consumption by the French, or removed to make the stance more palatable for the English speaking. - Nunh-huh 23:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought the silliness of the contention that you'd need to specify that it was about the Jewish Rothschilds (I mean, not the Episcopalian ones) was so obvious to everyone that no response was necessary, but thanks for reacting. For anyone entertaining any doubts check out article Rothschild family and especially the paragraph Conspiracy theories and the references provided there, or more simply go to YouTube, type "Rothschild" and see what comes up. Incidentally, here is one Frenchman who seems to think like you and me. He even quotes the sentence I referred to above but does not seem to be aware it is specific to the French version.

As to the question whether it is an addition to the French version or if it is the English version that was "censored" I took a look again at the two videos and noted that the credits of the English version do not make any mention of a translator whereas the French version credits two translators, one Marc Simon who contributed a "première traduction", that would, I would guess, have been a straight translation of the English text, and one Sophie Arthaud, who contributed the "traduction finale", which might have included any tweaking and departure from the English text. The same Sophie Arthaud also contributed the voiceover of the French version. Judging by her accent she is a Frenchwoman (I mean, not French Canadian). Does anyone have any idea who that Sophie Arthaud might be?

Contact Basemetal here 11:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's possible that "Rothschild" was present in the English-language source text supposedly final draft from which the French was translated, then the name was omitted from the English production version due to an editor's afterthought regarding PC or similar considerations. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), 3rd President of the United States. Akseli9 (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey look, it's one of everyone's favorite fake Jefferson quotes. The first sentence is a fragment of a sentence he wrote, but the rest is just made up. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this useful link. The original phrases by Thomas Jefferson are actually more efficient and powerful than the misquote. Here they are:

• I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.

• The earliest known appearance of this quote is from 1895 (Joshua Douglass, "Bimetallism and Currency", American Magazine of Civics, 7:256). It is apparently a combination of paraphrases or approximate quotations from three separate letters of Jefferson (longer excerpts in sourced section):
• I sincerely believe, with you, that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies... (Letter to John Taylor, 1816)
• The bank mania...is raising up a moneyed aristocracy in our country which has already set the government at defiance... (Letter to Josephus B. Stuart, 1817)
• Bank paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs. (Letter to John W. Eppes, 1813)
  

Akseli9 (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Foreign historians of the Western world

I've mostly never heard about this, and I am relatively well versed in the humanities.

There are many historians (in the West) interested in topics like Chinese, Japanese, Islamic, etc., history. However, the reverse seems rather rare. Notably if you exclude colonialism or race as a main or corollary subject matter. For example, a Senegalese scholar of the European Middle Ages, a Chinese one of the U.S. Civil War. Is it because of the language barrier, or it's a cultural thing? Matt714 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well it will be very hard to find a WP:RS that has nicely compiled data on this. But just to offer a bit of a counterexample, note that Fudan University has a center for American Studies, established over 30 years ago. See their page here [4], it's far from my field, but it seems to me that many of the faculty are well-regarded historians of the Western world. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I offer a third hypothesis: they are just not well-known, and perhaps did not even get far in their field. Munci (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps they are well enough known in their own fields, but not popular figures. Some of the following faculty have many fine accomplishments, and are probably known to many other specialists around the world. Bilkent University has two faculty members focused on history of the USA - [5]. Tokyo Metropolitan University has a few western history specialists, one even in Ancient Greek [6]. Mind you I'm just picking non-western country names at random and searching for things like /[country adjective] university American (studies/history) department/. I think many many more examples can be found with more similar searching. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is an overview written in 1988 by Takeshi Kido, Professor of European History at the University of Tokyo: "The Study of Medieval History of Europe in Japan" ---Sluzzelin talk 20:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This is often considered one of the issues of Orientalism. A British scholar can freely present themselves as an expert on the Ottoman Empire, but a Turkey based writer will never be considered a serious scholar of the American Revolution. - SimonP (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

O really? --Jayron32 15:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I guess Simon didn't follow my link above before he came up with his example :) Anyway, while we can come up with many examples of non-westerners studying western history, that doesn't mean the OP's claim is totally untrue either, at least as a tendency, if not a rule. I don't think it's unreasonable to think there are more academic historians of Egypt living in Britain than vice versa, and the history of the past century or so probably has something to do with that. I think the idea of Orientalism is very pertinent here, but this is now far enough from my field that I can't search well for good refs that might further support Simon's claims. I think language barrier is not an issue for modern academics, no matter their ethnicity. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think the language barrier is a big issue for modern academics. If an American scholar publishes research on Japanese history in English, Japanese academics who speak English, which is many of them, will still be able to read it. However, if a Japanese scholar publishes research on American history in Japanese, relatively few American academics will be able to read it, so the research, which might be just as good as what an American would do, will not come to the attention of the American academy. Perhaps more to the point for present purposes, it certainly will not come to the attention of general readers in the United States. And the disparity is more pronounced for Turkish or Senegalese. John M Baker (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Although unrelated to national background and not related to academic acceptance and from source who's biases are well known, there is that rather infamous exchange between scholar Reza Aslan#Fox News interview controversy who is an Iranian-American Muslim and the host of Fox News after he wrote a book on Jesus [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Ignoring the fact Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam, which IIRC wasn't mentioned in the exchange (or at least was ignored by the host), it's hard to imagine a similar exchange by a host in anything akin to mainstream media in the West if a white Christian had just written a book about Muhammad. If the question of why did you as a Christian write a book on Muhammad did come up (particularly from Fox News), the context of the question would likely be fairly different. (Although to be fair, I think such a person may find related objections from a big chunk of the Muslim world if the book said anything they didn't like.) At least this opinion piece published by the same source makes more substanial criticism [14]. If you bring national origin in to it, I can't help thinking if the exact same book had been written by someone who was an Iranian Muslim, no one would have heard of it in the US, if the author even found a publisher. Nil Einne (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

November 12

The snowman, the myth, the legend

According to the intro to Yeti, the scientific community generally regards the abominal snowman (and presumably his gutsy cousin, the abdominal snowman, as well) as a legend. The intro to legend says A legend...is a narrative of human actions that are perceived both by teller and listeners to take place within human history and to possess certain qualities that give the tale verisimilitude. Not being a human, how is the abominable snowman a legend? I understand that he's not a myth, because mythology explains origins and backstories, and abominable snowmen don't appear to be part of those. But how is he a legend, rather than being a non-legendary character in the folklore of the region? I just don't understand the terminology (and the divisions between the classifications) well enough to understand why he's a legend, rather than being something else. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the word origin[15] which requires it to be about humans. A legend is a story about most anything that allegedly happened but cannot be proven. And note the various terms in the Yeti article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood, but the text I referenced is quite clear, and it comes from one of the most prestigious folkloristics programs in the USA; I don't see how it could be inaccurate, unless there's a scholarly dispute over the meaning. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The text you quoted seems to be an unsourced sentence in our article, are you saying it's a direct quote from some place? If so, it should probably be more clearly attributed. Anyway, it doesn't say "...is a narrative of solely human actions". Most Yeti stories I'm familiar with have a humans doing actions in there somewhere. I agree with Bugs that the intro to legend seems a bit too narrow, or at least confusing. But this is sort of a version of the genre problem isn't it? I don't think anyone's solved that for legend vs. folklore. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think much of that definition of legend.Prestigious does not neccessarily mean right. This is the Merriam-Webster definition which the yeti fits into quite well.Full Definition of LEGEND 1 a : a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable b : a body of such stories <a place in the legend of the frontier> c : a popular myth of recent origin d : a person or thing that inspires legends e : the subject of a legend <its violence was legend even in its own time — William Broyles Jr.> Hotclaws (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I'm interested in the scholarly definition, not a dictionary definition reflecting the uses of the ignorant. Or perhaps you could explain why we prefer a dictionary to a scholar in the field who's been published by one of the best folkloristics programs in the USA? Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

See jargon and Semantic overload. Words have different meanings in different contexts. The use of the word "legend" in the context of that particular branch of learning doesn't have to mean the same thing in all English uses. For example, how a chemist uses the word "nucleus" is different from how a biologist would. The chemist isn't wrong because his definition doesn't include the use of the word "cell", nor is the biologist wrong because her definition doesn't include the word "nucleus". Just because one folklorist, even a respected one, uses the word in one way doesn't mean other uses are wrong. The use of the word "legend" to describe the Yeti is perfectly cromulent. --Jayron32 14:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm still confused - can you clarify why you think the sentence you quoted from our article has any specific weight? Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not finding any scholarly sources that say a legend must be a human. Here's a nice scholarly overview that I just skimmed "It Happened Not Too Far from Here...": A Survey of Legend Theory and Characterization [16]. It gives several different characterizations that people have used, along with many many further refs. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I just realized that ref is already in the article. Note the block quote from the scholarly article in our WP article does not specify human subject matter. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

For some material specifically about non-human humanoids, this article [17] is all about "Unkown hominids and New World Legends". SemanticMantis (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, whatever the etymology of the word "legend" (I suspect it's a Latin gerund meaning "reading") there is no requirement for the descriptiveness to be anthropological. The "full" definition of the word is not comprehensive - it can also refer to a descriptive phrase - e.g. the writing round the portrait of a monarch on a coin. 86.147.209.43 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sinking of SS Ancona, 8 November 1915

Our article, SS Ancona, has a rather superficial account of this event and some points differ from the accounts at www.wrecksite.eu. Can anybody find me a more detailed account of the sinking please? In particular, it seems unlikely that exactly 200 passengers were killed and how many of those were US citizens? Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Our article says "over 200", 9 of which were Americans (although I am skeptical that the exact number of Americans can be known when the total is unknown). StuRat (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the "over", but surely there must have been a definitive total? For US fatalities, I found nine, eleven and twenty-five on various websites, none of which looked particularly authoritative. Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alansplodge, what about newspaper accounts? I am finding quite a few at the google newspaper archive. The first I saw said there were 656 people aboard. One account from Nov 15 mentions the nine Americans and numbers those lost at 208, but accounts seems confused with news trickling in slowly as different numbers of survivors reached shore on different days. My first link will let you browse through the other articles. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

When was Wyoming Territory made?

Shouldn't be a difficult question, should it? Everyone agrees it was July 25, 1868, as per 15 Stat. 178. However, multiple sources also point out that the government wasn't organized until May 19, 1869, and that until then it was under the jurisdiction of Dakota Territory. That's fine; sometimes territories were under the control of other territories. But what piques my curiosity is the last section of the above linked act:

SEC. 17. And be it further enacted, That this act, shall take effect from and after the time when the executive and judicial officers herein provided for shall have been duly appointed and qualified

Which makes me wonder... Doesn't that mean that the act itself did not take effect until May 19, 1869, when said officers were appointed and qualified? Or at least April 15, 1869, when the first governor of Wyoming Territory took his oath of office? And thus are all the sources on the internet incorrect as to when Wyoming Territory actually came into being? (or rather, was intended to come into being; obviously, things like that have a way of being forgotten in lieu of the reality on the ground) --Golbez (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think there's really two parts: the creation of the territory, and the creation of the government. Two separate things, perhaps?

Note that the first section of the Act provides that the "[area that is now Wyoming] is hereby, organized into a temporary government by the name of the Territory of Wyoming"—the use of "hereby" would seem to create the government instantaneous (on July 25, 1868), but the last section of the act preempts this, making the effective date of the whole act "when the executive and judicial officers herein provided for shall have been duly appointed and qualified." So it would be the date of appointment and qualification - i.e., May 19, 1869.

I personally favor May 19, 1869. That is the day the first territorial governor adopted the seal of Wyoming (Wyo. State Library). The Encyclopedia of the Great Plains, for what it's worth, says: "Territorial government for Wyoming was organized on May 19, 1869."). Neutrality^talk 02:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That was the same feeling I had, that the first section seemed to be instantaneous, whereas the last section was for the act as a whole. However, if I go with May 19, 1869, that goes against literally every source on the Internet for this, which doesn't work. But, as you say, it appears that the territory itself was made in 1868, and I'll stick with that, with a note explaining the delayed organization. (Though, it couldn't be saying "the government is organized on July 25 1868" because the government plainly was not organized until May 19 1869...) --Golbez (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of statutes which are believed to be in force but are not, the copper coinage was demonetised by the Coinage Act 1860 which is not listed at List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In its place a new bronze coinage was issued, in the form of "bun" pennies, halfpennies and farthings and also a one - third farthing which was used in Malta until the twentieth century. Now, the 1860 coin set also included a proof half - farthing of the appropriate weight and dimension ( a proof is a highly - polished coin which, although being specially made, is just as much legal tender as the ordinary circulating version). So was this half - farthing legal tender up to decimalisation in 1971? (The farthing was demonetised by Royal Proclamation in 1961). Also, under the 1970 Coinage Act it was provided that

silver coins of the Queen's Maundy money issued before 15th February 1971 shall be treated for the purpose of this section as being denominated in the same number of new pence as the number of pence in which they were denominated.

So what is the status of the Maundy coins of the same weight and fineness issued between the previous reform of the silver coinage in 1816 and the end of the reign of George VI? Sixpences, shillings and florins (but not half crowns) going back to 1816 continued to be legal tender even after decimalisation. 86.147.209.43 (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Technology and unemployment

How does technology impact the rate of employment? It is clear that after a new technology gets introduced (like a harvester) people will stop buying products produced with more traditional means (which might be more expensive). This could imply that many workers are made redundant. But if we analyze the rate across the decades, is unemployment getting up and up? Or is this just an irrational fear? --Denidi (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Structural_unemployment#Causes_and_examples has some basic information, but no numbers. Perhaps you could follow links from there, leading to more information? --Jayron32 00:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank. Technological unemployment linked in that article is the article that answers my question. --Denidi (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

So far new technology doesn't seem to have reduced employment overall, since those who lose one job just start doing some other job. For example, people were then needed to design, construct, drive and repair harvesters. Fewer people are needed there, per acre harvested, but then farmers started harvesting more acres. Also technology created other jobs, such as in automotive design. Theoretically, though, there should be a time when technology can replace all of the work done by people, which will be a challenge to our system of capitalism. At that point you'd need to distribute the wealth generated by machines to all the people, if they are to survive. StuRat (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's more basic than that. When people no longer have enough money, they will stop buying stuff. Then adjustments will have to occur on the corporate side. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The whole concept of buying and selling things might be outdated, when a replicator can make anything you need. I suppose we would still need to buy the raw materials and energy, but that's about it. (If the same device can disassemble junk and get the raw materials from them, then even better.) StuRat (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

How would you pay for the replicator? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Have a friend replicate one for you. StuRat (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

How would you pay for the materials? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. There would be no free market, because nobody will give you a job, because anything that you could do as a job, a machine could do better and cheaper. So, you basically arrive at socialism, where everyone just has to be given stuff from the government, as that's the only way to obtain anything in such an economy. The government, in turn, would get all this stuff using robots, including those mining for raw materials. (You really can't have private companies doing this, as then you would need a way to transfer the things produced from those companies to people with no resources. You can't even have the government pay the private companies for those items, because where would the government get their money ? No more income means no more income tax, so all that is left is to tax the same companies they are paying.) StuRat (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A transmogrifier box: put in whatever, write a label on the box for the stuff you want it to become, and use the box. It can even become a duplicator if you want! Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

November 13

Dali's Mustache (St. Petersburg): Which artist?

Next to the Salvador Dalí Museum in St. Petersburg a sculpture of Dali's mustache can be found. I am not able to identify the artist who is at its origin. I appreciate your help! Bikkit ! (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bikkit, I can't find any mention of it on the museum website. But you could ask the curator, her email is on the right at this page.184.147.131.85 (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a helpful idea. I wrote and they have answered already! Bikkit ! (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! Glad to hear you found your answer.184.147.131.85 (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Care to share the sculptor's name? Thanks! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I can share the pragmatic answer, I received by e-mail:

The mustache in our garden was removed from a Billboard advertising our Museum at our opening in 2010 [!B!: They advertised in 2010 and re-opened early 2011]. The mustache is made from styraform [!B!: Probably styrofoam?] with black lacquer by the billboard company and we thought it made a great photo-op. It is 40 feet wide and 14 ft. high.

So probably the artist's name is Tom, Dick or Harry.

I needed this information for the Dali' Mustache article in which I want to include not only the reception/perception of the book but also the reception/perception of the mustache itself [trademark, (pop) icon, ...] - and in St. Petersburg they make ample use of it: E.g. kids are guided (headphones) through the exhibition by ... Dalí's TALKING mustache... ! Bikkit ! (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Historical Silver Polishing method

I'm trying to determine what materials were historically used to polish silver throughout the ages. Was it just soap, water, and cloth, or did they have a polishing compound of some sort, or was there a particular chemical reaction known? Would the exact time period and location matter, between, say, ancient Egypt in its heyday compared to the European middle ages? The best I can find via google is that silver WAS polished and cleaned, but not how. Fieari (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are two (slightly contradictory, however) for Ancient Egypt. (1) This says both gold and silver were polished with Egyptian agate (though not the method). (2) This, on the other hand, says: "We cannot always assume that ancient silver was intended to have a bright, shiny surface. The deliberate production of a black surface on Classical silver objects has been the subject of some debate in recent years while in the ancient Near East some such tradition is implied by the Talmudic ruling against burning sulphur on the Sabbath to blacken silver." 184.147.131.85 (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that the Talmud also refers to polishing silver with a substance named Template:Hebrew ?gretikon; see Jastrow's dictionary (p. 273, no direct link possible) who identifies it as Greek (κρητική), chalk or "white earth", and note Rashi's interpretation cited there. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Some brief info and historical quotes at Conservation_and_restoration_of_silver_objects#Historic_methods_of_treating_silver. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeweller's rouge springs to mind. DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Julian calendar in Wikipedia article

France switched calendars in 1582. So, in the article Henry III of France is the listed date for the beginning of his reign over France in Julian and the listed date for the end of his reign in Gregorian, or does Wikipedia use a different standardized date to switch calendars? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

See WP:JG.—Wavelength (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

To put that in terms that an enquirer might understand, dates are contemporary, i.e. they are quoted from the sources, which, naturally enough, use whatever calendar was in force at the time of the events being written about. 86.147.209.43 (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Student protest chants: history

I recently heard on the news US student protesters at theUniversity of Missouri chanting "Hey hey, ho ho, reporters have got to go!" Similar student protester chants with various targets along with "What do we want?"" (some demand)!" "When do we want it? "Now" were common on US campuses in the 1960's in protests over civil rights, opposition to the Vietnam war, anti-nuke,and countless other issues. This led me to wonder where and when did this pair of call-and-response chants originate? They sound like they could have been used by striking workers at any point in the growth of labor unions,by suffragettes or by any protesters led by someone with an amplifier or a strong vocal apparatus, as an alternative to just milling around muttering like a western movie lynch mob, while causing the target of the protest to have to hear them as opposed to just closing the blinds and ignoring them. So are these two chants ubiquitous in the English speaking world, or only in the US, and what is the earliest recorded place and time for these two protest chants? Do they predate the Berkeley California Free Speech Movement of 1964? ~~

"What do we want !" ... "Politeness !" ... "When do we want it !" ... "Whenever it's most convenient for you !" StuRat (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Edison, earliest I can find for “hey hey ho ho” is 1956: [18]. And earliest I can find for “what do we want” is 1963: https://books.google.com/books?id=JtgvAAAAMAAJ&q="when+do+we+want+it+now", see also https://books.google.com/books?id=AC80AQAAIAAJ&q="when+do+we+want+it+now". (sorry about the links, no idea how to fix. both should end with the phrase in quotes after the final q if you want to see what I saw). All three sources suggest the chants originated in the American Civil Rights movement, though perhaps from opposite sides. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

There were chants like this on the Aldermaston March in the 1960s, and I would think also in the 1950s when it started. I had a booklet of songs for one of the marches - some were popular songs e.g. by with pro-peace lyrics, for example Down by the Riverside, others were new lyrics for songs. I definitely remember the "out out out" format. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I was recently at a protest where, much to my embarrassment, "The people - united - will never be defeated" was chanted: click for its origin. (The people - united - get defeated on a regular basis.)

Although only used in a limited context, I'm rather fond of "What do we want?" "Brains!" "When do we want it?" "Brains!"--Shirt58 (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If defeated, the people were ipso facto not sufficiently united. What do we want? Better memory! When do we want it? When do we want what? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I offer this with some diffidence, since I'm not finding any really good sources; but I'm pretty sure that the "Hey hey ho ho ..." form, at least, originated as a school cheer for sports teams (here is someone's memory of such a cheer being used, I think during the Great Depression) that was later adapted for protest rallies. I wouldn't be surprised if other protest chants had a similar origin, since sports cheering is one of the few forms of mass chanting familiar to folks (and especially to youth) throughout the United States. Deor (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

November 14

Scheduling Election Day in the USA

When Election Day rolled around, I read up on it a bit. And, in the USA, it's scheduled on the Tuesday right after the first Monday in November. (I think I have also seen this for other holidays and such, but none come to mind right off hand.) So, my question is: what would prompt such an odd schedule? Why not simply "the first Tuesday of the month"? What's the point here? What's the reason or rationale, if any? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:C192:5F05:ECE8:1646 (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

November 1st is All Saints' Day, so perhaps they wanted to avoid doubling up (when the first Tuesday is November 1st) ? (Although apparently they didn't mind doubling up with All Souls' Day on November 2nd.) StuRat (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I found a website that offers plausible reasons. The standard nationwide federal election date was set in 1845 when the economy was heavily but not totally agricultural. November was a "slow month" for agriculture, after most harvests were complete, making it easier for farmers to take time off to travel to the polls. November 1 was to be avoided, both because of the Catholic All Saints Day (mentioned above), but also because businesses closed their books for the previous month that day, which was a big deal before computers. Tuesday was seen as the best day of the week because isolated rural farmers often needed a full day of travel by horse or on foot to reach the polls. Most would not travel on Sunday, the Sabbath, so Monday was the day to travel to the polls. They could vote early Tuesday and then travel home. Wednesday was out of the question, because it was the traditional market day. Later November dates increased the chances of early wintery weather. That led to the standardization of the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal general election day. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. But as much as that was applicable in 1845, none of that is applicable today. Why is it still like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:C806:E841:D393:A093 (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Because nobody has found a persuasive reason to change it. Or in other words, why not? --70.49.170.168 (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Election Day fell on November 8 in 1853, 1859, 1864, 1870, 1881, 1887, 1892, 1898, 1904, 1910, 1921, 1927, 1932, 1938, 1949, 1955, 1960, 1966, 1977, 1983, 1988, 1994, 2005, and 2011. The next time that Election Day will fall on November 8 will be in 2016. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

In matters calendrical people are extremely conservative. That basically is the reason why our calendar hasn't changed much in over 2,000 years. Britain's elections are tied to the first Thursday in May, but government has postponed them in the past to avoid disenfranchising [edit filter] who may not vote during [edit filter]. There is a rigorous timetable - on one occasion disaster was narrowly averted when somebody spotted just before the cutoff point that a bank holiday had been included in the calculation. Sometimes the civil servants get it wrong and people end up going to the polls on a Tuesday. All Saints' Day is a public holiday in many countries, but All Souls' Day isn't.

The traditional date for St Giles's Fair in Oxford was the Monday and Tuesday after the first Sunday in September. There was correspondence in the Oxford Times about why a Sunday had to intervene, and the answer is that St Giles's Day is 1 September. In 1965 the Labour government started tinkering with the dates of the bank holidays, with the result that the August bank holiday (renamed the "Late summer bank holiday") began falling in September. As a result, the date of the fair was delayed a week. The latest date for the holiday was later fixed as 31 August, but whether the fair has returned to its original dates I do not know.

The "day following" arrangement was also used in fixing the dates of Summer Time. For a long time it ran from 2 a.m. GMT on the day following the third Saturday in March until 2 a.m. GMT on the day following the first Saturday in October. This may have been influenced by the provision in the Easter Act 1928 that Easter Day shall be the day after the second Saturday in April (anyone know why?) The Easter Act is another example of statutes that are in force but are non - operational. Another example of this is the provision in the Summer Time Act that if the day after the third Saturday in March is Easter Day Summer Time begins the previous week. This would have had no effect for over 300 years. The reasoning is obvious. I used to attend a church where Parish Communion was followed by Morning Prayer an hour later. Every March people would come in and wonder with growing bewilderment why there was so much chanting of psalms instead of the Bible reading and sermon they were expecting.

Later the end of Summer Time was extended to 2 a.m. GMT on the day following the fourth Saturday in October. This caught out diary manufacturers, who regularly inserted correction slips pointing out that the end date would not be the 30th or 31st as printed but the 23rd or 24th. Printers are not a generally clued - up lot - Dutch almanacs in the eighteenth century regularly gave the Roman Catholic date for Easter even though the Dutch church made its own arrangements. They now have it easy as time changes are referenced to the end of the month, the vagaries of Easter notwithstanding. 80.44.165.173 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Think of it this way, GeoffreyT2000: The algorithm calls for election day to fall on November 8 once every seven years on average, but not every seven years like clockwork. Over the long run, the date falls equally frequently including and between each of the seven dates from November 2 and November 8. And that is just how it has gone, for 170 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Really pedantic comment: The Gregorian calendar has a 400-year cycle with 400×365 + 100 - 4 + 1 = 146097 days. This happens to be divisible by 7, and that means the days of the week must have a 400-year cycle for the dates they occur on. 400 is not divisible by 7 so the dates cannot be exactly equally distributed. If the number of days in 400 years had not been divisible by 7 then there would have been a 2800-year cycle with exactly equal distribution. Exercise: How many times in 400 years will Election Day (United States) be on November 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Friday the 13th#Occurrence mentions a related phenomenon. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Election Day falls on November 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 56, 58, 57, 57, 58, 56, and 58 times respectively in 400 years. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't compute it myself but will take your word. The counts assume all years are included. Presidential elections are only in years divisible by four, and most other elections are in even years, but off-year elections can also follow the election day rule. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems a bit strange there's a bunch of speculation, and some sourcing, but no one linked Election Day (United States) which says and has since long before this discussion [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Day_%28United_States%29&oldid=671857776:

The actual reasons, as shown in records of Congressional debate on the bill in December 1844, were fairly prosaic. The bill initially set the day for choosing presidential electors on "the first Tuesday in November," in years divisible by four (1848, 1852, etc.). But it was pointed out that in some years the period between the first Tuesday in November and the first Wednesday in December (when the electors are required to meet in their state capitals to vote) would be more than 34 days, in violation of the existing Electoral College law. So, the bill was reworded to move the date for choosing presidential electors to the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, a date scheme already used in New York.

This is a bit ORish but does include a link to the debate so you can check it out yourself and see if you agree with the intepretation of our article as to the reason as per the debate [19].

Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• How many things are scheduled for the 2nd through the 8th day of a month, as compared to the first day of a month? This really doesn't require any knowledge beyond the second grade to answer. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

We used to have coverage of this Special:Diff/405112917#Distribution of dates by day of the week. Maybe if someone could make it comprehensible it would be worth adding back. 188.220.208.229 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

What is "E-cash"? Is there a defined meaning?

Is there a defined meaning of the term E-cash? At Talk:Electronic money#What to do about redirect "E-cash" I try to find a solution for this redirect, but I'm overall unsure. --KnightMove (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The short answer is no, there is no defined meaning of "e-cash." I suppose that "e-cash" simply means "electronic cash," and "cash" means "ready money," so a redirect to electronic money seems appropriate. That leaves as an unresolved question what is the meaning of "electronic money." The first paragraph of our article has three different definitions, which are inconsistent with each other, and then it has a sentence of examples that are inconsistent with any of the definitions. The fact is that, for decades, most money has been stored electronically and most transfers, as measured by volume, have occurred electronically. John M Baker (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Red Cross volunteers

Generally, during humanitarian crises or major incidents and disasters, do Red Cross volunteers deal with minor injuries etc so that the more experienced full time emergency services can deal with patients in more serious conditions? Or do thud walk with both? 2A02:C7D:B8FF:7E00:11FD:E116:9BC:F69E (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"thud walk" = "they work" ? Do you have autocorrect run amok ? StuRat (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

For that particular organization, see Emergency management#The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The page on Field triage is also enlightening. It's likely that "volunteers" are pre-registered, vetted for qualifications, perhaps trained, and coordinated in teams before undertaking activity under the auspices of the IRC or any formal organization. Deborahjay (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That is, if they actually do anything meaningful, rather than focusing on getting in front of the cameras in order to drive donations. On that note, these articles read like a hagiography. Anyone feel like taking a chisel to them? Probably could stand to give everything in here a once-over. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think many have previous qualifications. They're all new & just trained in disaster and emergency management, first aid and giving general support. That's why I'm wondering how they work with full time emergency services and aid agencies or the military. 2A02:C7D:B8FF:7E00:1DCD:E5A7:5665:CFB9 (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

As I guess this question must have at least partially arisen because of the recent horrific attacks in Paris, you ca see the IFRC's view of their involvement here [20] in particular [21] and [22]. If you understand French, you could probably find more info on how ARAMIS works by search the French Red Cross website and other such places. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

November 15

Introducing Prime Minister's Questions to Canada

Justin Trudeau promised to introduce Prime Minister's Questions to Canada[23]. But our article Question Period says Canada already has it (like most commonwealth countries). What am I missing here? 731Butai (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

In Question Period, members of Parliament can direct questions to any other member (well, to the Speaker of the House, technically), not necessarily to the Prime Minister. In practise, questions are often directed to the PM anyway, but often also to other cabinet members, or to any other member, depending on the issue under discussion. It also takes place every day instead of once a week. For example, if you check the Hansard for the last session of the 41st Parliament in June, click on "Oral Questions" (the official name for Question Period), and as far as I can see, no one asked Stephen Harper any questions and he didn't speak at all. Now the Liberals want to introduce a weekly period where the PM answers questions specifically. The idea is apparently to make the PM "directly accountable to all Canadians". Adam Bishop (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit to add that the UK also has Question Time in addition to Prime Minister's Questions, as do other Commonwealth countries. So the introduction of a PMQ session in Canada would be similar to the way things work in the UK Parliament. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Birthdate of Nicolae Ceauşescu - which calendar?

I asked the following question at Talk:Nicolae Ceauşescu/Archive 3 over 7 years ago, and am still waiting patiently for any response. In the meantime, maybe I'll ask here and see if my luck is any different. Here goes:

• I've looked extensively for any information about this, in vain. Was his date of birth, 26 January 1918, according to the Julian calendar then applying in Romania, or has it been converted to the Gregorian equivalent? This is relevant because Romania did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until 1919, the year after Ceauşescu's birth.

Thanks in advance. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, you'll probably never find an answer; the birth records from WW1 are patchy even in paperwork-obsessed countries like Germany, let alone the Balkans. Ceaușescu was born to an alcoholic smallholder in a village near a disputed border in a war zone after four years of war; any "birthdate" is just going to be a nominal "he was born at around this time" date from when the authorities got around to registering the birth. ‑ iridescent 10:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand that some published dates do not necessarily represent the "truth", but they're the best we have so we have to go with that. But the question of which calendar was being used is different. There are only 2 possibilities. I think the more likely one is that 26 January was from the Julian calendar in use at the time of his birth. But I have to accept it's possible, if unlikely, that he was born on 13 January (Julian) and at some later time this was converted to 26 January (Gregorian). In the absence of any evidence either way, the question remains unresolved. He may have started out life as a peasant, but he became President of Romania, so I'd be surprised if there were not some reasonably comprehensive biography of him in which this detail is revealed. That's assuming anyone ever knew, one way or the other. Is there any detailed information about how Romania administratively handled the change of the calendars in 1919, particularly as it applied to living people? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

According to this article (found from following the sources on the ro-wiki version of his bio), his birth certificate was registered on 26 January, but gives his date of birth as 23 January—if that certificate was issued at the time of registration, that would be on the old calendar. It looks like the 26 January date given in the en-wiki article is wrong either way. ‑ iridescent 10:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

(EC) The Romanian article gives the birth date as the 23rd, with links to two newspaper articles, the second of which [24] has an image of the birth register [25]. According to google translate, 26 is doua zeci si sase and 23 is douazeci si trei (dispensing of diacritics). I see 26 in line 2, and possibly 23 in line 3, where the latter seems to refer to the birth date (s'a nascut). If this is indeed the original birth register, then dates presumably would have been entered according to the calendar then in effect. This birth register appears to be a fairly recent find, the offical date given during his time in power was the 26th. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The old boy was unavailable for his 72nd birthday, but he did leave his country a nice Christmas present. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you could ask here? Contact Basemetal here 12:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Having known a few Roumanians before and during the time of Nicolae Ceauşescu's death, my sympathy lies with Bugs' unhelpful comment: Nicolae Ceauşescu's Dead. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Again following a Medeis post (but not following her use of the blob) as explained in the above section relating to Henry III of France dates are given in whatever calendar is in use at the time (obvious when you think about it). 188.220.208.229 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Horsemill. Would the animal work on its own, or would it always be led by a person?

In a horsemill, used for grinding or other purposes, back in the middle ages and olden times, would there have to be a person running it the whole time to make sure the horse/ox/donkey went round and round in circles without stopping?

Or was there some clever method I am not aware of that "motivated" or somehow made the animal to go round in circles, grinding non-stop? I'm assuming that without a person leading it at all times, the animal would simply stop working... but then, I am asking because I don't know.

2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:55A4:2B34:D86D:81F5 (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)