Revision as of 21:39, 14 August 2015

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

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

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.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages: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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 8

Closing down the shop. A big shop.

Many large companies have gone bankrupt over time - for instance, Kodak, but do large companies ever decide to sell their assets and dissolve themselves the way a small business person might? I'm thinking of companies that think they can't innovate enough to survive, but it could be for other reasons. 188.247.76.211 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes—Lehman Brothers and Woolworths Group are probably the most spectacular recent bankrupt companies to close the doors and fire all the staff because they were unable to find a buyer or provide a credible restructuring plan. I assume from the fact you mention Kodak that you're asking about the US, in which case Chapter 7, Title 11, United States Code explains the actual process of dissolution. – iridescent 19:55, 8 August 20188.247.76.211 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)15 (UTC)

I may not have formulated my question clearly. I am wondering about big companies that voluntarily, while liquid, just decide to stop trading. (And I'm Canadian, but interested in any huge company anywhere.)188.247.76.211 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Any large company that is a going concern—i.e., not facing likely bankruptcy—would seek a buyer if its shareholders felt they no longer wanted to operate the company. Simply liquidating a company and selling off its assets would bring in less money then selling the company intact, because of all the intangible assets, like institutional knowledge and goodwill, that operating companies have. You can see this demonstrated when a publicly-traded company is acquired. The acquisition price is very often above the acquired company's market cap, which represents the price it would cost to simply buy outright every share of the company's stock. Partially this is because if someone actually tried to do this in the market, the market would react, and people would start asking for more for their stock, driving the share price up, but also this is often in recognition of the company's intangibles. Because of this fact, that you would get a lower price by liquidating the company, it would be a likely breach of their fiduciary duty if the board and/or executives decided to do this without a very good reason. Now, small companies liquidate fairly often, but these are usually personally-owned or privately held small businesses, say, a doctor deciding to retire and close down her practice. --108.38.204.15 (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Beatles were a financially viable business, but chose to dissolve. DuncanHill (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

They dissolved the partnership for the band itself; but many assets of the Beatles continued to operate; like Apple Corps and Northern Songs. Even down to today, Apple Corps has four primary shareholders: the two living Beatles, and the estates of the two ex-living Beatles, and is quite a viable business. --Jayron32 23:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It does occasionally happen that a large solvent business has tangible assets that are worth more than the value of the business as a whole, and the decision is made to sell the business. When this occurs, however, the business almost always looks for a single buyer, or at least a small number of buyers. There is considerable loss of value in the liquidation and winding up process, and a single buyer can be expected to pay something much closer to the full value of the assets. John M Baker (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Although this has been marked resolved, I'd like to add one point. There are cases where a company's assets might have more short-term value than the company as a whole: for example, Trans World Airlines, which owned lots of aircraft (and even better, the rights to the London-New York flight path) but struggled in the 1980s when air markets were deregulated due to structural inefficiencies. This meant that it was possible for Carl Icahn to take control of the company, take it private at great profit to himself, sell off its valuable routes, then have the company declare bankruptcy and claim another $190 million as a creditor, and then use that to get the right to sell TWA tickets at nearly half-price! This process is called asset stripping, and although it's not directly part of the winding up process, it almost inevitably ends up killing the company and resulting in massive job losses. Smurrayinchester 13:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Also relevant, Icahn was the model for the character Gordon Gecko and the plot of the film Wall Street (film). --Jayron32 16:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, even more Resolved188.247.76.211 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Tipping & Sales Tax

Why is it considered common practise in certain countries to expect people to tip poorly paid staff. Why are more people not annoyed by the fact that they're coerced into subsidising low pay? Also, are there campaigning efforts in countries such as the United States to ensure that the wage paid to waiting staff is sufficient for them to live on. In the UK, where I'm from, the expectation is that you tip a job well done - in other countries, and some very high-end restaurants in the UK, it doesn't seem to be optional. This article suggests that service industry employment in restaurants, in the US at least, is a huge burden on American taxpayers, so I don't understand why more isn't being done. --Andrew 2:59 pm, Today (UTC−5)

More being done by who? GregJackP Boomer! 21:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

On another topic, I don't understand why the United States doesn't have a flat sales tax - if you're a US citizen and you wanted to purchase the exact same thing in a different states, I don't understand why you should have to pay either the price of the item or the price of the item plus up to eight percent. I also don't understand why congress doesn't force businesses to display their prices inclusive of tax, rather than finding out when you're at the checkout - as it is, it seems very misleading.

Sorry to rant, I'm going to Florida in september and have just come across these things, which seem completely alien to me. Coould somebody explain to me why the US has these in place, and is there net benefit to them--Andrew 19:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, I don't care if you add stuff, but don't alter your original post after someone has responded to it to make it read in a different manner. Congress doesn't force it because the people won't stand for it. Congress has limited powers. GregJackP Boomer! 23:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. Why would people not stand for knowing the price they pay for an item before they go to the checkout?

• People who want to enact change, of course - pressure groups, lobbyists, those who believe in equality. It's deeply unfair to the consumer and to the employee.

When I was a restaurant server in Montreal (where our salary was legally below the Quebec standard minimum wage) I earned so much more in tips that I wouldn't have minded not having a salary at all. I certainly wouldn't have traded my tips for a 'living wage' salary.188.247.76.211 (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

As an American, the answer to your second question is because American political culture has always been deeply suspicious of centralized power. We started with an armed revolt against a government, after all. Limiting centralized government power is the impetus behind our whole federal system. State and local governments set their own sales taxes, and different governments set different taxes. Any proposal for a national sales tax would face strong opposition from people who would dislike giving that power to the national government and imposing a single tax rate across the whole country. We needed to amend the Constitution to impose a national individual income tax, because the Constitution otherwise requires all "direct taxes" levied by the national government to either be assessed equally per state, or assessed based on each state's population. --108.38.204.15 (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

August 9

Why does McDonalds use cardboard boxes to store its sandwiches?

Why do the sandwiches come in cardboard boxes instead of a wrapper? Is there a reason for this corporate decision that is strikingly different from its competitor Wendy's? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it has to do with the amount of grease in their respective sandwiches. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

My WWW search for ask mcdonalds a question found several useful websites.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It may boil down to some group at the company thinking that a box is better than just a wrapper. After all, a box makes it harder to crush the sandwich contained within. I would not be surprised if the corrugated cardboard that they use retains heat better than a paper wrapper and thus keeps food warmer for longer. Cardboard boxes are also better/easier for stacking in the bag. At least they don't use Styrofoam (polystyrene) anymore. Dismas| 03:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Back a few decades, McDonalds used Styrofoam boxes, but changed to more eco-friendly card in 1987 after a protest campaign by environmental groups in the US. See The McToxics Victory. Alansplodge (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

First, not all McDonald's sandwiches come in a box (smaller sandwiches, such as a simple cheeseburger, are sold in just a wrapper). That said, I am willing to bet that MacDonald's packaging is consumer driven. The company has likely conducted lots of surveys to see what packaging it's consumers prefer. I won't speak for others, but I know that I like the box packaging when I order a "meal" that I will sit down to eat in the restaurant (as opposed to when I order just a sandwich to eat on the run). The reason I like it is that the box doubles as a plate... one side of the box can hold the sandwich between bites... while the other can be used to hold the fries and catchup. Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"Catchup"? Never seen that one before. Was that a typo for 'catsup' or 'ketchup' or a neologism I was unaware of? 99.235.223.170 (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandwiches from McDonalds? I thought they sold burgers. DuncanHill (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hamburgers are a type of sandwich -- food that comes placed between two pieces of bread. Our article notes that the hamburger are also sometimes called a "hamburger sandwich," to differentiate it from the hamburger steak. Our sandwich article also lists hamburgers in its examples. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Burgers come in a bun, not two slices of bread. Both the burger, and the burger-in-a-bun, are called burgers, not sandwiches, or steaks. A steak is a proper cut of meat. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hamburger and hot dog buns are bread. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And yet Sandwich lists hamburgers, and if you order a hamburger in some parts of the world you'll get just a Salisbury steak, and if you want to order a Salisbury steak without gravy in many restaurants you order a hamburger steak. Defining sandwiches as two sliced pieces of bread is incomplete: it omits Submarine sandwiches, Mexican tortas, paninis, and many deli sandwiches. Really, my earlier statement "two pieces" is incomplete as it omits many open-faced sandwiches and flatbread sandwiches. Food placed between two slices of bread, or halves of a bun or roll, or sides of flat bread -- food placed in bread that was cut or torn open to hold it -- is a sandwich. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Catchup"... sorry... auto correct malfunction. Re: Sandwich... that's what MacDonald's itself calls anything that comes in a bun. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Blueboar. Catchup is a legitimate spelling variant. Deor (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Unlike this recent case. The original (unintended but should-have-been-noticed-before-it-was-too-late) error was compounded by a (since deleted) joke on Twitter, then an apology of sorts, which referred to a "regretful error", which ought to have said "regrettable error". Ah, the joys of culinary (mis-)communication. -- Jack of Oz 19:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in British English, a hamburger is never a sandwich which requires sliced bread. Other bread concoctions are named after the type of bread involved: eg a cheese roll, a ham bap, a bacon stottie or a salad baguette. However, it's clear that a hamburger definitely IS a sandwich in American English. ""Two nations divided by a common language". Alansplodge (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

My experience is the reverse: many fast food restaurants in the UK call burgers "sandwiches", e.g. they would contrast "meal" vs "sandwich only". Which is very strange to speakers of some other varieties of English, for whom hamburgers are not sandwiches! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Renaissance models

Have there been much study done on the identity or human models behind Renaissance sculptures? Were there any stigma of being portray in the nude that would have made most of lower class such as prostitutes or courtesans and whatever the equivalent in male subjects.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Female models were generally either itinerant traders, poor immigrants or prostitutes, and were regarded with suspicion and stereotyped as promiscuous. Male models were generally soldiers or sportsmen, as they were more likely to have the desired physique and also had the discipline to hold poses for the necessary long times. In Renaissance and post-Renaissance Europe, male nudity had very little stigma in art, as the Greek sculptures (which were considered the ideal) were generally nude. Male models came from the lower classes but their bodies were frequently compared to the classical heroes, in contrast to female models, whose low social status was seen to conflict with the high cultural status of the mythological figures they were required to emulate (The Victorian Nude, Alison Smith (1996) p.25), if you want chapter-and-verse; that's talking about the early 19th century, but little changed between the Renaissance and the 1830s. Female nudes are actually very rare in Renaissance art outside of Venice (and non-existent in England and those countries following the English tradition until William Etty in the 1820s–30s), owing to assorted anti-pornography laws.

Incidentally, a lot of Renaissance "female nudes", including well-known ones like The Birth of Venus, are actually painted from male models with breasts added and genitalia removed. Raphael is generally considered the first significant European artist to use female models for nude studies. (There's some evidence the Rokeby Venus was painted from life, but nobody is quite sure.)

Outside of portraits, there are very few records of individual models, other than occasional jottings in artists' notebooks or letters about a particular favourite model. The practice of treating the model as important in his/her own right, rather than as interchangeable props, only really began with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (1848 onwards) in England, and gradually rippled out (which is why there are so many pictures, even by very well-documented artists, with labels like "Two Women" or "Standing Male Nude"). Even with modern paintings, it's not uncommon for there to be little or no documentation for who the model in a particular picture is.

Regarding sculpture, bear in mind that a lot of renaissance sculpture was a combination of elements from Greek or Roman originals, rather than being depicted from sketches drawn from life. Michelangelo's male bodies, for instance, were generally copied from the Belvedere Torso. ‑ iridescent 18:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"Flat Earth" conspiracy theories

Since NASA released their video of the moon crossing earth I've been encountering a lot of people spouting crazy conspiracy theories relating to it. Not just "the moonlandings were faked", which I've seen before, but a surprising number of people claiming that not only that, but that the earth is actually flat, and the idea of a round world is the result of a conspiracy. Can anyone explain what these conspiracy theories are actually about? In particular, 1) how/why they think the earth is flat, and 2) who they think is trying to cover this up and why? I've checked our flat earth and Flat-earth society pages, and they don't give much information about the actual "justification" for their beliefs, and I have more important things to do with my life than watching the three hours of youtube videos they pointed me to that would supposedly convince anyone with an "open mind". Iapetus (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki has more information about this. Of course I can't know what your particular conspiracy theorists are on about, but for some flat earthers it's a case of extreme biblical literalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It depends on what other conspiracy theories the flat earther believes, but "no, (fact) is the conspiracy!" is a pretty common retort by conspiracy theorists. Basically, whoever they think is behind the New World Order, be it the Masons, Catholics, Satanists, Jews, white people, black people, lizard people... would be faking the evidence to hide the "truth" of the Bible (I thought the truths of the Bible were things like "Love your neighbor," and the Beatitudes, but whatever) and control our lives (either out of a belief that cosmological knowledge trumps faith, or to prevent global uprisings, or enable alien invasions, depending on who the NWO has and what motive they have). This article describes their views some. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I bet that for every one who really believes it there are a dozen who are just trolling us, but how would you measure? I mean, is there anything more sensible about pretending fealty to some corporate ball team in order to make conversation than espousing some nutty conspiracy theory? Wnt (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Now that New Horizons has passed Pluto, I have to admit that there is a perverse part of me that secretly wants it to suddenly crash into a crystal sphere. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Would the Oort Cloud suffice? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"why they think the earth is flat" Mental illness is a hell of a drug. --Golbez (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

VE Day and VJ Day

A few years ago, VE Day and VJ Day were merged, but just once. Now they are separate again. Why? KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe because they are different days? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I know Bugs, but why were they merged - just for one year - and then separated again? We all thought the merger was going to be permanent. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 07:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you asked the editors who did the merging? Was there talk page discussion? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean this on 10 July 2005?—eric 21:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 07:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As EricR noted above, the British government merged the two into a National Commemoration day in 2005 for the 60th anniversary. Choosing that date as it was equidistant between VE and VJ days in the calendar. With the United Kingdom general election, 2005 also going ahead on the 5th May, it was seen by some that this would overshadow VE day on the 8th. See also , , , . The merging wasn't popular and services were still held on the anniversary days. Some events on the 10th July were disrupted because of the recent 7 July 2005 London bombings. Nanonic (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

August 10

Psychobiography Resources on Internet

Hello. We are Designing a form of Class for managers and Leaders motivating them to know themselves better to be more efficient and productive. Our idea is to use Psychobiographic Material to help our cause ,for example "Nikola Tesla Was Obsessive because of his Childhood issues" But the problem is that many information out there are biased and Unreliable ,Is there any specific site or Database to help us find cases to study ? if not is there anything that you propose for us to do ? -- Best Wishes, 2.147.201.133 (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

One person has compiled a Psychobiography Web Resources page and refers to a particular textbook. In the Misplaced Pages page on Psychobiography, the section on origins and development provides examples of published psychobiographies of noted individuals, and the section on criticism indicates some serious objections relevant to your proposed use. If you're doing a thorough study, authors whose works are cited as references may have published other useful materials. You might beware of superficial web content produced by copywriters rather than qualified professionals and academics. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Abrahamic Religions

An Islamic friend of mine has just told me that Islam was the first Abrahamic religion. Does this make sense to anyone? KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 07:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The claim is that Muhammad was just restoring the original religion of Adam. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You know, after reading this, Mormonism seems to bear some resemblance to Islam. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The Quran explicitly makes the claim that Abraham was not a Jew or Christian, but a Muslim (surah 3:67), and in a sense, even Jews and Christians may agree with this. A Muslim literally is 'someone who submits' (to God), and therefore one could call Abraham simply a Muslim, considering that Judaism is named after Judah, Christianity after Jesus Christ, neither of which had been born in Abraham's day. That said, there is no historical support for the claim that modern Islamic doctrines and practices (hadj, ramadan, the shahada etc. ), which derive from Muhammad and 7th century Arabian culture, have any connection with the faith of Abraham and early monotheists. - Lindert (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

... and, of course, from a Christian viewpoint, you haven't taken into account John 8 verse 58, where Christ claims to have existed before Abraham. If Abraham followed any religious system, it was most probably Zoroastrianism. Dbfirs 12:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

...Or all of John 1 (see also Logos), where the case is made that Christ existed since creation itself. The point is that within each religion, which claims itself as the true faith, there is often (not always, but often enough) the claim that the religion has existed forever, and that the founder of the religion did not invent it, but had it revealed to them by God. As in, people were disobeying the eternal religion, and God chooses some people to be charged with correcting people and bringing them back to the one true religion. So Islam and Christianity are no different in that way: They each, within their own beliefs, claim to be the universal and eternal religion, not an invention of a person, but a revelation to a person from god. It is not surprising that any of them claim this, nor is it internally inconsistent with the belief systems OR their understanding of their own history. After all, when Percival Lowell discovered Pluto, he didn't claim that Pluto didn't exist until he found it; it's the same with the founder of a religion. --Jayron32 16:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Um, just to keep the ref desk (somewhat) factual, it was Clyde Tombaugh who discovered Pluto. Lowell "discovered" the canals on Mars. Deor (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

But an understandable error given that Lowell played a not insignificant role in Pluto's detection. From Percival Lowell: In 1930 Clyde Tombaugh, working at the Lowell Observatory, discovered Pluto near the location expected for Planet X. Partly in recognition of Lowell's efforts, a stylized P-L monogram () – the first two letters of the new planet's name and also Lowell's initials – was chosen as Pluto's astronomical symbol. -- Jack of Oz 23:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That said, Christianity is often considered (by Christians) to be a "fulfillment" of Judaism. Their belief is that Christ's coming was prophesiced in the Old Testament, and that he brought a new covenant with new rules to replace/upgrade the old covenant with Abraham and the laws of Moses. This is different from the Islamic position that Mohamad was restoring the religion of Abraham that Jews and Christians had deviated from. Iapetus (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

heroic flight attendant

I remember watching a video on YouTube. It went viral shortly after being broadcast on the news locally and nationally. It was about Delta Air Lines Flight 4951. The aircraft was flying from Atlanta, Georgia to White Plains, New York. It had to make an emergency landing at JFK International Airport due to the right landing gear getting jammed. The only flight attendant on board shouted "HEADS DOWN! STAY DOWN!" over and over until the airplane came to a complete stop on the tarmac. She's a true American heroine. Who is she?2604:2000:712C:2900:3594:9808:988A:351F (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Why is she a heroine for simply doing her job? As for her identity, have you tried contacting Delta Airlines? Link. I would however very much doubt they would give out her identity, as that would constitute a security risk. Fgf10 (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Following answering OP's erroneous question as originally posted, referring to US Airways Flight 1549 -- Paulscrawl (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Heroic enough for Clint Eastwood to make a movie about it.

WP article US Airways Flight 1549 has the link (currently, ref # 11): US Airways flight 1549: Airline releases crew information. Three flight attendants names and ages listed:

Flight Attendant Sheila Dail, age 57

Flight Attendant Doreen Welsh, age 58

Flight Attendant Donna Dent, age 51 -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Also linked in that WP article is this, from the final report (May 4, 2010) of the National Transportation Safety Board (currently, citation #2). Ages allow identification with names released by airline (above):

Flight attendant A, age 51, was located at the aft-facing, forward jumpseat (outboard).

Flight attendant B, age 58, was located at the forward-facing, “direct-view” jumpseat (aft, center aisle).

Flight attendant C, age 57, was located at the aft-facing, forward jumpseat (inboard).

Definitive identification of the person you are interested in may come from an award or interview, many of which are cited in US Airways Flight 1549 -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Worth mentioning: according to citation # 9 in WP article brace position, referencing article on passenger experiences of Flight 1549, the entire flight cabin crew chanted, as they are trained to do.

"Then the flight attendants started chanting. A creepy chant. Like a horror movie. 'Brace! Brace! Heads down! Stay down!'" -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It beats saying, "Get in crash positions." See about 50 seconds into this: ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I made some mistakes, but they were corrected. It was Delta Air Lines 4951, in which the flight attendant shouted "HEADS DOWN! STAY DOWN!" over and over. The incident occurred on September 25, 2010.2604:2000:712C:2900:445A:6247:A067:F150 (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to revise your original question by asking a new one, but in the future please refrain from editing your original question: it makes responses to the original look ill-informed. Sorry, no time now to pursue Delta Flight 4951 . -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Flight attendants are trained to do things like that. At least in developed countries with functioning regulatory systems, they undergo quite a bit of training, and part of their job is to manage the passengers in the event of any mishap. They're not just "sky waiters". The whole repeating instructions thing is something they're specifically trained to do, because when people are panicking they do all kinds of irrational stuff. Human factors research has shown that repeating instructions over and over in a panic situation works, because people's brains frequently filter out all kinds of stuff when under stress, so if you just say something once or twice a lot of people literally won't have heard it. With that said, I don't want to denigrate the attendant for performing their job well and quite possibly saving lives. I would be pleased if society spent more time celebrating people like this who actually make meaningful contributions to society, as opposed to people who are good at playing with balls. --108.38.204.15 (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Atlantic Southeast Airlines, which operates Delta Connection, issued a news release praising its crew, identifying them as Captain Jack Conroyd, First Officer Larkin Newby and Flight Attendants Tony Reyna and Lonnie Stockham. (Read it here.)    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Axieri

What is the Axieri that the Titular Bishopric of Axieri referring to or is a made up place?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

it:Sede titolare di Azieri?—eric 00:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Mesopotamia? It seems the Italian article is guessing where it was. Was it simply an early Roman center of Christianity that was abandoned with no record of where it is now.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

They said look in Eubel but i'm having no luck. And didn't seem to work either.—eric 01:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Eubel doesn't say where it is either. Typically titular bishoprics were real dioceses that were suppressed or no longer existed for whatever reason - in this case, probably because the area was conquered by the Muslims, and maybe the Christian population went elsewhere. If this place was a suffragan of the Archbishop of Dara, it's actually in Syria, not Mesopotamia. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is a long discussion (pp. 269–71) by Heinrich Gelzer in the German Byzantinische Zeitschrift (1892), which, if I am not mistaken, concludes that Axieri is identical to Nicopolis (Lesser Armenia), modern Koyulhisar. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

August 11

Ticker symbol being unrelated to the company name

Apparently later this year the GOOG symbol will be used by a company called "Alphabet". Has there been any other notable examples of this? I.e. a company named ABC trading under the symbol XYZ where the two names are unrelated? My other car is a cadr (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think US Steel is X. Probably. --Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

From the WP article ticker symbol:

"Symbols are sometimes reused, in the US the single letter symbols are particularly sought after as vanity symbols. For example, since Mar 2008 Visa Inc. has used the symbol V that had previously been used by Vivendi which had delisted and given up the symbol." -- Paulscrawl

Better example from same WP article, ticker symbol:

"AT&T's ticker symbol is simply "T"; accordingly, the company is referred to simply as "Telephone" on Wall Street (the T symbol is so well known that when the company was purchased by SBC, it took the AT&T name, capitalizing on its history and keeping the desired single letter symbol)." -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

V is related to Visa and T is related to the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. I'm asking about unrelated names. My other car is a cadr (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this is more complicated than you suggest. I'm fairly sure AT&T isn't an initialism any more . In other words, neither T in AT&T stand for telephone. If the T in their symbol stands for telephone, not the T in AT&T (which doesn't stand for anything), then it seems fair to say the symbol is actually unrelated to the modern name. Edit: You could perhaps say it's related in the sense the T in AT&T originally came from telephone, and the T in their stock symbol represents telephone, but clearly it's complicated.

Anyway, other more obvious examples from the article would be:

Belgian brewer InBev, the brewer of Budweiser beer, uses "BUD" as its three-letter ticker for American Depository Receipts, symbolizing its premier product in the United States. Its rival, Molson Coors Brewing Company, uses a similarly beer-related symbol, "TAP

There may be a B (and a U) in InBev (actually Anheuser-Busch InBev), but it's quite difficult to argue it has anything to do with the B or U in Anheuser-Busch InBev, when if you read about Anheuser-Busch and Budweiser, the Budweiser name came from the place, not the person. It's even more nonsense to argue the a or p in Molson Coors Brewing Company came from the company's name.

Another example would be

Tricon Global, owner of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, adopted the symbol "YUM" to represent its corporate mission when the company was spun out of PepsiCo in 1997. In 2002, the company changed its name to match its symbol, adopting the name Yum! Brands.

where the symbol may be related to the name now, but it wasn't when the symbol was chosen. There may be a u in Tricon Global Restaurants, Inc, but it seems a real stretch to argue it came from the name.

Third example would be:

LUV - Southwest Airlines (after their main hub at Love Field)

Again, it seems a real stretch to argue the L in LUV is connected to the l in Airlines.

There's also the examples from a number of Asian countries were numbers are used. Some of them may have some connection to the name, but some surely don't.

I'm fairly sure that there are also companies who have kept a ticker symbol in at least one stock market after a merger, but their company name doesn't include any part of the old company name (a subsidiary may); although I admit though I can't think of any off hand.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah found one merger example suggests and World Fuel Services and seem to confirm that World Fuel Services Corporation uses the symbol INT, from one of the merger partners, International Recovery. BTW, it's easily possible this example is even more extreme than Google/Alphabet. I'm not sure if World Fuel Services still uses the International Recovery name any where any more. (If they do, I'm sure there are some cases where the name isn't used.)

Incidently, I should mention I'm sure there are also examples like Google where a company renamed itself after internal restructuring (rather than external mergers or splits) but kept the old ticker symbol in at least one market despite their new company name not having any part of what the ticker symbol originates from. And again, I'm also sure there are cases where the old name wasn't actually used for any products or divisions.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

See if NASDAQ's Symbol Change History helps you answer your question. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "unrelated" (after all, Alphabet will still be the holding corporation for Google), but there are some fun ones. First Majestic Silver is AG (like the chemical symbol for silver), AngloGold Ashanti is AU, and CHC Group (a helicopter manufacturer) have HELI. It also seems to be done for banks that have large numbers of branches. Something called Lehman ABS Corporation has a number of unrelated ticker symbols (CVB, JBJ, JBK, JZJ, XVG) for reasons that aren't clear to me, and similarly, Nuveen Investments uses what seem to be random letter combinations beginning with J for their different branches (JPW is Nuveen Flexible Investment Inc, JTP is Nuveen Quality Preferred, etc). Smurrayinchester 07:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

U.S. Steel is definitely X, I checked. It's the company that's so important that replace the "US Steel" on its logo with "Steelers" and that's the Pittsburgh Steelers logo (the most US football championships of any team). When they tried to stop the Great Depression from happening the first stock they semi-ceremoniously propped up was U.S. Steel. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Cleopatra's Nose

Hi, so I've been looking at the Cleopatra's nose problem by Pascall, but I can't actually find why the world would have changed if Cleopatra's nose had been shorter? Uhlan 04:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Desires decide destiny. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• The straightforward interpretation is that, if her nose (perhaps her most striking feature) had been shorter, Mark Antony might not have fallen in love with her, and therefore wouldn't have started the Final War of the Roman Republic that created the Caesars and the Roman Empire. An alternative explanation is given here, which refers to physiognomy (the belief that the shape of your face determines your personality): if Cleopatra had had a shorter nose, she would have been a less bold leader and therefore the Roman civil war might never have happened. Either way, it's the equivalent of what would now be called the butterfly effect - a tiny change causes ripples that affect history in large, unforeseen ways. Smurrayinchester 07:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting. It's like asking, what if Hitler had been during his artistic youth, a talented, successful painter? Would another equivalent-dictator have taken his place and influence, and lead Europe and the world to the same direction? The question is, isn't it the whole situation and context that calls for the next Hitler or the next Cleopatra anyway? Isn't it so that if Cleopatra's nose had been different, then it would have been something else that would have served as a pretext to the same following of the global situation and context? Akseli9 (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• See Great Man theory. You're asking a significant philosophy-of-history question, and people on opposite sides of the not-so-active-anymore debate will produce opposite answers. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Corruption of Minors

A discussion on Misplaced Pages lead me to this law in Pennsylvania regarding "corruption of minors". I won't ask anyone to bore themselves reading it, but it basically covers a whole host of things you can't do with minors, like help them break the law or give them guns. What is strange to me though, is this part: "whoever...by any act corrupts or tends to corrupt the morals of any minor...commits a misdemeanor of the first degree." Multiple Pennsylvania cases have upheld this aspect of the law, and this just strikes me as bizarrely unconstitutionally vague. Now, I'm not asking for any debate regarding this law, but I'm curious as to the history of the wording in this law, "corrupts the morals". Is this an artifact of a time when that phrase had an understood meaning? I'm not sure if it's simply referring to sex, since Pennsylvania has an entire separate statute for statutory rape, though perhaps this law predates that one. I don't know, I'm just curious if "corrupts the morals" ever meant something beyond, "whatever the state decides it means at any given moment." Someguy1221 (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you figure it's unconstitutional? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Void for vagueness is the relevant article. Sjö (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If a given law has never been successfully challenged in court, it remains effectively constitutional. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

And vague definitions don't only give the state wiggle room, they also give it to the defendant. It's up to both to try to convince the trial judge and jury of their interpretation. Then sometimes the court of appeal. Then the Supreme. The more it happens, the more precedent is set for both sides to pick and choose from, and the "heinous" and "depraved" cycle contines. If law were always clear and simple, we wouldn't need lawyers. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:30, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

(ec)In our article Minor (law) the first prevalent themes are Gambling and Alcohol. The link between "Alcohol" and "Corruption" seems quite obvious. With "vagueness" too, for one who has ever experimented the effects of the abuse the day after. Of course, nowadays sociology, psychology, and neurosciences give us a better, wider, much more detailed perspective of the various possible cases arising of all the different possible situations, and this could be used for helping lawmakers straighten the picture even more, note however the use of the term "consternation" by ECOSOC in Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The answer even then was indeed "broader", not "narrower". --Askedonty (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Someguy1221, run a CTRL+F search for "In deciding what conduct" in the opinion of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in the case of Commonwealth v. Decker. Also consult the concurring opinion in another Superior Court case, which quotes a Supreme Court's ruling on the scope of the provision, especially as it relates to a previous version of the text. You may finally be interested in these comments from a Centre County legal defence firm; given their location, they focus more than others on this provision's relationship to alcohol-related offences. I was digging into this topic myself some months ago, and as far as I can tell, this is the closest Pennsylvania gets to a provision that specifically prohibits adults from helping minors commit crimes; I couldn't find anything in the Pennsylvania Statutes (whether through its search feature or through Google searches on related topics) that's comparable to the Ohio concept of contributing to the delinquency of a child. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Blackest country on earth?

Is South Sudan the blackest country on earth, in terms of skin color? Is Iceland the whitest country in terms of skin colour? --Hiyahiyaford (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the colour scheme used in the atlas you're looking at. That's the only place where the "colour of a country" has any real meaning. -- Jack of Oz 09:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

In terms of skin color rather than atlas ink, do you give more weight to blacker blacks and whiter whites, or do you just want to divvy everyone up into two equal piles? Do albino negroids count as black or white? What about mongoloids? And are you talking sheer numbers or percentage of population? In any case, a Google for "country with largest black population" seems to have Nigeria, Brazil and the United States as the consensus top. "Country with largest white population" seems to be the the United States, Russia and the Isle of Man. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Isle of Man??? Akseli9 (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Percentage-wise. Maybe. The sources I glanced over were mostly forum types. Not the most reliable. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:53, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Von Luschan's chromatic scale has a map of skin colors that might give you a general idea. I don't know how accurate it is, though. Sjö (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if it was spot-on, the world has certainly changed since "pre-1940". But yeah, still a good find for a general idea. The lion's share of that change (assuming "native population" meant then what I think it does now) was in Jack's cartographical colours. The UN can't control the sun and clouds (allegedly). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:02, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Come on guys, don't be such. OP just meant the country where you see the most only Black people everywhere you go, and the country where you see the most only White people everywhere you go. Now if it is a bad or incorrect of forbidden or whatever question for any reason, just state it and mask it if needed. Akseli9 (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a fine question, just a bit ambiguous. Sudanese blacks are generally quite black, while Nigerians are browner, overall. If you put a million lighter blacks in some magical melanin blender, and ten thousand darker blacks in another, you'll get a darker concoction from the one with fewer "black people". InedibleHulk (talk) 10:53, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

According to Demographics of Haiti, 95% black, and the other 5% also contains mulattos. Demographics of Iceland says 93% Icelandic, which certainly suggests white, and 7% "other", possibly also suggesting white. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:10, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

"Mulatto" is such a vague, location-dependent term that statistics using it seem virtually valueless; for our purposes something like the Fitzpatrick scale or Von Luschan's chromatic scale seem more likely to be useful. Wnt (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the CIA for you. It likes intelligence, but mystery, too. Misplaced Pages believes in Mulatto Haitians. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Here are some pictures of the (alleged) blackest people on Earth. These are more nations than states, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:16, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

As far as this world goes, "The Ugandan Giant" was also billed from "Deepest, Darkest Africa", and "The Celtic Warrior" has also been fairly accurately described as "The Human Jar of Mayonnaise". Seriously though, Uganda is a top contender, and Ireland might beat Iceland, depending on whether the "others" are like the Others. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:11, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

There is a simple map in the skin color article - I think from the description page it covers native residents from pre-1940, so it may be out of date for other purposes. To my eyes it looks like most of the darkest skin color is actually a little north of the Equator, in the more arid terrain at the fringe of the Sahara where people are more steadily exposed to sunlight. Wnt (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What was that book? Dark comedy involving the Rorschach Test

I recall once reading the first chapter of a novel-- or possibly the first story in a collection of short stories-- which centers around a character taking the Rorschach test. Their responses to each blot were listed, and all of them involved something sexual and often bizarre or paranoid content such as UFOs. The overall tone was that of black comedy. Anyone know what I'm talking about? 75.4.17.61 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If pre-1976, perhaps cited in book, The Rorschach test exemplified in classics of drama and fiction. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Flowers for Algernon? (and I still think Hermann Rorschach should be played by Brad Pitt, sooner rather than later) ---Sluzzelin talk 20:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely. And I always thought that Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky should have been played by Donald Sutherland. Trouble is, DS is now 80, while PIT (not Brad) died at age 53. -- Jack of Oz 21:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Then have Kiefer do it. Explore PIT's secret life as a counterterrorism agent. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

William Shatner takes a Rorschach test, at about the 2 minute mark: ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Artist

On this drawing Sotheby's tentatively reads the artist's signature in the lower right corner as H. Helley. Google doesn't know him, so I also checked for H. Helly and H. Hilly, but nothing comes out. Any idea or is it some forgotten artist? Brandmeister 20:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Conceivably Kelly? —Tamfang (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Promethean Society

Reading our article Geoffrey Trease, I noticed a mention of the Promethean Society, of which Hugh Gordon Porteus and Desmond Hawkins were also members. I would be interested to know more about the society. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I found The Promethean movement website which seems to be the same thing. Alansplodge (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Um, thanks but that looks nothing like it! I found a little in Andy Croft's biography of Randall Swingler - "They took their social criticism from Shaw, Lawrence, Huxley and A. S. Neill...". DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, the Promethean Society is not the Prometheus Society.—Wavelength (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

According to this book (Rewriting the Thirties, Keith Williams and Steven Matthews (eds), Routledge, 2014), the Promethean Society was "founded in 1931 as a result of an extraordinary correspondence about 'The Revolt of Youth' in the magazine Everyman", and "took their social criticism from Shaw, Lawrence and Huxley, their politics from Lenin, Trotsky and Ghandi". Editions of Twentieth Century (no "The", according to most sources) are available from various antiquarian booksellers. The modern Prometheans appear to be an Objectivist alternative to Freemasonry - it takes all sorts... Tevildo (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

August 12

33, Chambers Street, Boston, Massachusetts

Where today is the spot that had this address in 1883? See the final two text pages of this book for the context; it was a church "on Chambers street, between Green and Cambridge streets". I can't find Chambers or Green on Google Maps, and Cambridge today is just a short connector between City Hall and the bridge to Cambridge. Or what about "Ferdinand and Isabella Streets", mentioned in the next-to-last entry of the book? Isabella today is just a few hundred feet long, and Ferdinand doesn't appear to exist. I can't check Sanborns for this period. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What's the name of the specific church? I'll see if I can find it in the city directories at ancestry.com (a pay site). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The 1883 directory lays it out like this, including indentions as shown. I'm not very familiar with Boston streets, but I hope this will make some sense to you:

Chamber, from 26 City Sq. to Water, Ward 5.

Chambers, from 68 Cambridge to 24 Spring, Ward 8.
2 1 Cambridge
14 Cotting Place

Ch. Chambers-St. Church

26 Chambers-St. Court
54 Eaton

55 Green

66 McLean
Ch. Catholic Church
0 Allen

79 Winslow Place

98 Poplar

91 Marston Place

123 Hammond Av.

155 Ashland

178 177 Spring

Chambers-St. Court, from 26 Chambers, Ward 8.

←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Second Reformed Presbyterian, as noted in the source. But the problem is that the street doesn't even exist anymore, at least under its 1883 name. Does the city directory have a map showing the location? I didn't bother looking for city directories, since the ones I've used are text-only and don't include maps. Nyttend (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No map in the city directory that I can see, but File:1883 Walker map Boston.png looks like it has it, or part of it. The part of Chambers south of Cambridge was and is called Joy Street, and it still exists. Several of the streets no longer exist, having been swallowed by development of a shopping center, etc. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. Looks like the Catholic Church mentioned in the directory is St. Joseph Catholic Church, and according to their website, the neighborhood was clear-cut for one of the many highly destructive mid-century urban renewal projects, perhaps worse than the mess that produced Allegheny Center in Pittsburgh. Meanwhile, the source for your image also showed me that Isabella's in the same place, Ferdinand having been renamed to Arlington some time after the Swedish Methodist Church bought the church that I was asking about there. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Baron Genet, French minister

Who was Baron Genet, and what was his official diplomatic position? I can't figure out who the guy was; a Google search for these terms returns little except for the US National Archives and derivative sites. He doesn't appear to have been the French ambassador to the US; the 1860-1864 ambassador, Henri Mercier, doesn't appear to have been Baron Genet (the only Genet in this source was someone who came in 1793), and Mercier's successor was a marquis whose appearance was radically different when he met Mathew Brady. Nyttend (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

An other Ambassador to the United States whose name begins with "Ge" was the Prussian Ambassador Friedrich Karl Joseph Freiherr von Gerolt. Someone at USNA will have a very old story to tell, if they ever kept traces of their archivists. --Askedonty (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's an image of Mercier. Does it look like the same man? 184.147.128.46 (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I suspect an archiving error. The date is likely wrong (this photo, from the same set and definitely from 1871 since it was taken at the Treaty of Washington, is also marked "circa 1860 to circa 1865" in NARA). No-one in the French government at that time had the name "Genet". Interestingly, there is a very similar image from the same collection of "Baron Gederer, Mexican Minister", who also doesn't seem to exist. On the other hand, Chevalier Marcello Cerrutti, Italian Minister did exist, as did Alexandros Rizos Rangavis (pictured here). All of these were taken with the same props, and interestingly, Cerruti and Rangabe were only in Washington together briefly (Cerruti arrived in August 1867, while Rizos Rangavis left the same year). This leads me to suspect that whoever Genet and Gederer really are, they were in Washington DC some time at the end of 1867. One more detail that may be helpful - near the top of the image, there is some faint handwriting (backwards, because the image is flipped). To me, it looks like "Barron Desolt", but I'm no expert at reading the handwriting of the era. Smurrayinchester 15:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I must admit, the initial looks also like a 'D' to me. Regarding "Baron Gederer", the initial this time looks rather like a L to me. Could it be perhaps, Carlos Barrón Letechipía ? Governor of Aguascalientes 1871-72. Regarding the date of 1867, I would not be so certain. Mercier was photographed by Brady in 1862 Henri Mercier and the American Civil War, by David Carroll .--Askedonty (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic detective work. Library of Congress goes with "Baron Gerolt" who google has much on: . Possibly a German ambassador, not French? 184.147.128.46 (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And on Misplaced Pages: Friedrich von Gerolt. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, just realized image is not the same. It must be from the set. Odd that yours should have a name written on it that looks so much like this man's name, though. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I think they're the same person, from the same session. If you look closely at the photos, they have the same exact same flyaway tufts of hair and lumpy tie knot - even the same undone trouser fly. The folds in the curtain are identical too. Good job! Smurrayinchester 17:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Found the "Mexican" too - he's Baron Charles Lederer (or, in his non-Anglicised form, Carl Ramon Soter von Lederer), ambassador from Austria (see here)! My guess on the year seems reasonably accurate - von Gerolt was in Washington for ages, but von Lederer seems to have arrived at the end of 1867/start of 1868. Bizarre the German and Austrian ambassadors should be mixed up with the French and Mexican ones. Smurrayinchester 17:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Not that much in fact; see: Maximilian I of Mexico. Independantly from it or not, Von Gerolt had been in Mexico since the 1840: --Askedonty (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Joyce Bennett OBE, Anglican priest, Hong Kong

I am trying to find a reliable date for Joyce Bennett's OBE. I have seen I given variously as 1971, 1978, and 1979. DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Found the Gazette notice, 1978. DuncanHill (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Why hasn't the U.S. enacted an oil import tariff?

By all accounts, substantial progress toward United States energy independence has come to a screeching halt as OPEC, and in particular Saudi Arabia, floods the market with cheap oil. Some say it won't work but I don't know how reliable that claim is. There are some negative impacts in the U.S. on producers, and the intent seems to be that in the long run the OPEC countries will end up with more money from the U.S. rather than less, due to reduced production and similar effects on renewable energy, etc.

So why hasn't the U.S. embraced a heavy tariff on imported oil, both as a revenue source and as a protectionist measure? Whatever people think about free trade, OPEC certainly is not that, so I'm sort of stumped as to why they haven't. There was a proposal along this line in 1982, when domestic production was not nearly as viable of an option. Is there any similar thought out there now, aside from a few bloggers? Wnt (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Americans drive way more than most people; Americans seem to dislike taxes or anything resembling taxes; Americans seem to be pro-free trade when it's to their advantage; and there are hundreds of wise ideas never addressed by governments worldwide. 76.70.6.43 (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Try "international treaties and compacts." Collect (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Notably Saudi Arabia joined the WTO in 2005 . I believe some other OPEC members are part of the WTO as well. Nil Einne (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If the US Congress decided to impose a tariff, with the expectation of gas prices shooting up again, there would be hell to pay at the next elections. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that while OPEC may be a cartel, their current practices are actually less cartel like. In the sense that they're continuing to keep (or even raise in some cases) high production with little real cooperation. Production that's profitable for most members, even if not necessarily at the level they need to balance their budget. If they were conspiring to raise prices by limiting production, that would be the more anti free trade activity. For similar reasons, it seems difficult to call the current activities Dumping (pricing policy). Nil Einne (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The U.S. fossil fuel industry has exploded in the past decade with the rise of hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). The decline of oil prices is a response to this glut of new supply. Notably, the U.S. has a significant supply of natural gas (Obama has bragged that the U.S. is "the Saudi Arabia of natural gas"), which can substitute for petroleum in many applications. U.S. tariffs would likely be responded to by other countries slapping tariffs on U.S. oil and gas. This whole retaliatory cycle of tariffs responding to tariffs is one of the central arguments free trade proponents often cite. I don't know the exact details, but as mentioned above, many international trade organizations such as the WTO place significant restrictions on the trade measures their members can impose, so I wouldn't be surprised if this affected what the U.S. could do. A protectionist trade regime on fossil fuels would significantly impact overall global trade and travel, which mostly runs on fossil fuels. Would this result in heavy tariffs being leveled on ships and planes incoming to the U.S. that fueled up in another country? In any case, messing around with the structure of the fossil fuel trade is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They're going to run out eventually no matter what, and we're wrecking our environment by burning them. A better rhetorical question to analyze is, "Why are people so resistant to a national/global strategy towards sustainable energy?" --108.38.204.15 (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty unequal treaty if the WTO would prohibit tariffs by the U.S. but not the OPEC cartel. And what about Dumping (pricing policy) claims and countervailing duties? As for tariffs on U.S. oil and gas, these only matter if the U.S. is a net exporter, which it can't be until Saudi Arabia turns off the taps and jacks up the prices again... Wnt (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The US has been held hostage by oil interests for quite a few years now. It's payback time. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Payback to who and how? Above you say that import tariffs are unfeasible. If the US is "held hostage", it's the citizens of the USA, and the oil and automobile lobbies that are responsible. Reap what you sow and all that. Maybe you are asking for payback against the influence of the oil industry in American politics, by the citizens? If so I'm all in agreement :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The US oil industry sucked much of the life out of the rest of the US economy over the last 15 years or more. Now that the prices have dropped, everyone in the US is happy about it except the US oil industry, who are now the ones "suffering". Hence, payback. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you're bringing the OPEC cartel in to it. What is relevant is individual member states, not OPEC. Iran for example is not a full member of the WTO, see Iran and the World Trade Organization , nor is Iraq although both are trying to become so, so may already have requirements in place. Nigeria , Venezuela , the United Arab Emirates , and Saudi Arabia are full members of the WTO.

The WTO is complicated, so I don't claim to know if the US could impose import tariffs on oil for countries who are part of the WTO. I'm fairly sure it will depend significantly on the reasons etc for such tariffs, as well as any agreements or promises the US has made with respect to tariffs.

Notably, I'm fairly sure one of the key aspects of the WTO (and the predecessor GATT), is to bind and reduce tariffs , so new tariffs are likely to come under far more scrutiny than existing ones. And as with many such agreements, there's generally a difference between developing and developed countries (Nigeria at least would be the former). See for example and particularly for more info on tariffs in the WTO.

Anyway, the obvious question is what import tariffs when to other countries are you even referring to? The UAE for example already has very few tariffs .

It perhaps worth noting that ultimately the main thing that will happen if the uses does violate their agreements is someone will complain to the WTO and if they win the dispute, the US will be ordered to fix this, but they may simply ignore such rulings and carry on, as they've done before . The countries will be given permission to take retaliatory action when the US doesn't properly response. (Which ultimately without any agreements, they could do anyway if they wanted to. The WTO just gives more justification, a forum to attempt to resolve such disputes without that happening, and the possibility that the initial tariffs could be seen as acceptable for some reason.)

Meanwhile, the US government who tried this will likely be voted out because they pissed everyone off by raising petrol prices (as BB more or less mentioned). Remember also we aren't simply talking about WTO members who are part of OPEC, but anyone who produces what your tariffs cover probably including places like Canada, UK and Norway.

There's a reason why the US is far more willing to subsidise random crap, than impose tariffs, and it isn't because these countries have some super power over the US, but simply because many Americans are fine with the idea of protecting local industry until it actually means higher prices. (Unfortunately they also aren't willing to pay the taxes for all these corporate subsidies.)

And it's not like the US hasn't complained about WTO members who also happen to be OPEC members, I found at least one albeit unrelated to tariffs and it doesn't look like anything came from it.

BTW, somewhat akin to SemanticMantis and other people's points, it's not really clear how much an import tariff will actually change stuff other than making things more expensive for Americans. In particular, a tariff if 30% will often be consider a high tariff for many other goods and services, but how much is it actually going to help US producers even in the best case?

Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to link to which is about Saudi Arabia joining the WTO and what it entailed. A bilateral agreement with the US was actually the final stumbling block to Saudi Arabia joining the WTO. I also probably should link which is about the WTO and natural resources including some comments about oil (although these may not be so applicable to the current case, I think you'll find they are more applicable than you think for the reasons I mentioned earlier). Nil Einne (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, prices would most likely go up, but in some value systems, that might be considered a good thing, e.g. pushing retail price closer to the true cost in terms of environmental damage (sort of like carbon price). I think it's reasonable to think that such a tariff might result in less oil usage, and create more demand for renewable energy. I can't speak for Wnt the angle that came to my mind, and these all also relevant to the energy independence mentioned in the OP. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Trying to force the market to do certain things it doesn't want to do sounds Communistic. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Borderline WP:CRYSTAL. For refs, here's a blog post on exactly this topic , Here's another piece from the CS Monitor with a similar analysis . But straight from the horses mouth, here is what the Congressional budget office has to say about oil import tariffs (note it is from 1982). SemanticMantis (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Your last link seems to be what Wnt linked to above Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops, thanks, sorry. We also might wonder why there isn't (or at least I can't find) a similar report that's under 10 years old... Here's a 1991 scholarly article "OPEC and the US oil tariff", which also seems to have some nice analysis. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding crystal ball, the core question should be, "Who would be asking for such a tariff?" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

August 13

What is this family relationship called?

Let's say that we have a husband and a wife. The parents of the husband are the parents-in-law (father-in-law and mother-in-law) of the wife. Conversely, the parents of the wife are the parents-in-law (father-in-law and mother-in-law) of the husband. My question: What is the relationship called that exists between the two sets of in-laws? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Per they would be "inlaws." This is to distinguish relatives by marriage from those who have some genetic relationship with you by virtue of common ancestors. Ancestry.com, however, would call the father-in-law of my daughter "father-in-law of daughter." rather than "your in-law." Edison (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

But I believe that the term "in-law" is merely a suffix of sorts. So, you need a word in front of it like, for example, sister-in-law or father-in-law. So, back to my original question (and your reply): if they are "in-laws", then they are what-in-law? How would the blank be filled in here: (something)-in-law? Again, I believe that "in-law" needs some word to precede it. No? As an example: if we talk about a "sister-in-law", that means "she is your sister not by blood but by marriage"; hence, she is a relative by law (because the law says so). So, I don't believe that the phrase "in-law" can stand alone, without some preceding relationship (like, "sister") recognized "by law". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This exact question has been raised on the Ref Desks at least twice a year over the past 11 years since I've been around. The answer is always the same: there is no generally accepted term for this relationship, in English. That might seem odd, but every one complains about this glaring omission in our beloved language, while doing absolutely nothing to correct it. If there is such a term in other languages, and you have to translate into English a text containing this term, you have to come up with something that suits the translation. Sometimes that might be "in-laws", other times it might have to be "my daughter's parents-in-law" or "my son-in-law's parents". -- Jack of Oz 06:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no relationship. In the Eskimo kinship which is used in Europe, the nuclear family is emphasised. There is no term in English because they are not relatives.
Sleigh (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm slightly more inclined to agree with "they are not relatives" than with "there is no relationship". Of course there is a relationship. In my case, my parents and my wife's parents became close friends. But they were clearly more than just friends. They had grandchildren, and now a great-grandchild, in common, with more generations to ensue, I hope. That is a lot closer, in my eyes, than two unrelated people who meet and become friends. As for "they are not relatives", I'd argue they're indirectly related by blood and marriage. That's before any kids come along; after that, the marriage bit is redundant because they're now inseparably, if indirectly, related by blood. If by "there is no relationship" you meant "there is no relationship that has a name in the English language", I could concur. But if you meant "there is no relationship whatsoever", well, clearly that claim falls to the ground. -- Jack of Oz 09:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(Bit-of-an-aside warning) In German there is (theoretically) the word "Gegenschwiegereltern" (something like "counter-parents-in-law") for the parents-in-law of one's own child. Similarly, there is "Schwippschwager"/"Schwippschwägerin" for one's co-brother-in-law/co-sister-in-law. I have to admit though, that both terms, particularly "Gegenschwiegereltern" are not used very frequently, and normally the relationship is explained as "our daughter's parents-in-law" or even "the parents of my daughter's husband" etc. in German too. See, for example, this discussion at leo.org. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of crystal ball gazing, I'm going to predict that Gegenschwiegereltern is not a term that's going to take the Anglosphere by storm. A radical assumption, to be sure, but one I'm willing to lay money on. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there isn't a specific term yet. I propose the one pair can refer to the other as "In law in-laws", or "In-law in-laws", "In-law-in-laws", depending on how they feel about hyphenation and reduplication :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The most commonly used term is "in-laws" - as here. It may have originated as a suffix requiring a word in front of it, but language evolves, and the currently evolved correct term is "inlaws" (hyphenated or not). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec)"in-law" is given as a headword in Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (1983 ed) meaning "a relative by marriage". OED has "In recent colloquial or journalistic phraseology, in-law has been humorously used to designate any relative so connected. Hence in-lawry n. the position of an ‘in-law’. in-lawship n. the state of being an in-law." DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

On the "been humorously used to designate any relative so connected" tip, Eric Clapton and George Harrison were known to refer to each other as ex-husbands-in-law, having both been married to, and divorced from, Pattie Boyd. See for example. --Jayron32 21:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Good one. Then, I wonder how Milton Berle and Billy Rose referred to each other at various stages of their multiple relationships with Joyce Matthews. They both married her twice, and both divorced her twice, although both Berle's marriages preceded Rose's. Lots of other juicy stuff at List of people who remarried the same spouse. -- Jack of Oz 22:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

UK legal system

In the UK. Legal system, can a law that didn't exist at the time of the occurrence of whatever's being debated, be used in court if it exists at the time it's being debated in court. Likewise, can a law that no longer exists but existed at the time of whatever's being debated be used? 94.2.196.149 (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about an ex post facto law? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That only seems to really cover the first part. For the second part, I think it's a fair amount more complicated, particularly in unclear circumstances as outlined.

If the law was repealed and reenacted with amendments (i.e. replaced by an updated law, I think it's a little more complicated in the UK but see that article and ) and the historic offences are still offences under the current law, normally the offences will be prosecuted under the historic law (although if the new law has lower penalties, it may be under the new law). It can get complicated if the date is unknown and it could be under either law and the law is poorly written or planned statutory rules aren't made, see and Sexual Offences Act 2003#Transition from old to new law for one such case.

If the law was completely repealed and whatever it is is unlikely to be an offence under current law, while it's technically possible the repeal will still allow prosecutions of historic offences, this is fairly rare in most of the world including the UK AFAIK. (I couldn't unfortunately find a good sources referring to the situation in the UK.)

Note however that most repeals don't affect historic convictions so people may still suffer consequences from them . (Nominally I don't think there's even any guarantee people in prison for a repealed law will be released, but again I'm having trouble finding UK specific refs probably partially because it's rare that a law is fully repealed but there are people in prison for it. I believe in cases where this is a risk, a specific provision in the repeal normally provide for their release, even if the conviction stands.)

Nil Einne (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "debated". To reinterpret your question in a more concrete way: let's say an accused person, X, committed a crime on date A. He is brought to trial on date B. In this context, your question might be understood to mean: (a) can his lawyer cite a law that did not exist at time A, but was made later and applied at time B? and (b) can his lawyer cite a law that existed at time A, but was later repealed and no longer applied at time B?

The answer to both questions is "it depends". Parliament is sovereign and can make whatever laws it wishes (subject to some vague constitutional constraints and more concrete human rights obligations). In case (a), the new law might affect X's case directly (if it says it does), or it might not affect him. In the abstract, the latter is more likely as parliament is not supposed to make laws with retroactive effect, and it usually doesn't, but it sometimes does. In case (b), it also depends, but if a law is repealed it is most likely gone for good. So if X was charged under a law that has been repealed, then it is almost certain that X will not now be prosecuted under it.

However, in a more general case, you can almost always talk about a later law or an earlier law - even if it is not directly applicable, it might be useful as a comparison. There is nothing that stops the lawyer from raising it, if it is irrelevant the other side would probably say so and ask the court to disregard it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, ex post facto/retrospective criminal laws (or perhaps more accurately laws with retrospective criminal penalties) are strongly frowned upon in much of the developed world. Take a read of the article BB linked to.

Even in the UK, while parliamentary sovereignity may technically allow them, the UK would likely need to violate the Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights to do so. There is the case of the War Crimes Act 1991, but this only really affected the jurisdiction since the acts covered were likely violations of international law at the time (and article 7 specifically allows that). As the article mentions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also mostly restrict that and while we are know many countries can be fairly bad at actually following these, it's more difficult for a developed countries particularly in cases where it's difficult to try and make an alternative argument. See also Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali and the current view of the Australian AG .

Or to put it a different way, is it possible? Sure, as with anything which just requires people to agree, ignore or lose. After all even if you're in the situation like the US with a constitution that's very hard to amend you can amend it. In fact even if you have eternity clauses, you can always say "screw that" and make a new constitution without such clauses, fire or kill anyone who doesn't agree and hope you don't inspire a counter revolution.

Is it likely? In the developed world, only in extreme or borderline (of whether it's actually a retrospective penalty) cases.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, post facto / retrospective offences are frowned upon in any country that can credibly claim to have the rule of law, but it is not unknown. Provisions that might lead to incarceration would get lots of frown, but a small retrospective adjustment to the tax treatment of some category of money (for example) might not, and breach of the tax law could be criminal.

I should also note that we have focussed on criminal sanctions, but OP's question does not specify this. Laws that confer a benefit retrospectively are fairly common. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, despite the Australian AG's grandstanding, his party is well known for its retrospective migration laws. While not criminal laws, they impact people's lives in a fundamental way and many people would say are as unfair as retrospective criminal laws. See Ruddock v Vadarlis for example. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

World's 10 best newspapers

Here's a classic reference desk challenge! It's also squarely "Humanities" because it's about UNESCO!

China's People's Daily claims that in 1992 UNESCO ranked it as one of the world's most authoritative / trustworthy newspapers. A casual Google search shows no other newspaper claiming the same accolade - you would expect at least 9 other newspapers to make the same claim.

It might be that they are just making it up, but it seems more likely that they are exaggerating something - it might be that it was a ranking published by someone else and included in a UNESCO newsletter, or the ranking was actually "the world's most Communist newspapers".

Does anyone who have access to better materials than me find anything that might suggest where the claim comes from, or alternatively disprove the claim entirely - i.e. show that UNESCO never published such a list? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No such "list" can or should exist. I find "When Reporters without borders published their first ranking of countries according to their press freedom, “the US rank below Costa Rica and Italy score lower than Benin” (RSF, 2003). But – as Merrill points out – what might be counted as repression by some could be seen by others as “stability, religion and social order”, and could be valued higher than a free press (2004: 6)". Which does seem to conform with the PRC newspaper being best in the entire world with such criteria. http://www.rsf.fr/articles.php3?id_article=4116 is now a deadlink. Their lates "press freedom index" places the US at #49 - well below such luminous places as Costa Rica, Ghana, Uruguay, Belize, all of the Eastern Caribbean, Trinidad, Jamaica, and Burkina Faso, among other nations famed for a free press. Canada is #8 - but last I checked, the norms for the US and for Canada press sont egal. explains that it is the US which has "security paranoia". I daresay some would find differing mileage. The "People's Daily" seems to claim 3 million circulation- which would put it "up there" in circulation, but whether this translates in any way to respected or authoritative (its claim) is moot. UNESCO does have a "guidebook" from 2013 - defining what statistics are, and giving none. Three or four pounds of NaCl would help on such a claim. Collect (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how (or if) they cover the recent explosion. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Covered in English online site for sure, and apparently quite accurately. shows how they regard a CNN reporter at that site, however, who blames everything on security forces etc. Collect (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

CNN: The most trusted name in news, according to the most trusted name in news. Can't get a higher accolade than that, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

CNN uses a 2002 Pew survey for that claim (apparently not a trademark per search). . And a TV Guide blurb from 2003. The Washington Post , itself a contender for one of the top (N) newspapers in the US: "Fox News Channel beats out CNN for America's most trusted cable or broadcast news coverage, and MSNBC lags far behind, even among Democrats, according to new polling done by Quinnipiac University. The poll found 29 percent of people say they trust Fox News' coverage the most, followed by 22 percent for CNN and 10 percent for NBC News and CBS News." Collect (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The story neglects to say 71% of respondents say they trust their local news "somewhat" or "a great deal". From that angle, "they all take a back seat to your local news". Or that this is according to 0.0004% of the US population. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

Polls: The least trusted word in news, according to polls. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

According to that poll, American 18-29 year olds trust scientists most. According to Cracked.com today, there are six reasons to not trust science. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

Here's CNN taking Fox News' word that Donald Trump is popular. As he remained next month, according to NBC. But CNN says women might not love him, according to CBS News. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

Here, Fox News says CNN incited violence with their lies in Venezuela. NBC and CBS don't mention that, but NBC cites a CNN poll calling Trump popular. And here, CNN calls FNC a "master negotiator" and "the Republican party's #1 network". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

If there is an impact factor (IF) for newspapers, then that would be useful for this discussion.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried Googling "according to CNN" and "according to Fox News" to get a Google hit count (not that those are trustworthy). Fun Fact: That's not a Googleable phrase! Even in quotes, just gets results from those outlets, like a site search. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

Or no, it sort of works. But not for the first page of results, and sketchy afterwards. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

@OP: The claim is not to be disproven; the complete ( classical ) statement follows: "in 1992, UNESCO ranked the People’s Daily as one of the world’s top 10 newspapers. Editorials published in the People’s Daily are routinely and carefully studied by foreign observers as authoritative statements of government policy". Some other details in this neurope.eu article ( if standing one short shot of PCC aesthetics.. ) --Askedonty (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is according to an anonymous article from the 582nd best online newspaper. Not that there's anything wrong with that. According to the same ranker, People's Daily is #3. Though #2 is The Daily Mail, so it's clearly not talking about journalistic quality. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

And those rankings aren't close to these ones. So never trust anything on the Internet. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I even wrote "classic". The precise sentence I know word for word, this dates more than 15 years back, so where I'm concerned target our state-owned media here round rather than the Internet. --Askedonty (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The "classical" and "standing one short shot" bit flew over my head, sorry. State-owned media gets part of the blame, but the Internet is a bullshit river with many tributaries. Always easier to spot a lie than to find the liar at the source. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if they took a para similar to this from UNESCO in 2013 (example only) "During 2012, 32 editorials by the Director-General were published in many of the world’s most influential and widely-read newspapers. Subjects ranged from the complex issue of protecting cultural heritage in conflict, published in The New York Times (USA), Le Figaro (France) and Dar Al Hayat (Saudi Arabia) to the urgent need to provide skills for young people, published in the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong China) for the launch of the EFA Global Monitoring report, or education for sustainable development, published in O Globo (Brazil) and Mainaichi (Japan) for the Rio +20 Conference."

It doesn't take much spin to then write that "the NYT, Le Figaro etc were named some of the most influential newspapers in the world in 2012 by UNESCO". Nanonic (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And as a quick aside, I chose to google for 'influential' as the newspaper states on its english language site that "People's Daily is the most influential and authoritative newspaper in China. According to UNESCO, it takes its place among the world top 10." Nanonic (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No results found for site:unesco.org +newspapers +"people's daily", Your search - site:news.google.com/newspapers +"1992" +unesco +newpapers - did not match any documents, Your search - unesco newspapers Jan 1, 1992 to Dec 31, 1992 - did not match any documents. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I think that's about as far as we will get towards disproving the statement. I like Nanonic's theory of where they might have spun it from. It would be nice if someone would publish an article about how dodgy the claim is -- in the absence of that I guess there is nothing more we can do in article space to caveat the claim. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

49th State

Why were Hawaii and Alaska both admitted in the same year 1959 as states? Basically what was special about this year in particular given how old statehood movements were in these states prior and why both states were admitted in the same year? Also Hawaii always described itself from 1912 to 1959 as the potential 49th state of the United States (you even have outdated books that reflect that belief) never anticipating that Alaska would admitted a few months before it. Was this the same in Alaska? Did its residents considered themselves as potentially the 49th state before statehood or even if these current states ever considered that they would have beaten Arizona or New Mexico in the race to statehood before 1912. I remember how early proponents of Hawaiian statehood wanted the territory to be admitted as a county of California. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

There's some background at Alaska Statehood Act; it seems that many Alaskans opposed statehood, especially business leaders, who recognized that statehood would bring with it some additional burdens in terms of regulation and taxation. The first actual bill for Alaskan statehood came before Congress in 1916, but it died due mostly to there being little support among Alaskans themselves towards becoming a state. So, while it seems Hawaiians wanted statehood, and thus saw themselves as the potential 49th state, many Alaskans, for decades, opposed statehood, and thus didn't see themselves as such. Perhaps ironic that it worked out the other way around. There's also information in there to indicate that Alaskan and Hawaiian statehood were directly linked. It was believed that the expectedly Republican Hawaii would be balanced by an expectedly Democratic Alaska (note, that this is based on the 1950s political leanings of the parties, which in some ways is close to the exact opposite of today). This reflects the statehood process that also propagated throughout the first half of the 19th century, whereby free states and slave states were expected to be admitted side-by-side to avoid upsetting Congressional balance (see Missouri Compromise for example) --Jayron32 21:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Flag questions related to above

With there being roughly eight months between Alaska and Hawaii becoming states I have wondered if that is the shortest time between single stars (I know North and South Dakota became states on the same day) being added to the US flag. Also is there any info as to whether 49 star US flags made during those months are considered rare or collectable items. MarnetteD|Talk 21:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

New stars always appeared on July 4, according to "historical progression of designs" in our article on the US flag, so the shortest time between stars being added (apart from 0) is one year, of which there are nine examples there. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, so now we have to take leap years into account. That leaves us with six flags that lasted 365 days (the 49-star flag (without Hawaii) is among the three one-year flags that lasted 366 days). ---Sluzzelin talk 21:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Sluzzelin. Taking the time to do the extra math for leap years shows an attention to detail that is much appreciated. I can remember classes (though they are a looong time ago now) about how states entered the union but I don't think any of them mentioned July 4 as the day that stars were added to the flag. Very interesting stuff. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 22:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

All flag designs from the past are still legal flags - even the one in Baltimore which has 15 starts and 15 stripes. 49 star flags are not "rare". Collect (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And that takes care of my other question. Thank you Collect. MarnetteD|Talk 22:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am the opposite of an expert, but searching for the value of 49-star flags yielded the same result (common, produced in large amounts, though possibly of value if made by the US Navy). Regarding non-flag shortitude, I'm assuming you (Marnette) also saw the link to List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union. (Anyway, I kinda like this flag, though of course it raises questions regarding the identity of the big fat central star)! ---Sluzzelin talk 22:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The stars are all really the same size - this was an early attempt at a 3-D flag, with the centre star being closest to the viewer. Google will have patent problems <g>. Collect (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

And the study of flags is "vexillology". Collect (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ealing cake

What is Ealing cake? this was taken to the antarctic by Shackleton in 1907. I have asked the author of Shakletons whisky Neville Peat but he has not a clue.95.170.17.212 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be any cake produced in Ealing, West London. I can't find any independent, reliable source that mentions a connection between something called Ealing cake and Shackleton. General Ization 15:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the book mentioned by the OP (Shackleton's Whisky, Neville Peat, Random House, 2013), which has a facsimile of Shackleton's menu on page 148. However, I've not been able to find any other mention of what "Ealing cake" might be - perhaps a euphemism for a less festive foodstuff? Tevildo (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Where are the flags?

Hello Misplaced Pages. I am wondering if you have a complete list of all the flag icons, you know the little flags you use in lists and stuff? I was wondering if you had a page which had all the icons for countries/states/cities etc... Thanks!

Jovanteythomas (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at Category:All country data templates which shows most of the flags used and the shortcut codes. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk