Revision as of 00:30, 14 August 2014

• 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

Elizabeth Sinclair

Can anybody help me find some genealogical information on the three sons of Elizabeth Sinclair? I am having troubke since Elizabeth Sinclair is a pretty common name.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like none of them had children. George died at sea with his father in 1846; James was "an invalid" and apparently died unmarried and childless; Francis Sinclair (1833–1916) married twice but seems to have had no children. More on Francis Sinclair Jr. here.--Cam (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

When was James born and when did he die? And when was George born?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

And here's the family tree, although it omits the sons, only listing the daughters: Niihau#Sinclair-Robinson_family_tree. Presumably they are omitted due to their lack of issue. StuRat (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It's on her article too. That's why I asked about the sons.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I found dates for George (1820–1846) and James (1825–1873) on ancestry.com, perhaps not a reliable source in the Wikipedian sense.--Cam (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yellow River

Was the Yellow River really a tributary of the Yangtze River in the 13th and 14th century?

According to Yellow_River#Medieval_times, for a while it drained into a lake, which drained into the Yangtze. But the claim is flagged . Seems plausible enough to me, especially considering our article references several other documented changes in course. It seems to have been a rather dynamic river. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

August 9

Sikh boy's head bump

Now and then I see boys, who I think are of Sikh families, wearing a light head-covering tied so as to bunch some of the hair, in a way that reminds me of the bump sometimes portrayed on the Buddha's head. What's that about? —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be called a Patka. (Looks like a scoop of ice cream on the second kid.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

English writer, "shown in his dotage for a fee"

Reading The Happy Return by C. S. Forester, one of the references escaped me. Hornblower is invited by a Spaniard to view a shackled and raving madman. Hornblower, a sensitive soul, is repulsed, but reflects that "One of the greatest writers of the English language, and a dignitary of the Church to boot, had once been shown in his dotage for a fee". Who was this unhappy man? DuncanHill (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite know why, as he was hardly a "dignitary of the Church", but I could not help but think of John Bunyan. I can't confirm he was the writer in question, though. Btw, you're not the first person to have asked this question: this guy's apparently been waiting 7 years for an answer. -- Jack of Oz 08:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think Bunyan had much of a dotage - but I dare say he was exhibited while in prison. Certainly not a dignitary of the church though (still less of the Church with a capital C), and not the sort of thing either Hornblower or Forester would have erred about. Jonathan Swift (suggested in the thread you linked to) had already struck me as possible - he definitely had a dotage, and was a dignitary of the Church. I've got A. L. Rowse's Swift: A Major Prophet, but no mention as far as I can see of him being exhibited. I feel if he had then Rowse, more than anyone, would have used it to make a point about just how appalling people are! DuncanHill (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming "dotage" here is being used in meaning #1. -- Jack of Oz 08:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That's how I read it - and given the raving prisoner who inspires the thought I'm sure of it. DuncanHill (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Gibbon is Hornblower's favourite author, but he does talk approvingly of Swift (as well as Johnson, Pope, and Gray) in the next chapter. DuncanHill (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

In Springfield, it's spelled d'oh-tage. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Smart, possibly? He was incarcerated in St Luke's Hospital for Lunatics, and wrote on religious matters, but he wasn't an ordained minister. Swift is probably the best candidate, in default of a definitive answer. Tevildo (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah poor Kit Smart - I'm glad he had his cat to keep him company, the cherubs of the tribe of Tiger are a great comfort. He may have been ordained - wasn't he something in one of the Universities (I think you had to take orders to hold University posts then)? But no, I don't think he quite fits the bill. Swift does seem most likely for the time being. DuncanHill (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If Swift only became "insane" in old age, I suspect he may have had Alzheimers, or some other form of senior dementia. StuRat (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting question - there's a good examination of it in Brain: A Journal of Neurology, Vol 129, Issue 11, Pp. 3127-3137, accessible here. DuncanHill (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What does Rowse write about the Reverend Francis Wilson? He's been accused of all sorts of things, from stealing Swift’s books, defrauding him of money and using “Deanery funds to make a personal display of charity” to threatening and assaulting Swift, and forcing him to drink alcohol. See Jonathan Swift: A Hypocrite Reversed by David Nokes. Maybe there was another rumor at one time about Wilson having showcased Swift for money. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in the index for Wilson. Rowse doesn't go into much detail about the final illness though, it's more of a biography of his works. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating question.

Hinges on exhibition of "dotage" - easily best search term.

1. "One of the greatest writers of the English language, and"
2. "a dignitary of the Church to boot,"
3. "had once been shown in his dotage for a fee."

Nothing at all on Hornblower (or Forester) and dotage in JSTOR or Questia. Nothing relevant in Google Scholar on same searches. Nothing on dotage in Hornblower Companion, online archives of C.S. Forester Society, Sternlicht's study, C.S. Forester and the Hornblower Saga, or (online) biography by his son, John Forester.

A response to this identical question, posed in the Shakespeare newsgroup on July 11, 1997, notes that "The story is told that his servants would take fees to show him to curious onlookers." humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare English author displayed when senile?

If that story is printed in a biography of Jonathan Swift - or another source - that C. S. Forester was likely to have read, or known second-hand, prior to writing The Happy Return (published 1937), then I think we we have it nailed. Next step is a look at pre-1937 biographies of Swift.

I've sent a couple of email inquiries to acknowledged C. S. Forester experts, one of whom already responded as working on it. If permitted by my source, I will report back here. If identification of allusion documented, will revise article. Paulscrawl (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Paulscrawl, wow thank you! DuncanHill (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. What I missed above is obvious fact that reading of Forester-1937 is one thing; reading of Hornblower-1808 another. Where did young Hornblower read or hear of this story, prior to 1808? Gibbon is looking more likely a source for anecdote of servants having Swift "shown in dotage for a fee." Paulscrawl (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, Samuel Johnson more likely source. Paulscrawl (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Chalk up one more vote (not citable in article) for Jonathan Swift.

I have emailed permission to quote here, on Talk page ("Sure Paul"), a noted Forester biographer and Hornblower scholar, English professor and retired U.S. Navy Commander. His work: Sternlicht, Sanford V. (1999) . C.S. Forester and the Hornblower Saga (revised ed.). Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-0621-5.

His rather anticlimactic conclusion:

"I think it was Swift. He was hospitalized several times in Dublin and once placed in a madhouse?"

I've (almost) totally replaced Jonathan Swift - References in that sad article with current academic authorities and open access historic sources, but still haven't found source text for Hornblower's allusion. I'm not done yet - added a couple books to Open Library (Orrery, Delany) and looking to add several more 18C sources mentioned by Leslie Stephen (see References for his notes.)

The game is afoot! Paulscrawl (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Paulscrawl - I'd seen your improvement to the Swift article, and really appreciate all your effort in hunting down the answer to this literary puzzle. DuncanHill (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

And I must see if I can get hold of a copy of Professor Sternlicht's book. DuncanHill (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Presidential pardons in the USA

The recent anniversaries of Watergate, Nixon's resignation, and Ford's pardon of Nixon brought to mind the following question. Can a US President pardon himself? Is that a settled question of law? Or, as yet, an unanswered legal question? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not a settled question; the issue has never arisen. However, it wouldn't stop the president from being impeached. --jpgordon 18:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What do you mean by your last sentence? Are you saying that even if a President pardoned himself, an impeachment can still move forward? If so, why do you make that claim? Is that itself a settled question of law, one that has arisen before? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As a result of an impeachment trial, the President can be removed from office. I don't see any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution that would allow the President to pardon himself of that penalty. Criminal penalties might be a bit more iffy. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Jpgordon is referring to Article Two of the Constitution, Section 2, Clause 1, particularly the last part: "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment". If you google things like President + pardon + himself + constitution you will find this being discussed all over the place, usually pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say he can't (except in cases of impeachment). But as jpgordon wrote, it's not settled and there are other opinions, for example "Pardon Me?: The Constitutional Case Against Presidential Self-Pardons" by Brian C. Kalt. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Related question

Ignoring the cases of impeachment, are there any restrictions whatsoever on the presidential pardon power? Or is it absolute (with no oversight whatsoever)? I assume that the Congress and/or the Supreme Court can never overturn a presidential pardon; is that correct? So, theoretically, if an individual committed, say, even federal capital offenses (e.g., mass murders of many federal employees), the president can still issue a pardon, unfettered? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The power of Presidential Pardons is discussed in Federalist No. 74, where Hamilton implies that the presidential pardon is intentionally final and deliberately rests only with the president's decision, not subject to review from other bodies: "On the other hand, as men generally derive confidence from their numbers, they might often encourage each other in an act of obduracy, and might be less sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency. On these accounts, one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men." (bold mine). And later in that document "The dilatory process of convening the legislature, or one of its branches, for the purpose of obtaining its sanction to the measure, would frequently be the occasion of letting slip the golden opportunity. The loss of a week, a day, an hour, may sometimes be fatal. If it should be observed, that a discretionary power, with a view to such contingencies, might be occasionally conferred upon the President, it may be answered in the first place, that it is questionable, whether, in a limited Constitution, that power could be delegated by law; and in the second place, that it would generally be impolitic beforehand to take any step which might hold out the prospect of impunity. A proceeding of this kind, out of the usual course, would be likely to be construed into an argument of timidity or of weakness, and would have a tendency to embolden guilt." Clearly, the original intent of the writers of the Constitution was to vest the power to pardon solely with the President, the power is absolute and not subject to review. --Jayron32 20:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, I see what you (and Hamilton) are saying. However, your above quote indicates "... one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men ...". This at least implies that the purpose of the pardon power is to dispense mercy (on behalf of the government), and not to be used as a political favor to friends and/or as a political statement. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, sure. But you can never know a man's inner thoughts. Who's to say what is mercy and what is favoritism... --Jayron32 23:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, we can't read the president's mind. My point was that the purpose (as intended by the framers) was to dispense mercy on behalf of the government. And I guess an implied further point I was making is that the power can be/is/has been easily abused in terms of serving as political favors to friends and as political statements. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

More from #74: "It is not to be doubted, that a single man of prudence and good sense is better fitted, in delicate conjunctures, to balance the motives which may plead for and against the remission of the punishment, than any numerous body whatever." If prudence and good sense are not among a President's traits, then yes, it is possible for a President to use the pardon as a political tool. That is technically correct. In any political system, the opportunities for graft, favoritism and cronyism are available to all in power, and no system is better than the people who run it. --Jayron32 00:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. "Prudence" and "good sense" are the keys to Hamilton's statement regarding the pardon power. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ford's pardon of Nixon may have cost him the 1976 election. This is why presidents will typically wait until they're about to leave office before issuing controversial pardons. They can't be impeached if they've already left office, nor are they concerned about re-election. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It is generally accepted that Ford's pardon of Nixon cost him the 1976 election. In fact, Ford himself even conceded so. And, yes, most presidents wait until the very last minute (i.e., their last day in office) to issue their pardons. As you say, they cannot be impeached and there is no concern for re-election. In other words, there is no political fall-out. Thus, they feel insulated from any repercussions from their pardon decisions. The same typically happens with state governors, as well. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

And while such may be a friendly gesture, it's not likely to do the president or his pardoned pal much political good, as the president will no longer be in position to affect policy... unless his pardoned pal hires him as a lobbyist. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct. No political good. But it does get the scoundrel out of prison. Which, I assume, is the main goal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If he's still a scoundrel, he'll eventually be back. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Theoretically ... yes. Ideally ... yes. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Is a presidential pardon of someone still effective if it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was bought? Would any other official or legislative body have any legal basis to challenge or ignore it and keep the person in prison or bring him to trial after a bought pardon? For instance, if President X, the week before he left office, advertised a pardon on Ebay and pardoned the winning bidder. Or if a recording and witnesses had proved that Nixon and Ford had a conversation wherein Nixon said he would appoint Ford to the Vice Presidency only if Ford promised a certain pardon to Nixon afterwards? Historians doubted that such an explicit agreement was in fact struck, but some said that Nixon chose Ford because he expected Ford was the sort of person who was almost certain to give him a pardon without the need for such a discussion. Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton sold pardons in the 1970's per news stories. Were the pardons honored? Trying the corrupt pardoner would not put the freed criminal behind bars. Another tainted pardon scenario would be if the bad guy captured and tortured the president, or made a credible threat of a mass casualty terrorist attack, or of harm to other hostages, unless he received a pardon for whatever offense or offenses he had previously committed, as well as the kidnapping/torture/terrorism and the extortion itself. Still valid? Edison (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

John Dominis Holt

I need some help tracing some information about a person by the name of John Dominis Holt. He was either a major or colonel during the Kingdom of Hawaii. He is mentioned here and some of his photographs are listed here at commons:Category:John Dominis Holt. I've pinpoint down to either a nephew or a uncle. The first is this findagrave person John Dominis Holt, II (1861–1916), whose genealogy is listed here. Another candidate is his uncle John Domnis Holt, I (1839–1922) who married Hannah Auld listed here as a brother of Owen Jones Holt, John Domnis Holt, II's father. But there no way to know since none of these sources I can find mention anything about either being a colonel or major, any reference to the colonel or major don't specify who is who. To add to the confusion of the research is there is a descendant who had the same name who lived in the 20th century and was an author. What would help is finding a source describing the colonel/major or an obituary of either of the two John Dominis Holt, which might give a brief bio which can help identify who is who. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

There's one more book that mentions a Major J.D. Holt: . I'm getting a "reached your viewing limit" error but perhaps someone else will be able to view it - those limits seem erratic sometimes. The google search result looked like he was being listed in a photo caption: "Q.Q. King Kalakaua and military 'Staff. Left to right.re.ar.:-CoIl Col. Curtis Iaukea, Major Edward Purvis, Col. George H. Macfarlane, Captain A. B. Hayley, Major J. D. Holt, Major Antone Rosa. Front Row: Col. Charles H. Judd, Kalakaua and Gov.".

As for newspapers,

• Major J.D. Holt is mentioned here in a list of guests at a ball at Iolani Palace. Report is dated Nov. 20, 1888.
• Major John Dominis Holt is mentioned in this from Sept 23, 1890 as part of the King's attendants at a formal audience.
• Colonel John Dominis Holt is mentioned here (from Aug 29, 1892), similarly as one of a group attending the Queen at a formal occasion.

That's all I've got, no obits or bios, I'm sorry. 184.147.144.166 (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever Google's game is with the "viewing limits", it has nothing to do with counting the number of pages you read. I just tried your link (minus all the crap after "major j.d. holt"; the ei= is some kind of personal identification I felt prudent to omit) and got the exact same message you did, though I hadn't been perusing any Google Books earlier today. Wnt (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Books about Togo and Benin

Hello everyone, I am having trouble trying to find books about the contemporary history of Togo and/or Benin. I am aware that there are a few books about this subject but they are usually in French, a language I do not speak. Can any of you Wikipedians help me out? Thank you! --Skiffle Vond (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Here. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Useless. --Skiffle Vond (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I also had no luck looking for books on Amazon. But here is a university course on the contemporary history of West Africa in general, and it has a reading list of three texts in English that might at least be a start. (Plus you could check the other readings listed under each week, or email the prof.) 184.147.144.166 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Good question. Have you tried searching Worldcat.org? I did a quick search and found a few things including

  *Our World: Togo. Great Neck Pub, n.d. .
  *Background Notes on Countries of the World: Togo. Business Source Complete. Washington: Supt. of Docs, n.d. .
  *United States. Department of State. Bureau of Public Affairs. 1987. Togo. Department of State Publication. Background Notes Series. 1-6.
  *Our World: Benin. Great Neck Pub, n.d. .

The Pritzker Military Museum & Library is a GLAM institution. You can check out our project page at: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker

If you want a PMML staff member to answer your reference question using our collection, leave a note on my talk page or email us at librarian@pritzkermilitary.org TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages says: "Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed" It will be removed but not before it has been harvested by a robot. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

August 10

Illustration/printing technique

I've recently added an article on the illustrator Margery Gill. There's a technique she frequently used on her covers where a pen and ink drawing is overlaid by two or three colours, the overlap between those colours creating further colours. A few examples are here, here and here. I've done a bit of digging and it seems this was a form of lithographic printing where the artist manually separates the colours and draws the overlays in ink on sheets of transparent plastic called "Plastocowell", which are then used as transparencies to burn the image onto lithographic plates. It was popular for the covers of children's books in the 1940s-60s before full colour photographic printing became more affordable. Gill continued using it into the 70s and seems to have been a particularly prominent user of it, and I'd like to add something to the article to that effect, but I can't - it'd be original research as none of the references I've found to the "Plastocowell" lithographic technique mention her specifically. Can anybody direct me to a reference that might be useful? Thanks. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaza "no-go" zone

I am perplexed and appalled by what I'm reading about the "no-go zone" in the Gaza Strip. That article mentions nothing about it, while 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict mentions, sourced to a very brief comment in the New York Times, that 44% of the entire area is such a zone. Apparently before it was 300 meters, enforced by live fire (though I suspect that sometimes, though not always, when people say they were shot at they might have been warning shots). In any case, it was a definite displacement of the population. But I don't have a good image of whether the residents of half of Gaza have in fact been banished from their lands, nor how viciously the Israelis treat those who fail to flee. Sources like paint a bleak picture though - that even before the present "war", there were troops shooting civilians up to 1.5 kilometers into Gaza.

How can anyone, even the Israelis, claim that intentionally shooting non-violent civilians simply because they failed to clear out of a "buffer zone" is anything other than a flagrant act of terror, morally ethically and legally no better than flying an airplane into the World Trade Center? Wnt (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Haven't you been here long enough to know better than to phrase your question like that (or ask it at all, here, for that matter)? ---Sluzzelin talk 14:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I should have had a question mark at the end of the first paragraph, true. So to be clear, I'm asking:

• Is the current "no-go" zone really depopulated of civilians now?

• Will the Israelis fire on civilians in the entire 44% of the country simply for being there?

• How do Israelis try to explain that shooting civilians for non-military activity is not terrorism, let alone consistent with the Geneva Convention? Wnt (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

See complex question. You've presupposed conditions that aren't established as valid in your question, and you've also added emotional weight to your questions, leading the answerer to only one possible "right" answer, which you've already decided on. "Isn't it true that if someone does XXXX, why are they not evil?" is the sort of question that isn't really a question; you already know that someone is doing XXXX, and anyone who disagrees with you must be agreeing with evil. This isn't a question for information, it's WP:SOAPBOXing in the form of questions rather than statements. --Jayron32 17:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

To the contrary, I was providing the background of what I read, and I would genuinely welcome to hear what the opposing argument is. I literally don't know what the opposing argument can be on this issue. Wnt (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The facts that have become clear from the latest broadcasts are:

• Hamas still has thousands of rockets even after a month of pounding them by the Israelites.
• They have built multiple tunnels to penetrate Israel and Egypt using most likely that no-go zone.
• Gaza residents have what looks like a luxurious life style: great houses that look good, electricity, food, etc. and unlikely even one of them works, I mean they certainly work on building the tunnels and bringing the rockets. It is all at the expense of American taxpayers. Who supports the UN? Us of course.

The OP presupposed (wrongly) that everyone who shows up in that zone is a civilian. I guess it is far from the truth given the latest developments. We can see it all on TV, just turn it on. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how the no-go zone ties in with the tunnels. The maps I've seen show it covering the north and east borders of Gaza, but not the south (map) -- which is rather odd indeed, since that's where the tunnels and the nominal focus of the military operation is. I should ask if that is really not a no-go zone! Can you give a reference about tunnels going east/northward into Israel?

I also am surprised by your description of a luxurious lifestyle. I'm reading from the article " Per capita income (PPP) was estimated at US$3,100 in 2009, a position of 164th in the world. Seventy percent of the population is below the poverty line according to a 2009 estimate." Our article doesn't have hard figures for unemployment, nor recent figures, but I don't remember it being over 50%, which means that most people there find it worth working for $3000 a year - this seems to contradict your impression. What am I missing?

I do not deny that military personnel would show up at the border and cause trouble, but civilians have obvious reasons to be there. I find myself comparing free-fire zone, but even in Vietnam the practice had some clear limitations not described in this coverage. Wnt (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Re the US taxpayers footing the bill for the UN: see United States and the United Nations#The U.S. arrears issue:

• The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. Since 1985 the U.S. Congress has refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes …… U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts. -- Jack of Oz 19:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"but not the south (map) -- which is rather odd indeed, since that's where the tunnels and the nominal focus of the military operation is. I should ask if that is really not a no-go zone! Can you give a reference about tunnels going east/northward into Israel?" Egypt is to the south of Gaza. Hamas has their tunnels there as well. They have been used for smuggling rockets brought from Libya and Sudan during the time of Morsi's government. You are rather confused. Hamas does not attack Egypt. They attack Israel. The direction of their rocket attacks is North and East. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you point to some sources on the Palestinian funding by the U.S. via the UN? I looked it up and found that there is apparently a ban on U.S. funding of UN agencies that admit Palestine. However, the U.S. does provide funding to the Palestinian Authority with the quite surprising requested figure of $440 million. With the State of Palestine claiming 4.5 million inhabitants, that is nearly $100 per person, a lot more than I thought but not enough to affect the $3100 figure much. But since the PA has been hostile to Hamas, and the U.S. regards Hamas as a terrorist organization and ???maybe doesn't fund it on that basis, I'm not sure that money would reach Gaza. Do these facts - $100, direct rather than via the UN - seem about right to you, or am I missing something?

Oh, and I understand the rockets are being shot east, but does the extra few km (previously meters) really have anything to do with that? Why does the Israeli army need a "buffer zone" east and north if its army can operate without one while seeking out and destroying tunnels in the south? Wnt (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, when reading the Israeli rhetoric on Palestine you need to realize many of Israel's actions and statements are for media purposes. Stating that civilians killed by Israel were in a no-go zone is just one more excuse Israel will use to excuse itself of its crimes against humanity. The usual excuse put forward by Israel for why it shoots children in the no-go zone is that the children may be collecting rubble that may be used to create bomb shelters like Israelis have. You may be interested in Iman Darweesh Al Hams, a 13-year old girl shot on her way to school (a school were many teachers and students have been shot by IDF on their way to, or even at, school), for going in a "no-go zone". The IDF shot her twice in the legs at a few hundred meters, when she dropped her bag and tried to run away, the IDF chased her down, went up to her laying on the ground, shot her twice point blank in the face, walked away from her body and fired a dozen shots into her corpse. She posed no threat, the militant who shot her said he would have done the same if the girl was 3-years old, the killer was never punished, the killer was promoted to major. Wnt, do terrorist ever call themselves such? 99.224.193.148 (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

As per a commentary I saw recently... Every time a Palestinian dies, it's a victory for Hamas. It's in Hamas' own interest for Palestinians to continue to be killed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

A small tactical victory against Israel, but not a goal for Palestine. The sort of thing that falls into their lap. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

It is worth starting another question to get at why the Palestinians shoot off unaimed rockets - I mean, despite being ballistic even V-2's were aimed somehow at cities, weren't they? I don't get the point of a weapon more likely to hurt Palestinians than Israelis. But here I'm not really trying to "pick a side" in the war; rather it is my tendency to approach a complex issue like this as a matter of antigen presentation, chopping an issue into small pieces and picking out small self-contained and defining epitopes that I can develop a fixed reaction to without worrying about how anything else in the world might influence my sentiment. In this case, the alleged act of shooting civilians on their own land would appear to be an epitope worth displaying, unless there is a convincing argument to be made that it doesn't happen. Wnt (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wnt -- The border buffer zone is to discourage Hamas tunnels and Hamas attacks on Israeli soldiers. Attempts to use flamboyant and extravagant rhetoric to stir up anti-Israeli feelings don't accomplish very much with me, because I'm very well aware that the Gazans know exactly what they need to do to lead a more normal life, and they have consistently chosen not to do it. There's a saying about people who do the same thing over and over again, and are surprised when the results are always the same. There were a lot of problems in Gaza in the 1980s and 1990s, but the situation then was far more open and de-militarized than it is today and the difference is almost entirely due to the behavior of the inhabitants of the area over the intervening years (in 1999-2000 they had a working airport, which they chose to flush down the crapper in 2001, apparently because hurting Israelis is far more important to them than gaining and holding on to concrete pragmatic practical benefits for themselves). AnonMoos (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be an application of the idea of collective punishment; it is like saying that if those of Japanese descent didn't want to be subjected to Japanese-American internment they shouldn't have participated in the Niihau Incident. Or, of course, many actions involving Indian reservations in 1800s U.S. And technically the inhabitants did not destroy the airport; the Israelis did, with some degree of international condemnation.

As I picture the enforcement of the "buffer zone" I don't see tunnels in the picture - arguably those might be a military target, and would certainly be preferable for the IDF to use as justification. I don't see airports or intifidas in the picture. The question is -- does an Israeli soldier shoot at someone who has given no indication of military purpose, i.e. a civilian? There is only him, his target, the rifle, and God. But to be clear though, I do appreciate a description of what the argument is, even if it strikes me as a dangerous one - but is this really how the Israelis are thinking, that collective punishment can justify attacking civilians? Wnt (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Well there are some who believe that all those who voted for the current government should be killed, others are calling for all Palestinians women and their homes to be killed and destroyed (using remarkably similar phrasing to when the nazis called for the same action against the Jewish people), while other Israelis are arguing for a complete genocide as an ethnical final solution. You also need to realize that for many Jewish Israelis simply being Arab is justification alone for attacking them, similar to how shooting a Jewish settler who is murdering Arabs goes against IDF policy. . 99.224.193.148 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wnt -- Your analogy is extraordinarily inept, because Gazans certainly aren't being punished for things that a completely separate group of people have done thousands of miles and an ocean away, but for what has happened quite locally in their immediate area, often with their vocal support. All indications are that a significant segment of Gazan public opinion supports all Hamas actions, no matter how "immoralist" (i.e. in violation of accepted rules of war, not to mention basic human decency), and a majority of Gazans voted for Hamas in the 2006 elections when everyone was aware that a Hamas victory would be more likely to increase tensions than reduce them. It's quite unfortunate that the situation has degenerated to the point where Israeli soldiers consider not putting the lives of their fellow-soldiers at any unnecessary risk whatsoever to be the highest priority, and so subordinate all other considerations to that one goal when fighting, but the Israeli military was taught that lesson through decades of past bitter experiences, and Hamas can hardly claim to have clean hands. The "collective punishment" thing is usually intended to draw comparisons with Oradour-sur-Glane and Lidice, which is unfortunately complete and total bullshit.

And the airport closure is diagnostic of a quite significant long-term Palestinian tendency -- valuing abstract metaphysical all-or-nothing "maximalism" and ultimate grand expansive aspirations far above securing and preserving lower-level concrete pragmatic and practical benefits. Any of them who thought about the matter must have known that the airport would have been one of the first things to go if there was any large-scale return to terrorism, yet in 2001 apparently the satisfactions of hurting Jews far outweighed any practical considerations such as keeping the airport open. The Arabs would do well to more closely emulate the Israelis, who overall have done rather well for themselves by valuing low-level pragmatic gains above grand political metaphysics... AnonMoos (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You can believe what you will, but I take exception to the "inept" description. Look up Niihau Incident - that took place on U.S. soil when one of the Pearl Harbor planes crashed, and indeed it must have been very disturbing. Do understand though that modern U.S. sentiment would not approve of punishing all Japanese people, even just on Hawaii, for the actions of a few. We have too much of a sick history of race discrimination and race riots (by and against many different races) to want to go there.

I have taken the liberty of Wikilinking your examples of massacres as collective punishment above, and on reading about them I do not deny they were singularly horrendous. I certainly intended to stay clear of the most offensive of all nationalistic analogies, but since you've pressed the point, consider the table from our article List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014. Now consider our article on Oradour-sur-Glane, which says that "Adolf Diekmann claimed that the episode was a just retaliation for partisan activity in nearby Tulle and the kidnapping of Helmut Kämpfe." If I add together the casualties, therefore, with those described in Tulle and Tulle murders, I get:

Location	Killed by terrorists	Wounded by terrorists	Civilians killed	Civilians injured
Tulle and Oradour-sur-Glane	40?	?	855	?
Gaza Strip	6	41	50-80% of 1,123	50-80% of 7,800

The breakdown on the 40 "killed and maimed" German dead isn't clear from the article; looking at a probably unreliable source claiming to be the SS side of the story I do wonder if they were indeed killed and maimed. But what should be apparent is that in terms of the principle of proportionality, the Germans were not actually more out of line with it than the Israelis, so far as I can see from these numbers.

I should also go back and respond to your comment about "rhetoric to stir up anti-Israeli feelings". My rhetoric was admittedly tinged by a desire to stir up anti-"buffer zone" (i.e. shooting civilians) feelings, but I don't see that as anti-Israeli. Yes, if I believed that shooting civilians is so integral to Israel that to oppose it is to oppose Israel, then I might indeed be anti-Israeli; yet in researching this topic I am finding some of the best coverage by B'Tselem, for example. To the contrary, my impression is that the idea of "meme" has some validity; but the problem with memetics is that it imagines that memes are stagnant, mathematical constant markers, like genes in a neo-Darwinian model of heredity; but memes are in fact present in human brains, capable of human consciousness, and as such they have the potential to think and feel and act much as humans do. So I prefer to think of them the ancient and unreliable concept of demons. The way I see it, demons often desire people to fight one another, but they do not side with those divisions, but pass freely over the border. For example, the same demon that inspires one person to brutally beat someone for being gay is the exact same demon that tells a gay man not to care about what happens to him and to take his chances with HIV. In this case, we see a demon that would have passed to the Palestinians via the Grand Mufti and such, and the same demon passing to the Israelis from residual attitudes that might have come from governing under the Judenrat; (such as acceptance of identification on passports by religion, military draft, and this notion of collective punishment) but it is all the same demon. And coming from where it did, making the Nazis Nazis, then making the Germans Nazis, I would say no demon has ever hated a people the way that this particular demon hates the people of Israel; and it is no coincidence that attacking the Palestinians in such a manner, fueling the fires of hatred, is the action that poses the greatest threat to Israel, surely as Israelis say that those stupid rockets are the greatest threat to people in Palestine. Now, like all demons, this demon can be banished, or at least can be resisted, and I certainly don't mean to suggest that it holds a dominion that is either absolute nor equivalent to that it had before; but as surely as all men can commit good or evil, it has the potential to do so. Wnt (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

So you would argue that for the Warsaw Ghetto inhabitants, the satisfaction of hurting Germans far outweighed any practical considerations when they took up what you would call terrorism. I don't agree with you that the Ghetto inhabitants should have accepted what the nazis were doing to them. 99.224.193.148 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hotel with a view of The Liffey in Dublin?

A friend without internet access asked me to ask at the RefDesk if there's (or there was in 2002) any hotel in dublin that has full view to the Liffey River (Not The Clarence Hotel). Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

From a map from a google search, it looks like the Morrison Hotel would have a view. The website says they just did a major renovation, so that makes me fairly confident the hotel was there in 2002 with the same name. It is very near the Clarence but on the other (north) side of the river. The Arlington Hotel O'Connell Bridge is a little further east on the north side of the river and also has views, but I can't tell how long it has been there.Dreamahighway (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty, including the Morrison Hotel, the Jury's Inn Custom House Hotel, the Clifton Court Hotel and the Maldron Hotel Cardiff Lane. I believe all but the Jury's Inn were around in 2002. One other that was definitely around was the Ormond Hotel. If you want to search for more, the key phrase is the Quays, which denotes both the North and South banks of the Liffey between Sean Heuston Bridge and the East Link. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

THanks, very helpful. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I worked on the article, I was disappointed your friend ruled out the Clarence Hotel, μηδείς. Too expensive? Too rock star oriented? Cullen Let's discuss it 05:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Turns out it was something about preferring a south facing or nicer facade. (My personal impression is it looks like a sunless old brick Ministry of Truth headquarters, splated in pigeon dust.) Communication is limited to a few short text messages a day at this point and jpegs of view from X are usuauly not reliable, which is why I was hoping for answers by people with local expertise here. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there two Lefts?

Hello, it just seems to me there's a huge difference between what I think of as Leftist and what is called Leftist generally.

The way I see it is - the one Left is pro-worker's rights, equity feminist, pro-nation state (internationalist, but the basic unit is still the nation state), anti-Nato, positivist (there's an objective knowable reality out there), pro-nuclear family ("democracy begins at home") etc.

The other is more or less indifferent to workers, gender feminist, globalist (anti-nation state, are ok with states ceding authority to supranational bodies and outsourcing public works to private firms), culture relativist (medical science is a western artifact and as such not more legitimate than say shamanism (Dawkins has a bit on that in his book)), subjectivist (if I say I'm a cat, then I am and who the hell are you to tell me otherwise), anti-nuclear family etc.

Their assesment of historical events and figures is different, too, for example how they view Pinochet (evil incarnate/indifferent), Soviet Russia and Lenin (modernizer/mass killer), modern Russia (proto-Capitalist banana republic/Communist hell), etc.

Is it just me who sees it or is the other Left not the real Left or was there perhaps a schism and if so, when and has someone perhaps written about it that I could read? Asmrulz (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

See centre-left and far-left. The former you talk about generally fall into the centre-left camp, while the latter is usually described as far-left. In general, leftist politics leans towards improving social equality, while rightist politics tends to favor preserving the existing social order and hierarchy. Within each of those camps are shades of difference, and there's a continuum of "lets make small changes and not upset the apple-cart too much" to "tear it all down and bring about the perfect society by any means necessary", which describes the general trend between centrism and radicalism. Furthermore, the SPECIFIC issues which are adopted as key issues by leftists or rightists in any one country will differ based on the existing culture of that country. Some things which are major political fighting points in country X may not even exist in country Y; some issues that are leftist in one country are rightist in another, and so on. There is no universal political model that fits every society in the world. --Jayron32 17:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

er... by this classification the Democratic Party, as well as the various Social Democrat (e.g.) and Green parties of Europe (who are everything I say in the 2nd paragraph, and who also (forgot to mention) affirm their respect for private property at every opportunity given) are far-Left whereas the CPSU and the various small parties labelled far-Left (1st paragpraph and anti-private property) are/were centre .... Asmrulz (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how abolition of private property can be anything but an extremist position. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

But they are sane on other social issues (my 1st paragpraph and the centre-left article.)Asmrulz (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's why it is a political spectrum or continuum. There are VERY broad strokes to be painted (BROADLY) leftist or rightist, however every country has its own political situation, and when you get too granular, there aren't two "camps" to fit in, there are a minimum of n+1 camps to fit in, where "n" is the total number of political parties in the world right now. Parties are classified as centre-left or far-left based on the preponderance of their political positions, not on any one or small subset of them. There are parties which are generally centrist which hold one or two extremist positions, there are parties which are generally extremist which hold one or two centrist positions; it doesn't make them not one or the other on the balance. No party is purely one thing or another, and party positions change over time as well. It matters when one looks at a party, as well. Furthermore, I don't know how you can classify the U.S. Democratic party as "far left", it doesn't seek to dismantle society, it doesn't seek income redistribution by using the force of violence, it doesn't advocate violent overthrow of the current order, it has never even advocated against social hierarchy as a concept. There are literally zero political positions which match ANYTHING mentioned at the far-left article that apply to the U.S. Democratic party, or really any of the others you mention (the SPD, the Greens, etc.) If you're trying to claim that parties like the SPD and the U.S. Democratic party ought to be labeled "far left", I'm not sure what to do about that, as you are so out of touch with reality as to defy the ability to learn... --Jayron32 18:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much about centre-left and far left. Since the fall of communism most of the left has moved away from socialism - the idea of restructuring the economy to deliver equality - and fallen back on identity politics. Unfortunately identity politics has a tendency to become an "I'm more oppressed than you" contest, and devolve into a sectarian mess with activists denouncing each other on the internet for being insufficiently anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, or just being a straight cis white male, instead of trying to solve any problems in the real world. The left in America is lucky that the right is also a shambles. Not so much elsewhere. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't classify them as far-Left. I thought you did. You identified the stuff from my 2nd paragraph as far-Left ("The former you talk about generally fall into the centre-left camp, while the latter is usually described as far-left."). Those are the positions which incidentally the mainstream democratic parties share (gender as opposed to equity? check. culture-relativist? check. etc) I personally think these parties are not Left at all, or, if they are, they are everything that's wrong with it Asmrulz (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what Nicknack009 said. I couldn't have put it better myself Asmrulz (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

See Left-wing politics for our "overview" article. I would characterize your first description as Socialism and your second as Cultural liberalism, but, as mentioned above, political views aren't easy to compartmentalize at this level. Tevildo (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tevildo. However, if you look at the article on cultural liberalism, the first sentence is clearly defining the concept in terms of its parent idea, that of liberalism. It might be different from how you would talk about the people. Sometimes, that is because the terminology has a history, and the people themselves have a different history. If you google, not so much "cultural liberalism" as "the cultural left", you will find much that is of interest about these people. You might also be interested in the book What's Left? by Nick Cohen, which may address some of these issues (I haven't read it, I just saw it in Borders once and it looked relevant). IBE (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither of the groups you talk about seem to be left from my perspective, as both accept, tolerate, or cultivate capitalist social relations. From my definitional perspective, which comes out of Marxist and anarchist class struggle traditions, the minimal criteria for left-wing politics is to hold a position for the abolition of capitalism and its replacement with a classless society, either immediately, gradually or eventually, and to act politically upon this position. I think you're more interested in the difference between labourism progressivism and post 1970 social democracy and contemporary social liberalism and identity politics. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The common position between both major (US) political parties is pro-NATO, pro-nation state and pro-nuclear family. Supporting cooperation among nations (e.g., UN, WTO, etc.) is also a common trait, although enough people in Congress think we shouldn't pay our fair share of the bill. Only on the wildest extremes are the anti-science, anti-nuclear family (huh?) or anti-NATOists likely to be found. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know what's so great about "positivism" -- in my field, the word positivism is synonymous with the behaviorism and operationalism and "proceduralism" (i.e. the view that if you can't specify an exact sequence of steps to measure something, then it's completely worthless to science, and should not be included in any scientific hypothesis or discussion) which had a stranglehold in the mid-20th century and impeded progress then. Anyway, the parameters of the original questioner's left-left split don't seem too valid to me, and in the United States today, it sure seems like it's the right -- not the left -- which rejects the idea of objective truth when it comes to big policy issues, taking refuge in subjective ultra-relativism. In other words, while lefties or quasi-lefties may be on the leading edge of vaccination-and-autism or pseudo-scientific diet fads, it's the right which rejects evolution and climate change. AnonMoos (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It's worse than diet fads. Also, I can't say what's great about positivism, but I think that in the cause of fighting vestiges of pre-modernity, if that's one's purpose, culture relativism and subjectivism frankly don't help. I always thought antivax people were right-wing, evil government violating my precious autonomy and all Asmrulz (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it's really true that vaccine denial is predominantly right-wing. The studies I've found indicate that it is essentially bipartisan. See , , and . --2001:4898:80E0:ED43:0:0:0:3 (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither left nor right has a monopoly on ignorance of science. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Asmrulz, 2001:4898:80E0:ED43:0:0:0:3 -- Those in the U.S. who are publicly vocal about refusing to have their children vaccinated probably aren't too likely to be hard-core leftists, but I have the impression that they're quite often upper-middle-class well-educated quasi-"hipster" urbanites who vote Democratic, so in that sense it seems reasonable to label anti-vaccinationism as overall more of a leftish thing than a rightish thing. But when it comes to the really big and broad issues (as opposed to personal eccentricities), then it sure seems to me that nowadays it's conservatives who are the ones who most often take refuge in obscurantist "truthiness"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to regard this discussion with some bemusement. It should be apparent that if you divide all human political sentiment into "left" and "right", each will include at least half of all possible political beliefs (more than half if your criteria for division are blurred or contradictory). So there can be little agreement between the members of each "side" on anything, and substantial agreement between them. This is only lost when in fact one is not considering left versus right, but far narrower ideologies that have replicated themselves without critical examination to groups of people. In other words, it's easier to tell an insect from a sea cucumber than a protostome from a deuterostome. Wnt (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

That's why it is always local. Left tends towards "progressive" or "more equality", while right tends towards "conservative" or "preserve social order", but the specifics are highly dependent on WHERE you live. That is, the line that defines the "center" between left and right will vary WILDLY from place to place, and the issues that "right" and "left" polarize themselves over would like completely different in different locales. I know it was said in a totally different context, but All politics is local certainly applies to definitions of "left" and "right". --Jayron32 22:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Fate of the German royal family

After the First World War the German monarchy was abolished and the country became a republic. What became of the Kaiser and his family? Is there anyone alive today who would be Kaiser had Germany still been a monarchy? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Check Wilhelm II, German Emperor#Abdication and flight and all his children's' articles. Nearly all of them have articles. And Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Technically the German imperial family or the Prussian royal family (or the Brandenburg Hohenzollerns -- some things might have turned out a lot better if they had remained mere margraves of Brandenburg)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Assassins' executioners

Is there any record of who the executioners were of Charles J. Guiteau and Leon Czolgosz—i.e. the people who 'flipped the switch', so-to-speak? matt (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

According to this contemporary account, Guiteau was executed by a "Mr Strong", on whom we don't seem to have an article. I'll see what I can find out about Czologosz. Tevildo (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Another Wiki has an article on another(?) somewhat anonymous Mr. Strong (SPOILER) who didn't mind a little blood on his hands. Having the ruling class' blessing was just a bonus. In a previous position, he'd killed a man just as a means to sentencing another to die for regicide. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

According to this site (which cites a contemporary newspaper article), Czologosz was executed by "Electrician Davis" under the instructions of "Warden Mead" (presumably J. Warren Mead - see Auburn Correctional Facility#Wardens). Tevildo (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

List of epidemics

List of epidemics seems a bit lopsided toward the West. Aren't there any serious epidemics which affected Eastern Asia before the 17th century?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a horribly incomplete list and likely always will be; it doesn't even include epidemics we have articles for, such as Plague of Emmaus and Plague of Cyprian. Yes, there were many epidemics in Asia and pretty much almost anywhere people have ever lived (though the pre-contact New World seems not to have had many, or at least we have no record of it). Unfortunately, WP still suffers from biases in favour of recentism and English sources. Off the top of my head, there was a plague in Yuan dynasty China, but our article on the period doesn't mention it and we have no standalone article. Second plague pandemic only alludes to it. Google yuan dynasty plague for more. Matt Deres (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Before we get too down on ourselves about how lopsided our coverage is... take a look at the other language versions of WP. We actually do comparatively well. That isn't to say we couldn't do better. Don't just complain... try to fix the problem. Blueboar (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Just as far as New World plagues, it's quite possible that they had significant ones. Many Mississippian cities, all the way up to the cultural center of Cahokia, were abandoned long before European contact, and epidemics are considered one possible reason for their demise. Nyttend (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

They're certainly possible, but we're missing a key ingredient - the disease. It's to be expected that large groups of people living together without the benefits of modern sanitation and medicine will be susceptible to epidemics, but, so far as I know, we don't have any evidence of any that firmly date to pre-contact times. As I guess most people are aware, after 1492, a veritable host of horrible diseases swept over the Americas, while the only disease that seemed to go the other way is syphilis and even that is disputed. If the people at Cahokia were wiped out by a nasty bug, it should probably have been involved with the disease transfer and showed up in Europe - or at least cropped up again somewhere. Matt Deres (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, just pointing out the situation to someone who was apparently puzzled by the omission. In this particular case we also have the problem that an epidemic isn't rigidly defined; when, say, the 100th person gets sick, we can't go "Oh look it's now officially an epidemic; let's edit the article!" Lists like this have educational value and should be fixed/kept... but they're frankly often terrible articles. Matt Deres (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

August 11

That thing that makes us react

Is there a name for that phenomenon where something triggers this gross feeling that makes our skin crawl and us go "eeeeeeuuuuaaaaaa"? It is often unique to each person. But, sometimes many share the same one, like nails on a blackboard, or handling a baloon and making it squeek. Do you know what I'm talking about? If there's a name, and it's not covered, I want to write about it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Check out Chalkboard scraping and Psychoacoustics. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you so much. I am astonished that we have an article on this. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I put "nails on chalkboard", or something similar, into the searchbox and it found it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I never thought of searching that. I figured it had zero chance of coming up. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually we have both Nails on chalkboard and Fingernails on chalkboard, which redirect to chalkboard scraping. It never hurts to try a given expression in the search box. Even if there's no article, any places it turns up may lead to something useful. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Two others that might fit the bill: Trypophobia and Autonomous_sensory_meridian_response. Note that neither of those words is well accepted by the scientific community. The latter, especially, just reeks of pseudoscience to me. But, a little googling or perhaps personal WP:OR experience should show that many people experience these phenomena. Fair warning, if you google these things, you may find disturbing results :) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

See "Wisdom of repugnance".—Wavelength (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And also note the 'see also' at the bottom of that page, which seems apt to me: Anti-intellectualism SemanticMantis (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting!! "...Something might be living inside those holes!..." Naturally. Ha ha ha ha! Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure the word Disgust captures the OP's sense pretty well "an emotional response of revulsion to something considered offensive or unpleasant" --Jayron32 03:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That covers his first sentence ("this gross feeling that makes our skin crawl and us go "eeeeeeuuuuaaaaaa""). But, for me at least, it's very wide of the mark when it comes to nails scratching a blackboard. -- Jack of Oz 03:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Everyone's different. I've heard Fran Drescher's voice described as being akin to nails on a chalkboard. I like it, though. (Her voice, not the nails on the chalkboard.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As for "makes our skin crawl", the term 'frisson' is close, though not necessarily implying unpleasantness. Emotionally-based dislike of some concept unfamiliar (and therefore not well understood) is sometimes referred to as "the Yuck factor". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Land descriptions

I ran across these three property descriptions, and I don't entirely understand the difference in ownership. Parcel one is owned by Bryan et ux; parcel two is owned by Michael et al; and parcel three is owned by "Michael A. Karshner et ux ½ Int and Elizabeth M. Karshner ½ Int". I'm guessing that #1 is a man and his wife in joint ownership, that #2 is Michael and two or more other people in joint ownership, and that Michael-and-Mrs. and Elizabeth each have half ownership of #3. But first off, why would we say that Bryan-and-Mrs. own #1 completely, rather than Bryan having a ½ interest and Mrs. having a ½ interest? And what's the difference between Michael-et-al owning #2 completely and Michael-and-Mrs. and Elizabeth owning #3 in halves? In other words, why can't we say that Michael-et-al (potentially a different et al, I understand) own #3 completely, instead of mentioning who the et al are? Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It might make a difference which jurisdiction these were in (from the URL's I guess it's Ohio). But if it were in England and Wales, I would point you to joint tenancy and tenancy in common. --ColinFine (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, it's in Ohio; I omitted the jurisdiction because the parcels are listed as being in "BELLE CENTER OH 43310 USA". Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As for why the man and his wife are not listed as equal half owners, a married couple is often considered a single economic actor. For example, I own a piece of property jointly with my spouse, and the title does not specify which of us owns which percentage. Marco polo (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

My guess: In the parcel 1 case, the spouses don't each own half of the parcel, they co-own the whole parcel. In the parcel 2 case the joint ownership is of the whole parcel. For instance, if the parcel was sold it would have to be sold as a whole parcel with everyone's signature on the sale document (the spouses both would have to sign for parcel 1 and the 'et al' group would all have to sign for parcel 2). In the parcel 3 case, Michael and spouse could sell their half interest in the parcel to someone, and Elizabeth could retain her half interest.Dreamahighway (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Truth and Significance

Sidgwick in The Methods of Ethics writes of some maxims (which ones are not immediately relevant), "the maxims just given may be understood in two senses: in one sense they are certainly self-evident, but they are also insignificant: in another sense they include more or less distinctly a direction to an important practical duty, but as so understood they lose their self-evidence."

This is a point which I've frequently come across in terms of truth (rather than self-evidence) versus significance; frequently enough that I would think there should be a name for it. Is there? Henry 18:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sidgwick is referring to the analytic–synthetic distinction, made famous by Kant (and famously contested by Quine). -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Married women's dress code in oppose to unmarried women

In the book Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell, Scarlett O'Hara reflects over the difference in social expectations between married and unmarried females in the upper class southern high society, and regret the fact that once married, a woman was not allowed by etiquette to dress in bright colors but was expected to restrict herself to dark and discreet colors such as grey, and that she was further more not expected to dance with other men than her husband. Is this correct? If have not found this anywhere else. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but in Queen Elizabeth's time (late 16th century) it was notorious that the formal clothes of unmarried women in England had a lower neckline (exposing more cleavage) than the formal clothes of married women. There's also a semi-famous 1938 Hollywood movie about how an antebellum unmarried woman pretty much ruins her life by wearing a bright red dress (of course the movie is black-and-white, so viewers have to just imagine the redness of her dress!). AnonMoos (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

August 12

Post-annexation maps of the Ukraine

I'm seeking and failing to find maps of the Ukraine after the Russian annexation of the Crimea, i.e. they were first produced after the incident or they're marked as having been updated after the incident. I don't care about the licensing status: I'm trying to complete an article about maps of Ukraine and want to include a little bit about how different mapmakers have treated the incident. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I also have nothing about military maps of the country, especially from the world wars, and those would particularly be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Does This get you started? From there I found this map which may be interesting for your cause. --Jayron32 00:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I meant something different: I'm looking for WP:RS on the subject, because I don't have any solid sources talking about post-incident maps, so the article stops with this pre-annexation source. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

How's the New York Times for you? --Jayron32 01:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a Soviet map of Ukraine from 1940 with a "zone of German state interests" labelled beyond the Molotov-Ribbentropp line, interested?212.234.218.49 (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

google maps russia version shows a national border between Ukraine and Crimea.184.147.144.166 (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Mark Twain at the House of Commons

File:Mark Twain at the House of Commons by Sir (John) Benjamin Stone (2).jpg

Could someone help me with identification in this photograph? I have alrady figured out some of them:

• 1:?
• 2:Edmund Gosse
• 3:David Lindsay, Lord Balniel (?)
• 4:?
• 5:John Henniker Heaton
• 6:Mark Twain
• 7:Hugh McCalmont
• 8:Sydney Buxton
• 9:?
• 10:T. P. O'Connor

All help will be appreciated.--The Theosophist (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S.

The NPG lists:

• John Samuel Phene (1824-1912), Scholar, antiquarian and architect
• (Montague Horatio) Mostyn Turtle Pigott (1865-1927), Author and journalist; founder and first editor of the 'Isis'; barrister
• Mr Walter, of 'The Times'

Does anybody know who is who?--The Theosophist (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Mr Walter of The Times would be Arthur Fraser Walter. Not yet found clear pic of him (there were 4 generations of Walters of The Times before it became a company). DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a picture of Dr Phene here. Not very clear but if I had to I'd put my money on #1 in your picture. DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The Scala Archives attempts to identify the men from left to right here.--Cam (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a caricature of Mostyn Pigott here - looks like your #3. DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

western wall

who built the top layers of the Western Wall? And when, and why? There is a legend about this relating to Sir Moses Montefiore. Where did it originate? Naytz (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I've not heard that legend. He did renovate Rachel's Tomb - perhaps some confusion over that has occurred? DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but who did built the top layers of the Western Wall? And when, and why? The legend about this relating to Sir Moses Montefiore state that he did this to pervent Arabs from throwing rocks at Jewish worshippers, and is quite wide spread. (See for example the memorial Article for Montefiore on Israel National News.) I have seen in in his writings he did "erect an awning for the 'wailing place' near the western wall of the Temple, so as to afford shelter and protection from rain and heat to pious persons visiting this sacred spot" Naytz (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

In what religion(s) or cultural system(s) is charging interest for a loan illegal?

How many religions or cultural systems disapprove of charging interest for a loan? Do the religious adherents ever own banks or credit card companies? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Islamic banking is a good example to start with. Mingmingla (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Usury is also a relevant read. --Jayron32 19:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published an article about interest at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002183.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• I may be wrong but I seem to remember reading somewhere that Jewish people are allowed to lend money with interest, but not to each other, see ] --Andrew 00:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

State of Israel

Where the Jewish people really stateless for around 2,500 years? --112.198.90.43 (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

On the balance, yes, they really were. At times, some countries did grant Jewish people full citizenship rights (or the equivalent), for example see this article which discusses treatment of Jewish people in Muslim Iberia before the Reconquista. Also see Al-Andalus#Non-Muslims_under_the_Caliphate. However, for most of history, Jewish people were sporadically tolerated, but rarely accepted as full members of the society they lived in, and were subject to frequent persecutions, exiles, massacres, and pogroms. Other than the notable exception of Al-Andalus, I can't think of any substantial period of time, in any place, where Jewish people were afford equal citizenship status to other peoples. --Jayron32 19:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There was also the Khazar Khaganate, which was ruled by Turkic peoples who had converted to Judaism, but that is not usually considered a "Jewish state", strictly speaking. --Adam Bishop (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

More like 2,000 years than 2,500 years, since the Jewish Hasmonean dynasty remained independent until just over 2,000 years before the founding of the State of Israel, and the Herodian dynasty ruled over what could be considered a Jewish state — though the state was not really independent of Rome — up to a bit less than 2,000 years before Israel's founding.

The Himyarite Kingdom was also dominated by Jewish people (mostly converts to Judaism) for part of its history.

After the Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC) and the effective conquest of the Jewish homeland by Rome, a series of Jewish rebellions led the Romans to massacre or enslave and uproot much of the Jewish population and to favor members of other ethnic and religious groups in what had been the Jewish homeland. Thereafter, Jews, with the rare exceptions mentioned above, never formed a majority or the dominant group in any society until they colonized Palestine in the early 20th century. Marco polo (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the Herodians weren't culturally Jewish, they were Edomites. The distinction probably didn't make much difference to the Romans, but native Judeans saw the Herodians as foreigners who had converted to the Jewish faith, and not as of their own culture. --Jayron32 03:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Jayron, isn't your last sentence a little too sweeping, or have I misconstrued its meaning? Were there not many Jewish American citizens between 1776 and 1948? And in other democratic countries? Australia's first native-born governor-general (1931-36), Sir Isaac Isaacs, was a Jew; he had previously been a Justice of the High Court (1906-30) and Chief Justice (1930-31). This all happened well before the state of Israel came into existence. -- Jack of Oz 22:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And Moses Montefiore was Sheriff of the City of London in 1836. Hardly a second-class citizen. DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The plural of anecdotes is not data, and over the course of a few thousand years, that an occasional Jewish person found themselves in positions of power, or that we can name a single society once in a while, for a few decades, where Jews weren't treated with revile and hatred doesn't affect the balance of history. Yes, we can find situation, especially in the last 200 years, in a few countries around the world, where Jewish people didn't have it so bad. But on the balance, most societies (even the U.S and U.K. and other Anglosphere nations) don't have a long history of tolerance and acceptance of Jewish people. Emancipation of the Jews in the United Kingdom occurred in the 1830s, so it has really only been less than 2 centuries. So less 10% of their history from the Diaspora to the founding of Israel, and only in a few societies we could count on our hands, I would say that doesn't fully capture the preponderance of the Jewish experience for most of their history. --Jayron32 02:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Jews in the UK were in a similar position to Roman Catholics before emancipation. And of course a much better position than African Americans in the USA before emancipation - or indeed most Africans before decolonisation. It is invidious to select facts in a way that singles out a single religion or ethnicity as "special" or "unique" - whether as victims or as oppressors. DuncanHill (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. But their history is shocking enough without making it seem that 1948 was the first time any Jew ever, anywhere, was considered a human being worthy of citizenship.

I wonder whether the OP meant this, or whether they're talking about their own sovereign homeland, Israel. If that, then yes, the Jewish people as a whole were stateless for around 2,500 years. They had to be content with citizenship of whatever country they were living in, assuming it was afforded them, which was often not the case. -- Jack of Oz 03:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough as well. Perhaps I spoke with a bit of hyperbole. But whether you consider it from a "Did the Jewish people have their own state" or from the perspective of "Did some Jewish people ever belong to any state as full citizens", the former is a resounding "no" and the latter is a "very rarely". --Jayron32 03:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

While I was looking into the distinction between Statelessness and Stateless nation, the discussion headed in that direction. There was no Jewish state of any significance from 70 CE to 1948. And full citizenship was rare until the United States was founded, and the revolutionary/Napoleanic changes in Europe. But speaking as a San Francisco area Jew, the Jews were completely free and powerful, and thrived here for 100 years before Israel's independence. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

In the United States, absolutely correct. But most Jews didn't live under such liberal regimes. Prior to the middle 20th century, most Jews lived in central and eastern Europe, and frequently were not afforded much rights or political power at all. --Jayron32 16:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There was the Kingdom of Semien of the Beta Israel which existed till 1627.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A villein against a serf

Is there a major difference between a villein and a serf? Did a villein have more social mobility than a serf? Are they interchangeable? Seattle (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

They are effectively the same, they just come from different words (villanus, a worker on a Roman villa, a servus, a servant/slave of any sort). There was never any really strict rules to feudalism, and it differed depending on the time and place (and some argue that it never existed at all!), so there is no precise definition of terms related to what we think of as feudalism that would cover the entire Middle Ages. Some places sometimes called them villeins, other places sometimes called them serfs, other places had other names, but they are the same thing. --Adam Bishop (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Benoni Richmond Davison

So I have differing sources call a man by the name of Benoni Richmond Davison Superintendent of the Insane Asylum and Superintendent of the American Marine Hospital at Honolulu. Were both the Hawaiian Insane Asylum and the American Marine Hospital the same place or close together during the 1860s and 1870s?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A source here says that the insane asylum was located at Palama, Kalihi, and that its "incoming director, Mr. Davison, 'already had considerable experience in like cases at the American Hospital.'" So it looks like they were separate institutions and that Davison worked at the American Hospital before he worked at the asylum.--Cam (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A. B. Hayley

Can anybody help me find out who this man named A. B. Hayley was? When he was born and when he died and where he was originally from? The only I know is he was King Kalakaua's military staff as a major and all I can find so far is just his name in a list of other people's names. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently he was Andrew Burrell Hayley, formerly of the 11th Hussars. Some garbled information about him here (under "Gaiety Girl's Life").--Cam (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

August 13

Pilgrimage to Jerusalem

Did any European monarchs in the intervening years between the end of the Crusades and the modern era (1800s or 1900s depending on when Jerusalem became more accessible) took pilgrimages to Jerusalem or the Holy Land during this period?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Emperor Frederick III was there in 1869 when he was still Crown Prince of Prussia, and his son Emperor Wilhelm II went in 1898 (there is a lengthy article about it on the German Misplaced Pages, de:Palästinareise Kaiser Wilhelms II.. Before them, the last monarch must have been Edward I of England in the 1270s (before he was king, though). --Adam Bishop (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, Henry of Bolingbroke visited Jerusalem in 1392, but this was before he ascended the throne as Henry IV of England. Marco polo (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

demons in taiko

following a hint of a seasoned wikipedian I'm trying this to find at the "reference desk" infos about the topic here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Taiko#meaning_of_the_demons_in_taiko.3F.3F thanks in advance! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Were American women allowed to bear arms?

Yesterday my teacher told me that American women were initially forbidden from bearing arms (until the 1960s). Is this true? --66.190.99.112 (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Annie Oakley wrote a letter to the president, offering to fight the Spanish, before the war even started. She didn't try to hide the fact that she'd trained a 50-woman sharpshooter militia, or that she wouldn't have to borrow any ammo. No arrests. This was well before the 1960s. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

Kaiser Wilhelm II was also fine about letting her shoot the ashes off his cigarette. I don't think the thesaurus has a word for that sort of coolness. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in the second amendment restricting the bearing of arms, unless you take the "well-regulated militia" part to imply exclusively male. However, that would be a matter of state law. And as Hulk notes, Annie Oakley was obviously not feeling restricted (except maybe by her corset). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Could a no armed man help form a well-regulated militia if he could aim and fire only moderately well with his toes? I'll say yes, but that constitution definitely left a lot of room for interpretation. Definitely freer than under the 190 billion pages of constitutional law they use today. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:53, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

Funny. That might be a case of a headline writer not getting enough sleep. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Banned keywords on Chinese Internet/servers

Is it true that the Chinese government has recently imposed new restrictions on certain Chinese "keywords" being included in online Internet content (especially for advertising)? Are you aware of such recent restrictions, and what do they entail? Thank you.

A Level Results, Universities and UCAS Track

How soon prior to A-Level results day do higher education institutions in the UK receive A-Level results. I'd imagine it's quite soon given that they have to update UCAS's Track system for thousands of new undergraduate students. Do they receive the results in advance, update track until results day with the option for UCAS's software to only reveal it on results day? Nottingham Trent University sent emails to prospective students about their results on wednesday, and UCAS are not happy about it at all? Any information would be greatly appreciated --Andrew 00:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This note, from 2008 suggests the embargo is rather less than a week. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 00:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are european jews white?

If they are descended from middle easterners, and let's assume they left the middle east 2-3 thousand years ago, shouldn't they still be brown? After all, Romani people came from India thousands of years ago, and they are still brown. 69.121.131.137 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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