This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Russell.mo (talk | contribs) at 18:08, 8 July 2016 (→Cleanliness: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:08, 8 July 2016 by Russell.mo (talk | contribs) (→Cleanliness: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
of the Misplaced Pages reference desk. skip to bottom Select a section: Shortcut Want a faster answer?
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.
July 3
Secession vs Declaring independence
Is there any substantive difference in the terms "seceded" and "declared independence?" --Golbez (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- It'd be interesting to see if there's a correlation between independence and success. But to answer your question, take a look at the language used in wikisource:Category:Declarations of Independence. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- In my view, "seceded" is rather negatively charged, unlike "declared independence" which implies some sort of legitimacy. Also, "declared independence" implies some previous aspiration and struggle for independence. The CSA, for instance, seceded from the US, not "declared independence"~, while the US declared independence from the British Empire, not seceded from it (like many other modern countries akin to Croatia or East Timor). Brandmeister 08:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think the difference is that secession is only possible if the entity seceding is an integral part of a larger entity. For example, Western Australia could (and almost did in 1933) secede from Australia. It can't declare independence from Australia because it is not dependent on her; that's because it is an integral part of her. The pips of an orange cannot declare independence from the orange, but they can secede. OTOH, a colony can declare independence from the mother country, because it is by definition dependent on her; but it cannot secede, because it is not an integral part of her. Not for all purposes, anyway. Puerto Rico is a territory of the USA; its people are treated like other Americans for some purposes, but not all purposes. It can declare independence. The people of Texas, otoh, are Americans for all purposes, by right, and they can secede. -- Jack of Oz 09:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- But on the other hand, Texas didn't secede from Mexico - it declared independence from it. And some CSA secession declarations actually specify they were declarations of independence. I would agree that you can't secede from a colonizing power, but that doesn't mean you can't declare independence from a nation you're part of. --Golbez (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Technically, the Texas portion of Mexico seceded. But that situation is complicated. Texas continued to be at war with Mexico and within itself, until the Mexican War put an end to most of the hostilities some ten years after Texas' declaration of independence. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Secede" etymologically and as a matter of legal history means to "withdraw" from a union of some sort. Technically it is only possible to secede if you are a smaller entity within the larger entity, so it makes sense to talk about a state seceding from a federation, but it wouldn't make sense for some disparate bits of territory to "secede" from the country. A "declaration of independence" doesn't have this layer of meaning and so can probably be used whether or not the thing doing the declaration is an entity in itself. So Western Australia could be described as "seceding", and it could plausibly have a "declaration of independence" too, whereas if the city of Coober Pedy became an independent country it probably would not be described as "seceding". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Technically, the Texas portion of Mexico seceded. But that situation is complicated. Texas continued to be at war with Mexico and within itself, until the Mexican War put an end to most of the hostilities some ten years after Texas' declaration of independence. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- But on the other hand, Texas didn't secede from Mexico - it declared independence from it. And some CSA secession declarations actually specify they were declarations of independence. I would agree that you can't secede from a colonizing power, but that doesn't mean you can't declare independence from a nation you're part of. --Golbez (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Missing chunks of city
Searching "Vancouver, WA" got me this map, which contains a missing chunk highlighted by the green circle. If that chunk isn't part of the city, does it mean it belong to a higher entity i.e. the county, state or the federal government? Or is this simply a mapping error? Crudiv1 (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Just a normal effect of municipal annexation. The city's original boundaries were farther to the southeast (around downtown), and they gradually annexed territory farther northwest, but for whatever reason they decided not to annex the chunk highlighted by the green circle. This spot is part of the county, but because Vancouver isn't an independent city, the city is part of the county as well; this chunk is merely unincorporated. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Specifically, the map on page 3 of this PDF shows that the area surrouding the "missing chunk" was annexed sometime from 1991 to 2000 inclusive. But the document is mainly about possible new annexations and does not talk about the details of past annexations. If you look at aerial views of the city, e.g. by clicking "Earth" in Google Maps, you'll see that the "missing chunk" seems to correspond to some sort of industrial facility with a loop of railroad tracks around it, but it's hard to tell what it is and it's certainly not obvious what distinguishes it from the surrounding land that was annexed. --69.159.60.163 (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Page 8 of the PDF lists the site as "Alcoa", for what it's worth. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- That PDF seems to contradict other information: a map from 2009 shows the site as part of Vancouver and a 2009 document on the Port of Vancouver USA website says it was annexed via Ordinance no. M-3914. It was "purposefully left out" when the surrounding area was annexed in 1994. Peter James (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Page 8 of the PDF lists the site as "Alcoa", for what it's worth. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Such things aren't uncommon. See the map of Los Angeles's boundaries for a much crazier map. As a So Cal resident I can tell you that a lot of people who live here don't understand very well where exactly they live. It's common to just say "I'm from LA" if you're from anywhere in the Greater Los Angeles Area. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also see Columbus, the Ohio state capital, in File:Map of Franklin County, Ohio highlighting Columbus.svg — the city extends into two other counties, and it's adjacent or almost adjacent to another three. Since Ohio has townships, the unincorporated parts of Columbus-area townships have rather bizarre boundaries; consider the map of Franklin Township (the boundaries are of 2000) for an extreme example, and Clinton Township (two blobs with tiny islands elsewhere) or Truro Township (a few islands in the northeast, but the southwestern island is where virtually everyone lives) for other examples. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Makes me think of German duchies. I often wonder what traces exist of their former boundaries! —Tamfang (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is more like enclaves and exclaves, and you can see a great example here of enclaves within enclaves: https://en.wikipedia.org/Baarle-Nassau#/media/File:Baarle-Nassau_-_Baarle-Hertog-en.svg Sir Joseph 16:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Guess who created List of enclaves and exclaves —Tamfang (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is more like enclaves and exclaves, and you can see a great example here of enclaves within enclaves: https://en.wikipedia.org/Baarle-Nassau#/media/File:Baarle-Nassau_-_Baarle-Hertog-en.svg Sir Joseph 16:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Makes me think of German duchies. I often wonder what traces exist of their former boundaries! —Tamfang (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also see Columbus, the Ohio state capital, in File:Map of Franklin County, Ohio highlighting Columbus.svg — the city extends into two other counties, and it's adjacent or almost adjacent to another three. Since Ohio has townships, the unincorporated parts of Columbus-area townships have rather bizarre boundaries; consider the map of Franklin Township (the boundaries are of 2000) for an extreme example, and Clinton Township (two blobs with tiny islands elsewhere) or Truro Township (a few islands in the northeast, but the southwestern island is where virtually everyone lives) for other examples. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Specifically, the map on page 3 of this PDF shows that the area surrouding the "missing chunk" was annexed sometime from 1991 to 2000 inclusive. But the document is mainly about possible new annexations and does not talk about the details of past annexations. If you look at aerial views of the city, e.g. by clicking "Earth" in Google Maps, you'll see that the "missing chunk" seems to correspond to some sort of industrial facility with a loop of railroad tracks around it, but it's hard to tell what it is and it's certainly not obvious what distinguishes it from the surrounding land that was annexed. --69.159.60.163 (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Moderator of the proto-General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
Not having access to the 1908 edition of the Church of Scotland Yearbook (I'm not finding it with Google), and not knowing where else to look, I come here. List of Moderators of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, with its early centuries based heavily on the 1908 edition, claims that both John Row and Patrick Adamson were moderators of the April 1567 meeting of the Assembly. Obviously you can't have two people in the chair at the same time (it's the presiding officer of the meeting, the equivalent of the Speaker), so the situation is rather confusing. Did one replace the other partway through, or was there conflict over which one was lawfully the moderator (like the Old Court – New Court controversy centuries later in a different context), or is there simply a mistake here? Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- The proceedings of the meeting are available online, here, and indicate that Row was the moderator in April 1576. Warofdreams talk 15:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Removed Adamson; thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Trying to find a romance book
My wife reads romances. In 2011 she read a book after she downloaded it in Kindle. We have a joint Amazon account and since then I've downloaded many books on it too. Now she cannot find it presuming somehow the book has been deleted. She does not remember the author's name or the title, only some characters and the plot. This is what she recalls:
I remember in the book I'm looking for, 3 mayor characters: a nobleman/scientist Edmond/Edmund/Edward (?), his 17 year old niece (Jane?), a very strong character; David, an 18 year old boy who works in the stables (both he and the niece are horse-crazy), handsome and much too refined for a stable boy (his origins unknown). Edward is teaching them both. By the end of the book, by sheer accident, it was discovered that David's relatives are "noble" people leaving nearby.
My wife says the book was well written in excellent English and she wants to find and reread it.
I wonder if anybody could name the author or the title? Thanks, ---AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly A London Season by Joan Wolf? Tevildo (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tevildo: Thank you, but she said, no. She says she has most of Joan Wolf's books and knows them well. Besides it is a rural setting, not London's. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. Less possibly, The Runaway Duke by Julie Anne Long? The names are wrong and the reviews aren't that good, but the heroine's father is interested in science. This thread on Amazon has some more suggestions for books with the same basic theme. Tevildo (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tevildo: Thank you, but she said it is not correct again. She said the duke or whatever the nobleman's title never ran away but as you probably understand, any suggestion is very much appreciated. She is also very certain about the names. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- AboutFace 22, it may be easiest for you to track this down yourself. If you go to Amazon.com and select Your Orders, then Digital Orders placed in 2011, you should see the purchase of the book. John M Baker (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@John M Baker: it is a great idea and I will definitely try it. I've done it before but not for the books, so now it is the time to use it again. Thank you. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
What's the average height of a Medieval cathedral?
Does it matter much if you count the tallest one a city ever had or just what exists now? Cause some got damaged/destroyed by wind, fire, World War II etc. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- What parts do you want to measure? Because some have towers and spires...we have List of highest church naves, which measures the top of the interior ceiling, and therefore ignores whatever else there may be outside. There is also List of tallest church buildings in the world. We'd have to go through the list and find all the medieval ones, but remember also that not all the parts of the church would necessarily have been there in the Middle Ages, since they often took centuries to complete. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Total height. You're right about taking that list with a grain of salt. It says my city's cathedral is 1878 but the article says the spires were added 1888. Should I change the list? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
In the UK, the Victorians slapped spires on hundreds of medieval churches. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- And lots more fell down or met with other accidents, like the 149 metre spire of Old St Paul's Cathedral, which caught fire and collapsed in 1561. Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- France too - see Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. Notre Dame had a medieval spire at one point, but Viollet le Duc gave it an even bigger one, because why not. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly confounding factor: There are several medieval churches that are now cathedrals (eg Southwark, St Albans) which were not cathedrals in the Middle Ages. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Out of curiosity
- One question which may need local knowledge: the source above says "The spires were finished in 1888 and were the tallest in New York City from 1880-1890 and the second tallest in the United States". Our list of tallest churches only has Riverside Church (1930) as taller than St Patrick's in the USA, so which church was St Patrick's second to in 1888 and which church overtook it in NYC in 1890? Google isn't helping I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- My guess would be that it means the tallest building in New York city until 1890, when the New York World Building was completed, and the second tallest building in the United States after the old Chicago Board of Trade Building until then. Warofdreams talk 01:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Alansplodge (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Now added to the article. Alansplodge (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:Alansplodge, the taller building was apparently not the Chicago Board of Trade Building (too short) but the Illinois State Capitol. It's 361 feet tall to the spire , built 1868-1888 (I think). I can't find anything else taller before 1890 besides the Washington Monument (555 feet) and a chimney. Both aren't buildings and might reasonably be considered to be spireless. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Right, so the "second tallest in the United States" can't refer to structures, but St. Patrick's seems to be now the second tallest church in the US after the Riverside Church. Can anybody find a ref for that? Alansplodge (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:Alansplodge, the taller building was apparently not the Chicago Board of Trade Building (too short) but the Illinois State Capitol. It's 361 feet tall to the spire , built 1868-1888 (I think). I can't find anything else taller before 1890 besides the Washington Monument (555 feet) and a chimney. Both aren't buildings and might reasonably be considered to be spireless. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Now added to the article. Alansplodge (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Alansplodge (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- My guess would be that it means the tallest building in New York city until 1890, when the New York World Building was completed, and the second tallest building in the United States after the old Chicago Board of Trade Building until then. Warofdreams talk 01:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
USS Mercedita
Can anybody find any information about this painting of the USS Mercedita (1861)? Like who created it and when was it created?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Have you tried asking the Naval History and Heritage Command, which is credited (as the Naval Historical Center) as the source of the picture? Rojomoke (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
July 4
Samuel Byck
Hi. My queries are about Samuel Joseph Byck (1930-1974). 1- In the film "The Assassination of Richard Nixon" it appears that he had a brother named Julius. Is a historical fact or fiction? 2- What were his parent´s names? Thanks. Daniel, 4 July 2016 88.10.201.162 (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Various sources (search Google Books) indicate that Byck was one of three siblings. From this entry in the 1940 census, which closely corresponds to his biographical details, it would seem that his brothers were named Carl and Melvin. So, apparently, no Julius. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
July 5
Returning hero motif
There are several tales and legends about various future returns of certain characters, such as king in the mountain, Rory who will save Ireland or two priests who disappeared into the walls during the fall of Constantinople and who will return once the city becomes Christian again. Is there a common name for such a motif / trope? Brandmeister 07:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- tvtropes.org calls it King in the Mountain with many examples.
Sleigh (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)- Indeed, our king in the mountain article describes "a prominent motif" rather than one specific story and includes a list of examples. Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- "When Johnny Comes Marching Home" somewhat falls into this category. StuRat (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
an accurate and scientific translation of Quran
I don't know Arabic and I want to read Quran for the first time. I heard that most of the translations are biased. Could you please offer an accurate, scientific and neutral translation of Quran? 46.225.1.83 (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that any translation of so contentious a work can ever be considered "neutral", which is ultimately a political term. Here is a 2005 article that might help you in "Assessing English Translations of the Qur'an". This is the Misplaced Pages article on English translations of the Quran; it lists dozens of versions in the 21st century alone, so I understand why you feel the need for guidance. The external links to that article may help you. One of the most recent translations, and one released by a mainstream American publisher, is The Study Quran; from a CNN article about it:
- "I never advise a non-Muslim who wants to find out more about Islam to blindly grab the nearest copy of an English-language Quran they can find," Mehdi Hasan, a journalist for Al Jazeera, said during the panel discussion at Georgetown. Ten years in the making, "The Study Quran" is more than a rebuttal to terrorists, said Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an Iranian-born intellectual and the book's editor-in-chief. His aim was to produce an accurate, unbiased translation understandable to English-speaking Muslims, scholars and general readers.
- But then, who is going to say that their aim is to produce an inaccurate, biased version? So ultimately, you will have to make up your own mind. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent summary, @Carbon Caryatid:, nothing to add to a very contentious subject indeed, but that I've updated English translations of the Quran to include basic details from the cited CNN ref on The Study Quran.
- My favorite of four translations I've dipped into over the years, I must admit, as it explicitly deals with the very many complementary and conflicting commentaries over the last 1,400 years (perhaps uniquely, with both Shiite and Sunni traditions well represented) and has many additional helpful aids.
- Very much in the line of the the trusty Harper Study Bible. Highly recommended and worthy of an article, if scholarly reviews are to be treated as reliable sources to the notability of this publication. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- I can get you a completely unbiased translation, but it may make translation mistakes, and its English isn't that good. For al-Baqara, go to . Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, you can never guarantee that a Google Translation will be unbiased. It works primarily by corpus translation – comparing versions of the same document in different languages to work out how one language maps onto the other. If its corpus includes a biased translation of a text, it will blindly use it in future translations. Smurrayinchester 15:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I can get you a completely unbiased translation, but it may make translation mistakes, and its English isn't that good. For al-Baqara, go to . Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- It might be helpful to read more than one translation at a time. There are websites that give several translations of the Qur'an alongside the Arabic, such as Alim.org, Qur'an Browser, Qur'an Online, and the most comprehensive one that I know of, Islam Awakened, which has 40 different translations, separated into generally accepted and controversial ones. There are surely many other websites that do this too. Nothing quite as extensive as some of the Bible websites that give different translations, but Islam Awakened might be the best place to look. Typically the websites have the translation by Marmaduke Pickthall, as well as Abdullah Yusuf Ali's The Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary, and maybe some others. If you see a translation called "Noble Qur'an", that's probably the Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur'an, which is very popular, but it's the "official" translation of the Saudi government and it's been criticized for being heavily biased towards Wahhabism.
- Personally, I have Yusuf Ali's translation. It's probably the most widely read one, and probably the easiest to find if you want an actual physical book (or at least it used to be, before The Noble Qur'an was published). But it's also the one that was promoted by the Saudis before The Noble Qur'an, so it has problems too. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would also suggest to get an edition with an apparatus and scholarly comments - reading a text from a different culture that is many hundred years old is not trivial (heck, even reading a text from the contemporary US on hot-button issues like gun control or abortion leaves many Europeans scratching their heads). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding translation generally, it isn't really possible to have a 100% accurate 1-to-1 translation from any language to any other. Esch language has a slightly different nuance, grammatical construction, and cultural milieu. So all translations have a bias due to the translator, intentional or not. Mingmingla (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Mikhail Tikhanov
Where can I find the complete list of works by Mikhail Tikhanov (1789-1862), the artist of Vasily Golovnin's circumnavigation aboard the Kamchatka? Here are the ones that I know of on commons:Category:Mikhail Tikhanov. His name is also spelled differently in different sources as well. There is one I am especially interested in finding depicting a Hawaiian girl with her pet dog in her hands.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've browsed Russian sources, this one says he made 43 watercolor paintings and 17 of his works were selected as illustrations for Golovnin's book. Per the same source, 2 of his works depict the Brazilian part of the expedition, 4 - the Peruvian part, 18 - the Aleutian and Alaskan part, 5 are from the Californian part, 5 from Mariana Islands, 3 from Manila, 4 from Hawaii, of which one is a portrait of Kamehameha I. Tikhanov appears to be quite underresearched even in Russia. Brandmeister 08:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- More information can be found in this paper by Yu.S. Rutenko (also in Russian). In particular, it refers to a 1974 article by L.A. Shur (Л.А. Шур) published in Латинская Америка, No.5, pp.163–180, which might be also useful. A couple of his paintings are in Tretyakov Gallery, I will try to check their catalog a bit later. — Adavyd (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
July 6
Trade Deals and How to Negotiate Them
What is it specifically about a trade deal that takes so long to negotiate? Is it that you have to basically list every conceivable type of good and then write rules for each one individually? China said recently we'd need a team of 500 to negotiate one with them. in simple terms, what needs negotiating and how does it work?
So much talk about this in the Brexit campaign but little explanation of what actually happens. Obviously I'm not naive enough to think that two people just sit in a room and agree to trade with each other then sign off on it, but still have very little understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukerees83 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- The sticking points are IP and pharmaceuticals. Then there is the trade in subsidised agricultural commodities which are sold below cost of production i.e. dumping.
Sleigh (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Then there is consideration for how free trade of each commodity or service will affect your own nation's workers. If you're going to put large numbers of workers in a given industry out of work, then you might need to take some actions to limit the damage, such as slowly phasing in the free trade, putting some limits on it, or perhaps imposing rules similar to your own industry on the foreign nation, if they wish to compete with your own. There's also the cost of retraining everyone who will lose their job, employment benefits, etc. Of course, you could just take a lassez-faire approach and ignore the plight of your workers, but that may have political repercussions at the next election. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you'd like to read some articles with references, take a look at Template:World trade. While all articles there would be of interest to you, the articles listed under the "Issues" tab would probably be most applicable.--William Thweatt 20:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Beyond the points mentioned by Sleigh, Investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms in trade treaties have recently gotten a lot of attention/concern. Particularly their potential effect on measures relating to tobacco control but also other government actions like those relating to environmental protection.
Note that the precise sticking points also depend on countries involved. For example, Sleigh mentioned agricultural subsidies, but it isn't just subsidies that are concern but also tariffs and sometimes also non tarriff barriers like standards allegedly for consumer health and agricultural disease protection. You mentioned Brexit and China, but it sounds like you interested in the general case, in which case for countries like NZ and to a less extent Australia and also many developing countries, these agricultural issues are much more of a concern than they are for a number of developed countries like the US, Japan and parts of the EU. Or rather, the US, Japan and parts of the EU are the ones who want to keep all these, whereas NZ, Australia and many developing countries want them removed or limited.
Likewise if involved, it's normally the US pushing for IP and pharmaceutical protections with other countries generally wanting less stringent protections. The US also tends to push against govermental drug price negoation schemes (including those of developed countries). But OTOH, if it's developed count/ries negotiating with developing countr/ies, it'll normally be the developed countr/ies pushing for greater protections and the developing countries pushing back. In the particular case of pharmaceuticals, Biopharmaceutical have often been a big deal in recent years, e.g. in the TPP .
If you are particularly interested in the Brexit case, a big sticking point in any UK-EU negotiations seems to relate to the free movement of people, as some in the UK want access to the EU internal market but want to significant limit freedom of movement whereas a number of EU countri leaders and the EU policy as a whole considers freedom of movement an integral part of the internal market.
Turkmenistan name and independence
When was the Turkmen SSR renamed to the Republic of Turkmenistan? And, does anyone know if a copy of either that law, and/or (dunno if it happened at the same time) the Turkmen Declaration of Independence are available online, in any language? --Golbez (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- "The Land The Republic of Turkmenistan, independent successor state to the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic, declared its independence following the collapse of the attempted coup against the USSR's Gorbachëv in August 1991. October 27 has been established as the official Independence Day". See Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States 2012 by M. Wesley Shoemaker (p. 276).
- Some more information at Prospects for Constitutionalism in Post-Communist Countries edited by Levent Gönenç (pp. 205-206), but no luck on finding the declaration text online. Alansplodge (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Kind of surprising such an important document isn't online, but yeah, it does seem that it was a binary switch from "Turkmen SSR in the USSR" to "independent Turkmenistan", unlike most of the other SSRs which changed names sometime before independence. Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Some more information at Prospects for Constitutionalism in Post-Communist Countries edited by Levent Gönenç (pp. 205-206), but no luck on finding the declaration text online. Alansplodge (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Nazi female spy
I cant seem to remember, but who was the most female spy during the WW? sHES practically a household name, danced around.Lihaas (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe you're thinking of Mata Hari? --Golbez (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you.Lihaas (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- That was pre-Nazi. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- The OP did say "the WW", which is ambiguous. But she was the most female of them all. -- Jack of Oz 11:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. But the OP confirmed that it was Mata Hari. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Could've been Edith Cavell. She was pretty 'WW' and pretty female. And the OP at no point mentioned nationality did he... Muffled 14:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not per se, but "Nazi" in the section title is sort of a hint, even if it did turn out to be anachronistic. --69.159.60.163 (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe the Mata Hari execution was partly revenge for that one. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- But still not a "Nazi female spy".... was evidentally a caberet dancer, but I wouldn't exactly call he a household name. I think the logical conclusion is that the OP was remembering at least one of the details of "Nazi female spy", "most female", "during the WW", "danced around", "household name" wrong. And the "Yes, thank you" response suggests the Nazi one was probably the misremembered bit. Nil Einne (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not Cavell. She wasn't a dancing household name. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Cavell's pretty well known over here, although not for dancing; "Patriotism is not enough" and all that. She has a rather splendid monument close to Trafalgar Square and next to the National Portrait Gallery (but I agree that she wasn't the one that the OP was looking for). Alansplodge (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- In the antipodes, Edith Cavell bridge, though not actually officially dedicated to her, is also a very picturesque memorial. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- There is a local school named after Edith Cavell, also a ward in the local hospital . From that I assumed she was a nurse. There is also, according to our article, a memorial to her at St Leonard's Hospital. 80.44.163.165 (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- In the antipodes, Edith Cavell bridge, though not actually officially dedicated to her, is also a very picturesque memorial. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Cavell's pretty well known over here, although not for dancing; "Patriotism is not enough" and all that. She has a rather splendid monument close to Trafalgar Square and next to the National Portrait Gallery (but I agree that she wasn't the one that the OP was looking for). Alansplodge (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not Cavell. She wasn't a dancing household name. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Could've been Edith Cavell. She was pretty 'WW' and pretty female. And the OP at no point mentioned nationality did he... Muffled 14:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. But the OP confirmed that it was Mata Hari. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- The OP did say "the WW", which is ambiguous. But she was the most female of them all. -- Jack of Oz 11:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- That was pre-Nazi. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you.Lihaas (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
July 7
Has there ever been a UK Prime Minister who hasn't held a Cabinet (or Shadow Cabinet) level job?
What with Andrea Leadsom being a contender and everything... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.212.8 (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- You’re not the first person to wonder about this - someone posed the question on Twitter yesterday. Candidates mentioned include the Marquess of Rockingham and Henry Addington. And the Duke of Wellington, although he did have quite a bit of relevant experience what with being the leader of the British Army, hero of Waterloo and whatnot.
An additional topic is people made Leader of the Opposition with minimal experience. David Cameron had only been shadow education secretary for a few months when he ran for leader. Jeremy Corbyn, of course, had never been a minister or shadow minister before becoming Leader of the Opposition. But leaders of the opposition of course normally get several years to grow into the role before the next election. In general, though, it looks like it would be fair to call Leadsom becoming Prime Minister more or less unprecedented in modern British politics. Blythwood (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't the Opposition Leader a Shadow Minister? He'd be primus inter pares vis a vis shadow ministers, wouldn't he? -- Jack of Oz 07:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think that was offered as a parallel question, not an answer. —Tamfang (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, I think I see now. He's obviously a shadow minister now, but he had had no such experience at the time he became Leader of the Opposition. Carry on. -- Jack of Oz 09:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly, yes (made some changes to clarify this). Straight into the top job of his political party. It also looks like Rhodri Morgan went straight in at First Minister of Wales without being in the Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet. This was apparently because while he was very popular in the Labour Party, Tony Blair wouldn't give him a cabinet position. But the FMoW isn't selected by the Prime Minister. Blythwood (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, I think I see now. He's obviously a shadow minister now, but he had had no such experience at the time he became Leader of the Opposition. Carry on. -- Jack of Oz 09:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think that was offered as a parallel question, not an answer. —Tamfang (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't the Opposition Leader a Shadow Minister? He'd be primus inter pares vis a vis shadow ministers, wouldn't he? -- Jack of Oz 07:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
July 8
Ending the Joint Control Commission
What would happen between Russia and Moldova if the latter rejected the agreement that established the Joint Control Commission? No speculation, please; most treaties and agreements of this sort include provisions for permitting a party to withdraw from the agreement, and that's what I'm after. It was apparently a ceasefire, but with the Russians not officially fighting on either side, I'm not clear what de jure changes would occur in Russo-Moldovan relationships. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Traffic stop procedure
In the US, during a traffic stop the police officer usually instructs you to do the following:
1. Stay in your vehicle
2. Roll down your window
3. Keep both hands on the steering where/keep both hands visible to the officer
4. Slowly reach for your license and registration
I'm told that in Europe, a different approach is taken, where the vehicle occupants are told to exit their vehicle. In the US, exiting your car during a traffic stop would be profoundly unwise.
Why the difference in procedure? Approximately when did they start to diverge? (pre-WWII or post?) Are there records on which police departments were the first to pioneer and standardize these procedures? Crudiv1 (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Facetiously: The faster runners are American, the faster drivers are European and everyone in America has a gun. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- On the few occasions I've been stopped by the police in my car in the UK the policeman has simply spoken through my car window. I have never been asked to get out (or not to). I have lowered the window as a courtesy. I have never been asked to put my hands anywhere but I suppose they would be visible. I have never been asked for my licence or registration (you are not required or expected to carry them anyway). All the "security" aspects simply do not arise (in my experience). I suppose (but I have no references to any of this) the UK procedures have not changed since WWII. I'll look and see if I can find a UK standard procedure and report back (if User:Alansplodge doesn't beat me to it!). Thincat (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- For the avoidance of doubt (1) following a stop I have not been accused of any offence (2) I have not been shot at. Thincat (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like a challenge (you should have waited until my lunchbreak was over). Here is the official advice:
- "The police can stop a vehicle for any reason. If they ask you to stop, you should always pull over when it’s safe to do so. You’re breaking the law if you don’t. If you’re stopped, the police can ask to see your: driving licence, insurance certificate MOT certificate. If you don’t have these documents with you, you have 7 days to take them to a police station. You’re breaking the law if you don’t show the requested documents within 7 days".
- This law firm's site says "Wait in your vehicle for the officer to approach you. They may stand just behind where you are sitting, causing you to turn. This is so that the officer can see your hands to make sure you’re not carrying any potential weapons". However. I concur with User:Thincat that the whole procedure seems rather casual. I expect it's different if they think you might be a drug dealer or a bank robber. The police on the other side of the Channel are said to be more aggressive, but I've never been stopped there. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you – I wasn't intending to disturb your lunch! And here is some highly unofficial information for drivers who want to assert their rights. It says in passing there is no "national standard" and there is a huge difference between police forces. Thincat (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like a challenge (you should have waited until my lunchbreak was over). Here is the official advice:
- I expect we in Britain sound very smug. Things can (and do) go badly wrong here. Shooting of Stephen Waldorf and others. Thincat (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
IIRC I've never been stopped (don't drive much) in NZ nor been in a car that's been stopped except for a breathtest. But from shows like Motorway Patrol and other police reality shows, I think the situation in NZ (or for that matter Australia) is also generally fairly casual. However you're not expected to, and rather you don't exit the vehicle and may even tell you that. Beyond the increased risk of some sort of confrontation, there's also the risk you'll either do a runner or more likely carelessly put yourself at risk before they can stop you, especially on a motorway. If you get out anyway, they'll most likely direct you to a save place and do the interview from there.
If they're afraid you'll drive-off, they'll ask you to turn off the ignition. Maybe hand over the keys too, but I think that's only if they're impounding the car or otherwise you shouldn't be driving anymore that day. However they may ask you to throw the keys out the window if they've afraid of drive-off and fear you may be armed. But even then, I believe they'll still prefer you to wait in the car for the safety of everyone until someone can make an approach to detain you.
In non confrontational situations, they may ask you to exit the vehicle if they want to search it, and also I guess if they want to show you something about the vehicle. (I don't know if they ask or it's just expected if the vehicle is being impounded etc.)
I found this chapter from a police operations manual which seem to confirm a number of these details.
P.S. In Malaysia step 4 probably includes and money and step 5 is putting money under your licence and handing it all over.
Health enquiry
i need to urgently connect commisioner for healthon a deadly hospital in my area41.203.71.178 (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- The Lagos State Commissioner for Health is in Durosimi Street, telephone +234 8033578492. 80.44.163.165 (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Jewish history t-shirt
I have two questions about historical veracity.
1) I bought this T-shirt on vacation in Israel recently and wanted to run it through the history guys here - are they all objectively true?, thanks.
T-shirt text:
Civilizations, nations and empires that have tried to destroy the Jewish People:
Nation:
Ancient Egypt (Status: x-Gone)
Philistines (Status: x-Gone)
Assyrian Empire (Status: x-Gone)
Babylonian Empire (Status: x-Gone)
Persian Empire (Status: x-Gone)
Greek Empire (Status: x-Gone)
Roman Empire (Status: x-Gone)
Byzantine Empire (Status: x-Gone)
Crusaders (Status: x-Gone)
Spanish Empire (Status: x-Gone)
Nazi Germany (Status: x-Gone)
Soviet Union (Status: x-Gone)
Iran (Status: ???)
(The Jewish People - The smallest of nations but with a Friend in the highest of places! So...BE NICE!)
ZygonLieutenant (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like ignorant propaganda to me. There is an Arab - Israeli conflict, but the Persians are not Arabs, nor were they belligerent in what you might call the War of Independence, the Six - Day War and the Yom Kippur War. 80.44.163.165 (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- The shirt is talking about the Persian Empire, not Iran (except where it says Iran). Sir Joseph 16:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's historical nonsense and modern misinformation. I get the idea of the joke, but the historical errors spoil it for me. "Ancient Egypt" tried to destroy the Jewish people? There was a Greek Empire? The Babylonian Empire arguably was instrumental in creating a Jewish ethnicity (although not intentionally). The expulsion of Jews from Spain was at a time when Spain had only just come together, and before there was a Spanish Empire. And so on... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- The shirt is talking about the Persian Empire, not Iran (except where it says Iran). Sir Joseph 16:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- And it's at the very least tendentious to claim that most of these tried to "destroy" the Jewish people. Some of them tried to incorporate conquered peoples into their empire, but that's not the same as destroying theM. --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also, thinking a bit deeper, there is a sleight-of-hand (or "sleight-of-argument"?) in tracking continuity differently in different cases. Yes, Ancient Egypt is gone (more or less by definition), but Egypt is still around. The Roman Empire has crumbled as a political entity, but the Italians are still around. So are Spain, Germany and Russia. On the other hand, the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) is gone, as are its successor states. So is the Hasmonean dynasty/Herodian Kingdom of Judea, and the short-lived organization of Bar Kokhba. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Except that is not what the shirt argued.It didn't argue about the Jewish empire or kingdom, it said Jewish people. And yes, many of those on the list tried to destroy the Jewish people for their religion and not just incorporating them into their empire. When an empire, such as the Greek, make a law that it is illegal to practice your religion under pain of death, or when the Spanish expel you or when the Nazis kill you, etc... It's a t-shirt but it is based on truth. Sir Joseph 17:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Can you tell me which historical incident you associate with "the Greek Empire making a law that it is illegal to practice religion under pain of death"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Except that is not what the shirt argued.It didn't argue about the Jewish empire or kingdom, it said Jewish people. And yes, many of those on the list tried to destroy the Jewish people for their religion and not just incorporating them into their empire. When an empire, such as the Greek, make a law that it is illegal to practice your religion under pain of death, or when the Spanish expel you or when the Nazis kill you, etc... It's a t-shirt but it is based on truth. Sir Joseph 17:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also, thinking a bit deeper, there is a sleight-of-hand (or "sleight-of-argument"?) in tracking continuity differently in different cases. Yes, Ancient Egypt is gone (more or less by definition), but Egypt is still around. The Roman Empire has crumbled as a political entity, but the Italians are still around. So are Spain, Germany and Russia. On the other hand, the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) is gone, as are its successor states. So is the Hasmonean dynasty/Herodian Kingdom of Judea, and the short-lived organization of Bar Kokhba. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- And it's at the very least tendentious to claim that most of these tried to "destroy" the Jewish people. Some of them tried to incorporate conquered peoples into their empire, but that's not the same as destroying theM. --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
British history tweet
2) This is a tweet with map that I read, is it also objectively true?
Text:
All the countries invaded by Britain throughout history (in blue). The countries never invaded by the British (in grey): Andorra, Belarus, Bolivia, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo Republic of, Guatemala, Ivory Coast, Krygyzstan, Liechenstein, Luxembourg, Mali, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Mongolia, Paraguay, Sao Tome + Principe, Sweden, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Vatican City.
]
Thanks again, ZygonLieutenant (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Cleanliness
When I come out of the shower, I feel fresh and clean, not thereafter I urinate. Of course I can’t have a shower every time thereafter urination, so, what’s the best way to stay clean 24/7? -- Apostle (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Categories: