Revision as of 03:41, 30 June 2016

• 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

June 25

Berkshire Hathaway 2016 Annual Shareholders Meeting

Anybody know where I can get the full transcript to this meeting. The full transcript not the abridged version. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.122.107.158 (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no requirement for any company to produce a full transcript of any meeting - minutes record the main issues discussed and the decisions taken - anything said during a discussion is irrelevant. Wymspen (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The meeting was live-streamed, and you can see a (full?) recording of it here (first result of googling the exact text of the question). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Does the Scottish Parliament have the power to legislate referendums, or does that rest with Westminster?

2.102.186.168 (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

If the subject is a matter within its own competence, no doubt yes. But in a matter reserved to the UK government (e.g. foreign policy) it would be a waste of time because it doesn't have legislative power. The Devolution Act goes into great detail what powers are reserved to the Westminster government. 80.44.162.99 (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

So the Scottish Parliament could hold a referendum on Sunday trading but not on whether Scotland should become an independent country? 2.102.186.168 (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It could hold an independence referendum but the Westminster government would not be obliged to take any notice of the result. 80.44.162.99 (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Well technically the Westminister government could try and stop them holding the referendum if they wanted to, like the Spanish government tried with the Catalan self-determination referendum, 2014. How far each would go if this does happen is unclear. That includes what happens if civil servants etc are told to do one thing by the UK government and courts, and another by the Scottish government. (Also parliamentary sovereignty means technically the UK parliament (including Scottish MPs if they desire) can say "Fuck you, Scotland, and fuck your Macsween Haggis?" to whatever they can do under their existing devolved powers even this seems unlikely.) I.E. It can complicated even before you bring up Monopoly on violence and the seeming unlikelihood of either government using force (and getting people to use that force).

Incidently, if this happens after the UK completes withdrawal from the EU, possibly the Court of Justice of the European Union wouldn't come in to play although the European Court of Human Rights may still unless the UK also withdraws from the European Convention on Human Rights (which even Russia is mostly a part of).

The wider issue getting back to what 80 said, is what happens even if Scotland runs a succcessful referendum? Where do the governments go next and how will these work out? Especially if the UK government has already said it's irrelevant which may depress turnout which ends up being low. (There's a fair chance most the points I brought up about the referendum won't be tested until both still can't agree after.) As we've seen in many cases, unilaterally breaking away tends to be complicated.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

For purists, though, unilteral action is the only way. If freedom depends on the agreement of another party, what's to stop that party changing its mind? The UK Parliament is not bound by any earlier decisions it has made. And how would its agreement fit with "We Scots are free because we say so"? -- Jack of Oz 22:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Although in practical terms, if you're going to break-up your country, it ought really to be by mutual consent. There was a legitimate opportunity for Scotland to leave the Union a few months ago and they said "no". Alansplodge (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I suspect things would have been very different had that referendum followed Brexit rather than preceding it. Timing is everything. -- Jack of Oz 12:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, everyone knew that the EU referendum was scheduled and that it could go either way. Some people want to keep having referenda until they get the result that they want. Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it even a done deal? There seems to be a move afoot to override the referendum in Parliament. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Legally, Parliament could do that, but then the rioting would be more costly than leaving the EU--Lgriot (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

What about rioting that might result from leaving? It's becoming clear that the Leave politicians lied about a few things. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

As did the Remain politicians, for example George Osbourne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said before the Referendum that a 'Leave' result would mean he would have to introduce a (very unpleasant) Emergency Budget, and this morning (27 June) has announced that the economy is in robust shape, can well cope with the temporary fluctuations, and there is no need for any emergency budget.

Of course they all lied, they're politicians. Everyone knew they were all lying, just as they were all lying in 1975 (and later admitted it) when I last voted on this question.

There will be no immediate changes at all, a number of undramatic adjustments over the next several years, and there will be no rioting unless deliberately whipped up by people with an entirely different agenda. What is your skin in this game, Bugs? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I was reading a CNN analysis of 3 key points the Leavers mis-led the public about. There's also Trump pushing the idea that the Brexit will help his campaign (although praising it while in Scotland might not have been the best idea.) And as one with British heritage, it's Kind of sad to see the possibility of England, Scotland and Ireland all going their separate ways. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a similar analysis of the key points the Remainers misled the public about?

Trump is being as entertaining and clueless as always.

As for a UK break-up, eventual Scottish independence has always been likely since the Scottish Nationalist Party became the governing party in the Scottish Parliament and demonstrated a reasonable degree of competence. As an Englishman (with Scots ancestry) who lived in Scotland for 7 years, I wish them all good luck if that's what they want – after all, they only united with England by their own Parliamentary vote in 1707 in order to be bailed out of an economic crisis. Most of Ireland has been independent since 1922, and most people in England and I dare say Wales would be happy to see full Irish re-unification: the obstacle is the stubborn resistance of a slight majority of the NI populace whom pesky democracy compels us to accommodate, and the private horror of the Eire government at the prospect despite their public constitutional aims. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

on the "private horror" business. -- Jack of Oz 22:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Supposedly, one of the long-term frustrations of the Brexiters was the loss of the British Empire during the last 70 years or more. Given that, apparently the Brexiters want to take it all the way back, to where there's nothing left but England itself. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that supposition was made by somebody unfamiliar with British politics. That said, there is growing support for England to be given the same devolved powers enjoyed by the other Home Nations, and especially on the right. Alansplodge (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

So the right wing would be OK with Scotland joining the EU? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Process of Brexit

I'm looking for a link explaining what needs to be disentangled between the UK and the EU and why it is expected to take two years or so. Thanks in advance! Loraof (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Article 50 sets a two year deadline for Withdrawal from the European Union. What they plan to do with that time, I don't know but at the EU end they've been saying it needn't take nearly that long. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Although in all likelihood we will leave by the Article 50 Mechanism in the Lisbon Treaty, some politicians are claiming that it is not the only way we can withdraw, for example Parliament could just repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, although given the need for a negotiated settlement, this is unlikely --Andrew 15:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)Andrew 15:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This from UCL seems pretty authoritative and this too by Adam Lazowski at the LSE. Basically - this is all unknown, and the government will literally need to start hiring experts to tell them how to do it or cutting deals to take them on loan from businesses and universities. Obviously though there are many possibilities not named on here, most likely of all the new prime minister being given a tough deal and deciding to sign it instantly despite the problems in order to give business some clarity on the future, or a global financial crash causing a rethink. Blythwood (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Some information (but no estimate of time) at What happens now the UK has voted Brexit - and what is Article 50?. Alansplodge (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The whole "We can just do whatever" argument seems pretty bogus. I mean, strictly speaking the UK could just cease all compliance with EU law and then refuse to enforce any judgments against the UK that result from that noncompliance, essentially telling the EU to just try making them. I don't think this is particularly likely, and the claim that it's possible seems more of a soundbite to silence arguments that it could be blocked at the EU level. The actual damage to the UK economy—and I mean actual, directly attributable damage, not simply loss of currency value that has been argued as a result of investors relying on incorrect poll data, and the panic that followed their readjustment—would be substantial. There would definitely be judgments in international courts against the UK, which would be enforceable by seizing UK assets—whether held by the government or by multinationals—that happen to be present in other countries. The result would probably be similar to Iranian assets in the US being frozen, or Albanian rights to Nazi gold being frozen following their refusal to pay the judgment to the UK in the Corfu Channel case. States absolutely may breach treaties, just as individuals absolutely may breach contracts, but there are costs associated with those breaches that will eventually be satisfied, whether through direct payment, indirect payment (e.g., seizing and auctioning of assets), or as part of future treaty dealings (i.e., country A forgives this judgment if country B agrees to support these treaty terms).As to how Article 50 works, there are definite questions I would have. For instance, whether at any point following the formal notification that the two-year time limit is mandatorily tolled, such as during a case interpreting the treaties during which negotiation is necessarily suspended. Also, what happens if a state refuses to negotiate in good faith? There is an obligation to do so under general principles of international law. Could the time limit be tolled by such wrongful conduct on the part of a member state? Finally, there's absolutely no clear provision for canceling an invocation of Article 50, except by implication that the Council can (by unanimous agreement with the departing state) extend the deadline—thus could the deadline be extended indefinitely? Finally, what happens if there's formal notification and then there follows a successful legal challenge in the UK's domestic courts against the referendum act? Does the formal notification become ineffective because Article 50 requires the decision to leave be compliant with the member state's law? Of course, standard treaty interpretation and common sense (as far as common sense exists in these matters) would control. But there are definite issues that require legal exploration, and certainly will hold up Brexit. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. So it looks like there are four main issues: (1) status of EU citizens in the UK and vice versa; (2) tariffs etc. between the EU and the UK; (3) the UK's relationship with the WTO; and (4) approval of the existing members of the European Economic Association for Britain to join (if relevant). Loraof (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you mean the European Economic Association. Do you mean the European Economic Area? Also, maybe by "if relevant" you meant if the UK want to join, but I would suggest this is also a main issue not just an afterthought. I.E. The views of both sides is a main issue. The UK seems to want to join the EEA, but doesn't seem particularly happy (as it's normally suggested it was one of the fundamental issues in the referendum) with what a number of members of the EEA consider a fundamental part of the modern EEA i.e. the free movement of people. Note that this also means 1 could easily become mostly moot if the UK does join the EEA. (I think also most of 2.). The UK would also need to join the European Free Trade Association if they wanted to join the EEA, but I haven't seen it suggested this is likely to be much of a separate problem. (I.E. If they'd have no problem joining the EEA they'd probably be fine joinining EFTA.) Joining the EFTA and aiming for a Swiss style or even less relationship with the EU does seem less clear but the UK is significanly more concerned about their relationship with the EU. P.S. There may be slightly greater latitude to impose restrictions on free movement of people under the EEA but there's no strong evidence these will sufficiently allay the concerns of those who wanted out. Nil Einne (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Graveyard plans for 1862 for All Saints Church, Weston, Newark, Nottinghamshire

I would like to see grave yard plans for 1862 for all saints church weston newark nottinghamshire please86.181.235.182 (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the vicar? Blythwood (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Contact details are here. Alansplodge (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

June 26

Reference of Liberland page for italian language readers.

As everybody can find looking for the argument "Liberland" in Misplaced Pages there are a lot of articles in several languages who gives appropriate informations about the matter of Liberland and his battle to achieve the status of nation trough his diplomatic activity. That is effective all around the world except fot the italian localization of Misplaced Pages. Every attempt to restore the page "Liberland" ends in a frustrating banning withouth any further explication. May be someone from international Misplaced Pages could suggest a different policy to the italian editorial staff. Any help is welcome. Best regards Umberto Fabbiani — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.70.172 (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It's fairly unlikely people in the Italian wikipedia will take kindly to people from any of the other international wikipedia tellings them what to do. We here on the English wikipedia definitely don't. Note that without speaking on the merits of the Liberland article on the Italian wikipedia, continually recreating a deleted article without establishing sufficient reason why the previous deletion was in error or there's now merit to an article when there wasn't before, is the sort of thing liable to get you blocked where you try it. It definitely happens here on the English wikipedia, and I'm fairly sure will also be the case on other major international wikipedias (e.g. Spanish, French, Chinese). Once an article has been deleted several times, you should general discuss first not after. And such a discussion should be based on the wikipedia's own policies and guidelines, not what other wikipedias do. If you've already been blocked, you've likely lost your right to discuss and depending on the circumstances it may be hard to earn it back. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the Italian Misplaced Pages, the article has been deleted several times under their equivalent of WP:CSD (it:Misplaced Pages:Cancellazioni immediate) but without a rationale being given. This userpage comment might also be relevant. However, this is not an issue that the English Misplaced Pages can influence. Tevildo (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I'm not the author of the page but i'm interested in the matter as user and scholar. There is no way to open a conversation in the italian edition neither to get some motivated explanation. So i suppose there is some ideological prejudice. I'll not proceed further and will stay with some doubt in my mind. best regards, Umberto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.70.172 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you say "There is no way to open a conversation"? You haven't said anything suggesting anyone has tried to start a proper conversation and my quick look at what happened there doesn't suggest anyone has tried to start such a conversaion. As I said above, a proper conversation would likely be taking about it in a suitable place, explaining with evidence why you think the decision was wrong based on the Italian wikipedia's policies and guidelines and in many cases it may very well be you or whoever believes the article should exist who would need to start that conversation. Continually recreating the article in main space (whoever did it) is definitely not the way to open a conversation and in fact is probably going make it difficult to have a proper conversation. However it should still be possible if someone makes the proper effort and you've said nothing to suggest anyone has even tried. (Note also the way wikipedias handle articles which may have merit but where the current version of the article clearly fails to demonstrate that or worse is clearly unsuitable varies. In some cases deleting the article may very well be the norm. In that case particularly after the second attempt, whoever did it, you may very well have to write the article somewhere other than mainspace although again you probably should discuss first before starting. In other words, start with explaining with evidence why you think there's merit for an article according to the policies and guidelines of the Italian wikipedia i.e. not stuff like "there's an article on the English wikipedia" and if you can convince people that maybe you're right but they can't see it in the old version, offer to create a draft somewhere for them to review.) Notably assuming there is some sort of "ideological prejudice" when there doesn't seem to be any evidence for that doesn't help anyone. Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Recovery of the British stock market only - why?

Most stock markets in Europe lost roughly 7 % due to Brexit; however the FTSE in London then recovered significantly to a minus left of -3.20 %, while markets in continental Europe stayed "on ground". What might be the reason? Is it just the time lag of one hour? When it became apparent that the downfall had stopped, continental European markets didn't have the time to significantly go up anymore, but London did have the time? Or are there probably other reasons? --KnightMove (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Did the FTSE lose ground in the days leading up to the vote, over uncertainty ? If so, that might explain why there was less of a net drop after the vote. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

No, as all other stock markets it had a sharp drop, literally vertically downwards, directly after the vote. But it recovered more than others. Compare the English FTSE weekly chart vs. the German DAX. --KnightMove (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The FTSE 100 and other UK indexes also rose sharply in the days immediately before the referendum, on the expectation of a "Remain" vote, so in a sense the dramatic falls on Friday were just a "correction" to that, but it had also been very volatile in previous days. It was down another 2.5% today. Thanks, Dave... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Brexit and the British Economy

What are the economic implications of the Brexit, and why did the Pound lose value so quickly? Jwilliampomeroy (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

on economic implications, that if it does exit from the European Union then 1) it has to renegotiate trade deals with all the world, creating uncertainty and, until such deals are done, subjecting British exports to adverse tariffs 2) that it has to resolve the basic conundrum that to get access to the European Single Market (i.e. to avoid import tariffs when exporting to Eurpoe) it has to allow freedom of movement and pay contributions to Europe, exactly two of the issues on which Brexit was predicated - and failure to gain access to the market will impact negatively on British exports to Europe and 3) companies making (or having made) inwards investment in Europe are hardly likely to put the UK at the top of the list, if it is no longer a domicile from which the European market can be addressed: so think jobs & companies and tax revenues leaving the UK, or being foregone 4) all of which is exactly the climate in which any investor will think twice about investing: so expect to see decreased capital expenditure from business, which as is the way of these things, creates a negative feedback loop. Eventually all this may lead to some sunny upland, according to the Leave campaign, or not, according to pretty much eveyone else. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason the markets are so worried and the pound has fallen is because no-one actually knows what the economic implications of Brexit will turn out to be. No-one thought it would actually happen, and there is no previous experience to base expectations on, so everything is uncertain - and the markets dislike uncertainty. Wymspen (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

That's quite true, but we can say more: the price of Sterling, denominated in Euros or Dollars, falls because there is less demand for it as the rest of the world declines to buy Sterling to invest in Britain, and because there is an expectation that the value of Sterling will fall, and so it ceases to be considered a sensible thing in which to hold wealth: holders of Sterling sell, and the price goes down. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Where to begin? - 1) the government has collapsed, so any investment plans made on an expectation of stable government in future have evaporated (like Greece), 1a) we face an endless go-around of this, since a rejoin-the-EU movement looks inevitable even if we did quit 2) financial services suspect that they may have to leave the UK, so will soon start to talk about moving to Dublin 3) this will crash the London property market (not necessarily a bad thing tbh) which will lead to cancellations of planned housing developments 4) many businesses selling to Europe are frantically finding a way to relocate to Dublin 5) Scottish independence seems inevitable 6) none of the prospective new prime ministers inspires confidence about their ability to fix any other coming crises, especially since civil servants will be diverted away from other work to trying to patch things up with Europe 7) all imports are now more expensive, so importers will do worse 8) many manufacturers depend on imports to manufacture things, so actually a weak pound may not help them as much as you'd think 9) more positively (?) a declining number of immigrants (or prospect of same, or the UK becoming less desirable to migrants) may push wages up. 10) Tourism probably got a lot more attractive, since the weak pound can help here, but it's mostly too late for people to take advantage of this to book summer holidays in the UK. Basically, nobody knows, but nothing about this sounds good. For a specific case study, let's examine the writings of arch-Brexiteer pundit Allister Heath, who went in two days from "the premises of Project Fear – that Brexit would trigger economic dislocation, a trade war and a recession – are utterly bogus" to "warnings of economic Armageddon...will doubtlessly become partly self-fulfilling in the months to come." Blythwood (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

As a more speculative assessment, I think the Brexitters in the City of London rather fancied the idea of turning the UK into one gigantic hedge fund, another Iceland - no or fewer treaty obligations to apply regulations, massively reduced regulation, lower taxes, much more financialised. But this is likely not politically possible, since such people (although they have or control a lot of money) are outweighed by the rest of business, which trades heavily with Europe and are broadly OK with the EU - certainly more OK with it than with tariffs on the border and all major US banks quitting the UK for Frankfurt and Dublin. Except keeping that looks difficult too, since we can't keep that if we don't keep free movement of people, and that's not what the anti-immigrant voters thought they were getting. So there now follows a collision coming between about 99% of the 1%, who have much to gain from being in the single market, in coalition with younger people, and a coalition of the 1% of the 1% who don't, the poorest and the oldest (who are often set for life having bought houses at a tenth their current value). This paves the way for decades of internecine political conflict. Blythwood (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

June 27

What does this quote from the Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan article mean?

The article (Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan) says: The Titan also sank, more than half of her 2500 passengers drowned. However, only 13 ultimately survived the disaster, 705 of the Titanic's crew and passengers survived. What does this mean? Or, what is it supposed to mean? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The others must have died from something other than drowning. Hypothermia, for example. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. I guess that makes sense. It still seems oddly worded. Or designed to confuse. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The full text of the story is available online here thanks to Project Gutenberg. There is no detail in it as to whether people died by drowning, hypothermia, or other ways. The story follows one man who, together with a young child, is thrown by the collision off the ship and onto the iceberg; he sees a lifeboat in the water but they don't see him, and he doesn't get a clear view of what happens to the ship. This is all detailed in Chapter VII. The collision is more violent than in the real-life Titanic disaster and most of the boats cannot be launched. Later, when the man and child are rescued and brought ashore, he learns (in Chapter X) that there were only 11 other survivors, presumably on the one and only boat that could be launched.

In short, the confusing sentence needs to be rewritten. --69.159.9.187 (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmm. So, I think I figured this out. (Maybe?) Let's say that on the Titan, only 13 people (out of 2500) survived. That means that 2487 (that is, 2500 minus 13) did not survive. If 2487 people died, it is indeed accurate to say that "more than half died". Any number greater than 1250 would satisfy the requirement of "more than half". It just so happens that the actual number (2487) happens to be well above the minimum required number (1250). So, it is indeed semantically and mathematically accurate to claim that "more than half drowned", when 2487 out of 2500 drowned. (Of course, it's a bit misleading. But that's a different question.) I think in this article, they are trying to highlight the similarities between the Titan ship and the Titanic ship. So, it would be an accurate similarity to say that: "More than half died in the Titanic incident, and, similarly, more than half died in the Titan incident". So, it simply reinforces the similarity. The actual article, as I quoted above, stated: "The Titan also sank, more than half of her 2500 passengers drowned. However, only 13 ultimately survived the disaster." The word however is adding to the problem. It makes more sense to remove the word however. It makes more sense to say that: "The Titan also sank, more than half of her 2500 passengers drowned. In fact, only 13 ultimately survived the disaster." Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no. Read the story, or at least the chapters I've indicated. (Note, by the way, that the Project Gutenberg page I linked to includes this story and three others; if you start searching for words to find the right place in the story, be careful about going into the other stories accidentally.) I repeat, the story does not say how the victims died. There is no reason to mention "more than half" of them in the first place, and the reference to 2,500 passengers is also wrong. The story says (in Chapter I) that the total passenger and crew capacity was 3,000, but there was only lifeboat capacity for 500, the minimum required by law. So 2,500 is the number of people that would have died if the boats were fully loaded and were the only way anyone was saved. As I said, that's not what happens in the story. The actual number of passengers is given in Chapter I and again in Chapter III as 2,000. Chapters VII and IX mention that there were 3,000 people aboard, so there were 1,000 crew.

(The real-life Titanic, by the way, also had space for about 2,000 passengers, but it was not full when disaster struck. About 1,300 passengers and 900 crew were on board, and there was lifeboat capacity for about 1,100, but many of the boats were launched without being filled to capacity.) --69.159.9.187 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried to click the link you provided. For some reason, I could not "download" the short story. In any event, back to my above post. I am not saying that the information is accurate. I am saying that that is what I believed to be the intent of the article's language and the intent of the editors.. To highlight the similarities between the two ships. And clever wording accomplished that. Without worrying about the exact numbers, I believe that the very generic phrase "more than half died" probably is true as a similarity for both ships. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Car brand identification

What brand of card is this? Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It's potentially a Jaguar, the badge seems to be a stylised version of the roar/growl symbol similar to this. I do not know the veracity of that image though (I found it on an eBay listing entitled "4x Jaguar J Wheel Center Hub Caps Emblem Badge Decal Symbol Sticker Sport New") and certainly haven't seen an oval shaped jag badge before with no lettering. Nanonic (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The badge is just a generic "tiger head" symbol - see, for example, here, where they're on sale for the Kia Optima, and Google gives us plenty of similar sites (blacklisted here, doubtless for good reasons) where the same design is available for various other Kia and Hyundai models. I can't immediately identify the car in the photo, I'm afraid. Tevildo (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It’s a Ford – probably a Mondeo. Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 10:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Derrida and sovereignty

I got into a brief argument recently on another forum, about sovereignty (in the context of the UK vs. EU). The entire argument (or at least, my involvement in it) went as follows:

• X: The whole concept of sovereignty is partly magical and theological anyway...
• Me: In what way? Isn't it just a matter of where ultimate authority lies?
• X: Sovereignty is demonstrably a theological concept. If you're talking about authority, say "authority".
• Me: Then demonstrate it. .
• X: It's already been done.

Now, I'm not going to spend £55 pounds on a book in order to follow up an argument on a now-locked comments thread, but I'd nonetheless like to know what the actual argument is. I've looked at both our articles on Derrida and Sovereignty, and I can't find either a clear indication of Derrida's view on sovereignty, nor any statement that sovereignty is inherently a magical or theological concept. (That's not to say people haven't invoked such concepts to justify sovereignty, but I would consider that a separate issue). Iapetus (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"Sovereign" essentially means "ruling". So I suppose the question is, "Who rules a Brit? The EU or the UK?" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The original discussion was about that, but the argument I ended up in was about the meaning of sovereignty itself, which (according to the other person) is (according to Derrida) inherently "magical" and "theological". What I'm interested in now is what Derrida actually said on the subject. Iapetus (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

From this article (in French) , Derrida uses the word "souverain" (sovereign) as a synonym of ruler and "souveraineté" (sovereignty) to mean the power exercised by the ruler, which is not the usual meaning of the word in either French or English. So I'm not sure Derrida's concepts are really relevant to your debate (more likely, the other poster was just making an argument to authority without necessarily being familiar with the content of the book). From the article, Derrida seems to argue that the exercise of power is akin to the dangerous actions of a wild beast; he uses ancient folk tales and other works of literature that feature wolves and other wild beasts as examples that illustrate this arbitrary and brutal use of force by rulers. --Xuxl (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

With that terminology, you could be describing a mugging. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Number of people killed at Auschwitz

The Eumenides

Were the Eumenides ever accused of breaking the unity of time?--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, you're asking whether it has been said that Aeschylus' play takes place over more than 24 hours? Rojomoke (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rojomoke: Indeed. If Orestes had to go to Athens from Delphi, to stand trial, it would mean that between the prologue (in Delphi) and the episodes (in Athens) there is a gap of more than 24 hours.--The Traditionalist (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Do keep in mind that (to my knowledge) the first attestation of the "three unities" is from Aristotle, who lived a good two centuries after Aeschylus. There are, I would imagine, plenty of Greek dramas that don't adhere to the then-unknown unities, just as there are many post-Aristotelian dramatists (perhaps you've heard of some) who consciously departed from them. Evan  23:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, our article Classical unities#Aristotle's unities says, "Unlike his prescriptive attitude regarding the plot (unity of action), Aristotle here merely remarks on the typical duration of a tragedy's action, and does not suggest any kind of imperative that it always ought to be so. He was writing after the golden age of Greek drama, and many Greek playwrights wrote plays that do not fit within these conventions." Deor (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Boris Johnson

Do we know whom -if anybody- was Boris Johnson named after?--The Traditionalist (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Boris Badenov? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C915:F679:15DB:E494 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, Boris the Spider came along 2 years too late to be the inspiration. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

For clarity are you referring to all components of his personal name "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel" or just the Boris part, or some other part? Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The de Pfeffel part probably came from the surname of his great grandmother who was a descendent of recent German nobility. Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The given name Boris is first found in written records in the case of the Bulgarian ruler Prince Boris I (852-889), who adopted Christianity in 864 AD and imposed it on his people. AllBestFaith (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to The Wit and Wisdom of Boris Johnson by Harry Mount (p. 8); ' “Alexander Boris weighed 9 pounds 1 ounce at birth and is a remarkably lusty child.” Stanley Johnson reports the birth of his son to Boris Litwin, a friend and benefactor who Boris is named after'. Alansplodge (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

More detail in Boris: The Rise of Boris Johnson by Andrew Gimson. Stanley and Charlotte (Boris J's parents) "...took the Greyhound bus to Mexico City... where they met Boris Litwin, whose daughter was a friend of a friend of Stanley's at Oxford. When Litwin saw Charlotte's condition and heard that Stanley proposed to take her all the way to Laredo on the bus, he was appalled and the following exchange took place:

Litwin: 'I want to give you a first-class ticket to New York.'

Charlotte: 'Oh, Mr Litwin...'

Litwin: 'Call me Boris.'

Charlotte: 'Whatever the baby is, I shall call it Boris.'"

It goes on to say that Litwin died before he received the telegram quoted above. Alansplodge (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

And more: "One night, a man called Boris Litwin and his wife invited us to their beautiful home in San Angel. Boris was a Russian who, like Trotsky, had come to live in Mexico. Trotsky had been murdered with an ice pick, but Boris was still going strong. His daughter, Barbara, was the girlfriend of one of my Exeter College friends. At that first lunch, I mentioned to the Litwins that Charlotte and I were planning to return to the United States the way we had come. By Greyhound bus. All 20 hours of it, barring floods, earthquake, ambush or mechanical breakdowns. Boris didn’t say anything, but he looked accusingly at me. I knew what he was thinking. Two days later the Litwins invited us again, this time for dinner. They showered us with presents. I remember a shawl, a wicker basket, a poncho for Charlotte and some silver ornaments. Just as we were saying goodbye, overwhelmed by their generosity, Boris thrust two Mexico City–Laredo air tickets into our hands. “You can forget about the Greyhound bus now!” he told us. It was Charlotte who, on the spur of the moment, came up with an idea for repaying his kindness. “If our baby is a boy,” she told him, as we gratefully accepted the tickets, “we’ll call him Boris!”. Alansplodge (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: Should all this be mentioned in the article? I suppose that many people will wonder how come the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom one of the most important British politicians has a Russian first name.--The Traditionalist (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll do just that when I have a few moments. Alansplodge (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I notice that there is a Boris Litwin Jewelers in Cincinnati - is this linked to the same man (it does claim to be run by the fourth generation of the same family)? Wymspen (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

June 28

Weston, Newark, Nottinghamshire

What article should I read that would explain why so many place names in Britain have three components? Are these like county/municipality/neighbourhood? For example, we just say Woodbury, NJ or Hempstead, NY and not Woodbury, Gloucester, NJ or Hempstead, Nassau, NY (there are cases of overlap like Washington Township, NJ, of which I used to drive through two or three a day regularly--I think there are six in different counties in the state--but these are still only distinguished by postal code in most cases. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's the other way around; neighbourhood/village - town/city - county. Fgf10 (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Place names in this form are usually only used in postal addresses. The second name is the Post town, i.e. one of the main distribution centres for mail. According to Royal Mail it's not necessary to include the county name in an address. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

And giving more than one component is the exception not the rule in Britain, μηδείς. People would normally refer to that place as "Weston" to anybody familiar with the region, and as "Weston, near Newark" to anybody who wasn't. Even with places where there is ambiguity, we tend not to use a binomial name: if I needed to clarify, I would say "Richmond, in Yorkshire", in ordinary speech: only if I were giving an address, or dealing with a list of places, would I say "Richmond, Yorkshire" or "Richmond, North Yorkshire". --ColinFine (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that our article has Weston, Nottinghamshire and makes no mention of Newark. If you were posting a letter, as Colin says above, it would be helpful to include the postal town, but if you have the postcode correct, then it will get there without. Alansplodge (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If you enter a Weston postcode in the Royal Mail postcode finder, it does return an address in Weston, Newark. As you say, it will likely be properly delivered with just a house number and postcode, but it's not the proper postal address. The correct one will include the postal town of Newark. Old folk like me still add the county by habit, and it is part of the address but not needed in the postal address.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's an ironic question, because most British people find the American system of using two names exotic. I'd never say that I come from "London, England". We can get away with using one name because there's such massive diversity in our place names and also because there's usually enough context that even if you live in one of the few places with a popular name, like Newport, your listener would often know that you meant Newport in Cornwall without the need for disambiguation. People from very small towns that assume that their correspondent hasn't heard of often opt to name their nearest large town, instead of the inconvenience of the two place name. It seems that the American convention is to name both place and state, even when they come from the vastly pre-eminent place with that name (I'll refer you back to the "London, England"). I've not met anyone from Oklahoma City. Would they say they come from "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" in the same way I've often heard "Chicago, Illinois"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The analogy is not exact, because the states were in original conception sovereign entities, each with their own legislature, unlike the old counties of England, which do not have their own parliaments. Hence many names like Springfield are found in many states. (Australia has at least 6 Springfields, there are at least 40 in the US, and some states even have more than one!) Of course, if you are in the next town over from Springfield, Massachusetts, you will omit the state name in discussion. But the US is about 470 times the size of Wales, so some redundancy is to be expected. μηδείς (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Mind you, some Welsh place names would go down a storm over the pond. Like this one: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Tudor England

Are there are any good reference works that give a history of homosexuality in Tudor England, particularly how it was conceptualised and what attitudes toward it were - I'm doing a research project on how Tudor England perceived the reign of Edward II, an allegedly gay monarch. Thus far, I've looked at Tudor Histories of England and how they describe him, I've started to look at Marlowe's Edward II, but I need more information on the historiography of homosexuality, and how it was perceived in that time frame. Thanks very much --Andrew 14:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Some refs and comments at Edward_II_of_England#Piers_Gaveston_and_sexuality, two more at History_of_homosexuality#The_Middle_Ages, also note the historiagraphy section for Edward II. This looks to be a well-curated bibliography. I can't tell how much this book talks about Tudor England, you might be able to skim it on google books. 17:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Wow, thank you, there are some excellent resources there for me to have a look at, the Harvard book has an entire chapter on homosexuality in post-reformation England --|||| — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrandrewnohome (talk • contribs) 19:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Assassination attempt on Shirley Waldemar Baker

Can someone help me find an extremely detailed account (available online) of the assassination attempt on Shirley Waldemar Baker with reference to the presence of the Crown Prince of Tonga?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

All I can see if the autobiog of Sioeli Nau here which gives a brief overview of events with no real firm information. Nanonic (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Also - please do read the footnotes, they're quite interesting. Nanonic (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nanoic: Can you link me to the footnotes? I am afraid the preview would end before I reach it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

and should be good for you. Nanonic (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Ignotus

Can anybody find more information on a man named Ignotus, who was a traveling correspondent for The New Zealand Herald in 1886; one of his articles here?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Ignotus is Latin for "unknown". Was it common back then to use that for articles by anonymous authors, perhaps? --Or a specific individual journalist wishing to investigate incognito, such as a travel review columnist. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:8909:BFA1:BA09:8D73 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This might give a clue as to why he wished to remain anonymous. http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=NZH18861213.2.8.3 Wymspen (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

June 29

Electronics prices in Narita International Airport

I have a short layover at Narita International Airport and plan on doing some electronics shopping.

Being duty free might mean that goods there might be cheaper, but being in an airport could also mean a high marker which negates the duty free savings. Is there any way of checking the actual prices of goods sold in the airport online? That way I can compare them against Amazon to decide whether it's a good deal or not and thus know in advance how much Yen to exchange. Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you need to exchange dollar to yen? Just use your VISA credit card, I seriously doubt that you will find a single shop in Narita airport that does not accept VISA credit card. 175.45.116.105 (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There's the potential to have any savings that they would have benefited from being chewed up by exchange fees from Visa. Dismas| 16:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Credit card exchange fees are often better than anything mere mortals can hope to get from other small amount exchange methods. In fact, a common recommendation is to put a positive balance on your credit card (to avoid a cash advance fee) and get money that way rather than trying to exchange it anywhere. (Using your ATM card may or may not be the same, depending on the exchange rates offered and especially any fixed fees for international withdrawals. Also whether your bank does tag on any extra fees for cash withdrawals even with a positive balance as some do although at least they can't charge you their ridiculous interest rates, and how these compare. Using your credit card that way may carry additional risk if your bank doesn't offer the same protections surrounding misuse for a positive balance. I've also heard that in the US you may be sent a cheque for the positive balance, so need ensure you don't put it positive to far ahead.)

Anyway getting back to the main point about using your credit card directly, just check and make sure your bank doesn't just an excessive fee (should probably be 3% at most). Or worse some stupid fixed or minimum fee (although possibly not an issue given the price of electronic items you're likely to purchase duty-free anyway).

Note that electronic items often only have minimal, if any, duty . Venezuela and Argentina seem to be two definite exceptions. But in most places if you don't have to pay a VAT or sales tax where you live, the savings if any, probably aren't coming from being duty free but other factors like such items being cheaper in Japan. (Although probably not helped by it being an airport.)

Nil Einne (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Movement of Adolphe Féder

I've been working to write and improve the quality of the article on Adolphe Féder for some time now but the question I can't seem to answer is: what art movement can Féder be classified as? He was obviously a member of the École de Paris, but alas this is not an art movement, just a collection of artists that frequented the same cafés. As I am not well versed enough in the classifications of art, I've found the task very difficult but perhaps it can be accomplished by someone here. Thank you! Cawhee 07:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

After the mid-1920s there are no longer really any clearly defined movements in art. See the article on Neo-Fauvism which is supposedly the last coherent movement. He is himself, and his work defines itself, rather than having to be tied into any particular movement. Wymspen (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW: The de:WP says Fauvism. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

His early links with Matisse indicate that he had some links to the Fauvist movement - but most of his significant works date from a much later period, and have little in common with Fauvism as a coherent style. Wymspen (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Human Civilization

What country in Africa did the first humans come from? 2001:569:766D:AB00:E873:900E:29D7:FB8C (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Early human migrations#Within Africa says

The most recent common ancestor shared by all living human beings, dubbed Mitochondrial Eve, probably lived roughly 120–150 millennia ago, the time of Homo sapiens idaltu, probably in East Africa.....The broad study of African genetic diversity headed by Dr. Sarah Tishkoff... located the origin of modern human migration in south-western Africa, near the coastal border of Namibia and Angola.

Loraof (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with civilization. the first humans were not yet behaviorally modern. and even behaviorally modern humans lived as hunter-gatherers for like 40000 years afterwards Asmrulz (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The title doesn't really fit the question. That happens from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The extent of humanity's indebtedness to Africa is a contentious issue. Asmrulz (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

June 30

Which state in the US has the most guns?

Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Could a gay man be president of the United States?

The president needs to have authority and power to be leader of the country and commander in chief of the armed forces, could he do that as a man on a receiving side of things? 2.102.186.168 (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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