Revision as of 23:15, 19 September 2015

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

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 14

How to become lieutenant governor of California?

I'm working on List of Governors of California and an interesting question has come up. First, please see the official historical list of officeholders.

Up til 1887, whenever there was a vacancy in the office of lieutenant governor, the senate would quickly elect a president of the senate, who would act as lieutenant governor. In the list, these (Broderick, Quinn, de la Guerra, Irwin, White) are noted as 'acting'.

But something changed between 1887 and 1895 (and possibly 1916; getting to that in a moment). On October 24, 1895, Spencer Millard died. The official list shows that on October 25, William Jeter became lieutenant governor. Not acting; full office.

Likewise, on February 28, 1916, John Eshleman died. William Stephens was nominated as his replacement by Governor Hiram Bingham. I have contemporary press saying just this. So by 1916, the process was no longer 'senate chooses a president who acts as lieutenant governor' and it had become 'governor nominates replacement to fill vacancy'. Furthermore, when Bingham resigns and Stephens becomes governor, the official list notes that the position became vacant - because, well, it was. There was no lieutenant governor. Which continues to show that there was no automatic or quick process as there used to be.

So my two questions are: first, does anyone have any idea when or why this process changed? Second, any idea who at the state I would email with this question? I thought about the office of lieutenant governor but that seems like it'd get lost in the crowd. --Golbez (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the Constitution of California, article V, section 5(b): "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, or Attorney General, or on the State Board of Equalization, the Governor shall nominate a person to fill the vacancy who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority of the membership of the Senate and a majority of the membership of the Assembly and who shall hold office for the balance of the unexpired term. In the event the nominee is neither confirmed nor refused confirmation by both the Senate and the Assembly within 90 days of the submission of the nomination, the nominee shall take office as if he or she had been confirmed by a majority of the Senate and Assembly; provided, that if such 90-day period ends during a recess of the Legislature, the period shall be extended until the sixth day following the day on which the Legislature reconvenes." While the original California Constitution may have been adopted in 1849, a new constitution was adopted in 1879. That would fit with the changes in L.G. nomination processes. --Jayron32 14:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's possible one of the post 1879 amendments (of which there were many) dealt with the question of lieutenant governor vacancy. You might want to contact the California State Archives, I've found them helpful in the past. Or the Secretary of State of California. Or even the LG's office itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Almost, and I'd actually forgotten about the new constitution, but that still leaves Stephen M. White, who is marked as acting from 1887 to 1891? I found a bio that states he was president pro tempore and became acting lt gov, which jives with how other people became acting lieutenant governor... but it doesn't jive with the 1879 constitution, which would have taken effect by then. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that "acting" on the official list is an error, as the California Blue Book from 1915 has no mention of acting status for him but does mention it for de la Guerra, et. al. I think I need to just email the secretary of state. --Golbez (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's also helpful to remember that until the mid-20th century, the position of the vice president and analogous positions in state government was "no big deal" until and unless the #1 guy ceased to have a pulse, and it's still that way in a lot of states. The LG probably just presided over the Senate, and probably wasn't even in Sacramento the rest of the year unless he happened to live there. So the Senate president pro tem was acting lieutenant governor, but it likely was a distinction without a difference, since it was the same guy, doing the job he would have done anyway with no elected LG in place.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt was once a powerful governor till his "friends" encouraged him to jump on the steppingstone to oblivion. Wasn't all that bad, in the end, but still a risky move. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, September 15, 2015 (UTC)

Most VPs up to Nixon and post the 12th Amendment were not presidential fodder. TR was an exception in that his ambition coincided with Thomas C. Platt's desire to find a nice way to make it clear to him he would not be renominated as governor. Combine that with a somewhat wacko pseudo-anarchist with a thing about McKinley (Czolgosz) and there you are.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, TR didn't need very much convincing to run. He was told all he had to do to avoid being nominated (as he was protesting he didn't want to be) was tell the convention in Philadelphia he would not accept the nomination. He showed up instead dressed as Rough Rider, if I recall, "that's a candidate's hat".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of advisors to the Governor of New York and people who were shot during early September musical celebrations and lingered about a week before making the assassination official, that's some odd timing. Apparently not an anarchist's bullet this time, just the gangs of New York (the older new kind, not the newer old kind). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

Just for posterity, I'm declaring the 2016 election early: Clinton and Cuomo, henceforth to be addressed as The New C+C Music Factory. Bet on it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

September 15

US Politics question

Are the politics of Charlie Crist and Chris Christie quite similar? Are Crist and Christie ideologically the same? --Stonebobhitipn (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, because of their naming conventions, are they related biologically? --Stonebobhitipn (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Read the articles you linked.

Regarding politics: Charlie Crist is currently a Democrat, and Chris Christie a Republican. They are, when American politics is viewed in isolation, opposites. Charlie Crist supports President Obama's economic policies, Chris Christie disagrees with Obama on almost everything except the Federal government helping with disaster relief in New Jersey (Christie doesn't mind letting other states fend for themselves, however).

Regarding the name: No, Crist and Christie are different surnames, even if they're derived from "Christ." They might possibly share an ancestor within the past 2000 years, but it's still just as likely that I'm related to either of them. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we even really know what your family name is? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, September 15, 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Crist only joined the Democratic Party in 2012 and was a Republican most of his career. As for differences, Crist is lean and slender, while Christie is . . . not. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No relation to to the Mr. Christie who made good cookies, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, September 15, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer! I am from Slovenia so I do not understand USA politics too well. I love USA --Stonebobhitipn (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Enkratna kot prvi poljub! μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Unique as a first kiss"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 19:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

For anyone who's wondering: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 August 25#Slovenian question. Deor (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

satellite uplink pornography

What corporation uplinks pornography to satellites and what site is used for this?166.177.251.76 (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure who (if anyone) might do so today... but this LA Times article and this UK article discuss companies that did so back in the 1990s (and governmental reactions to them doing so). Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this Exxxstasy Network is a different one, but satellite TV is still one of its platforms. Part of TEN Broadcasting. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, September 15, 2015 (UTC)

Could a US state declare its independence?

Without triggering a civil war, could a US state just become independent? --31.177.99.241 (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume that by "just" you mean "without the consent of any other government".

Whether there would actually be a civil war is a matter of speculation, and we aren't supposed to speculate here.

However, it is true that nothing in the U.S. Constitution says the union is perpetual, and on the other hand nothing says that states have the right to leave. In 1861–65 the federal government fought the American Civil War on the grounds that states did not have the right to leave, and this may be seen as establishing a precent. Also, the Constitution superseded the earlier Articles of Confederation between the 13 original states, which did describe the union as perpetual, and it may be argued that this was the intent even though it was no longer stated explicitly, and still applies. --65.95.178.150 (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

A right to Self-determination exists worldwide, including in treaties ratified by the United States. International circumstances also matter here. Other precedents exist, such as the Scottish independence referendum, 2014. Declaring war on people becoming peacefully becoming independent would likely cause international anger against the US. It is possible the US would not recognise independence, but like areas such as Kosovo or Transnistria a state could become de facto independent. See also the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence In Respect of Kosovo AusLondonder (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Scottish case is a good precedent for a more hostile case. Whatever the feelings and controversy, the government of the UK ultimately decided to allow such a referendum. They could have changed their mind after the result was yes, but even if they had, we have no idea how that would have played out. I don't think there can be any doubt that if the goverment (whatever part is needed, executive, legislature, whatever) agreed to allow the independence, there obviously could be independence. Catalonia is a better example, since the central government in that case is clearly still fairly hostile to Catalan independence. We still don't really know how that's going to play out, presuming they get sufficient support from within Catalonia. But one difference with that case, is that Spain is bound by the agreements they signed as part of the EU and the Council of Europe, including the European Convention on Human Rights and binding judgements from the European Court of Human Rights. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the "right to Self-determination" tends to be countered (officialy or otherwise) by the concept Territorial integrity. Over-seas colonies that are only part of another country's territory because they were invaded tend to get a lot of sympathy when they want to break away (these days at least). Territories that more obviously physically part of another country, and have been for a long time, less so. Also, to be cynical, it could be that lots of countrys are sympathetic to decolonization movements because they don't have colonies of their own. Whereas lots of countries have internal seperatist movements, and fear that supporting other such movements would encourage their own separatists. Iapetus (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• One friend of mine argues that the phrase "a more perfect union" clearly and unambiguously implies an intent of perpetuity. I retort, it's likely no accident that the perpetual language of the Articles was omitted in 1787: irrevocability would make ratification a harder sell. —Tamfang (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

A unilateral declaration without triggering negative effects, up to and including a war? No. Any independence has to be carefully negotiated and multilateral. This applies to all countries, you simply don't get to leave without permission if you don't want a fight. Why? It's not just about being "owned" by the rest of the country, there are substantial rights issues and debt issues to be hashed out. For example, if Texas wants to secede, they have to negotiate things like citizenship rights, what happens to those who don't want to leave the U.S., what happens to sovereign debts held by the Texan government (and things the U.S. owes to Texas and Texans, like Social Security), what happens to U.S. military facilities and hardware in Texas, what currency Texas uses, where the border between the countries should be (especially important when dealing with Gulf oil fields), what agreements Mexico has with the U.S. that must now be renegotiated with an independent Texas, etc. This requires complex and careful bilateral negotiation. If they just declared independence, yes, a conflict, possibly a war, would follow, and logically so.

If a state can unilaterally declare independence without causing conflict, then the entity they were declaring independence from is a dead man walking anyway (e.g. the later stages of the collapse of the Soviet Union). --Golbez (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Legally no, see Texas v. White. Jayron32 03:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The exact quote is:

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States." Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 725 (1868), overruled on other grounds by Morgan v. United States, 113 U.S. 476 (1885).

So the answer is no. GregJackP Boomer! 09:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What about non-state US territories, such as Puerto Rico or Guam, could they leave the Union without major ructions? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm only aware of one time a territory tried to up and leave. It did not work out. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What the Supremes said in Texas v White could be undone by a later Supreme Court ruling, just as the Dred Scott ruling or Plessy v Ferguson are superseded. Similarly, typical wedding vows say "until death us do part" but a large portion of marriages in the US end in divorce before not too many years have gone by. If a state enters a union and no part of the ratification says it is permanent, then it is understandable they might think it can be abrogated or dissolved. The Texas v White terms were added to the contract after it was signed, and are therefore questionable. Edison (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The Philippines eventually got its independence, though, without a real ruckus in the US. I think a territory could, though it is surpassingly unlikely by any military means. Congress could pass legislation granting the territory its independence or the Senate could ratify a treaty with the new country after the president recognized it. Territories, especially ones unlikely to ever get statehood, such as Guam, aren't really considered in the Constitution, which led to some opposition to their acquisition and the debate about whether the Constitution follows the flag. So their departure doesn't strain the Union.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no hard - and - fast rule. Singapore announced it would secede from Malaysia and did so. Biafra seceded from Nigeria and war followed. Southern Rhodesia declared independence and was sanctioned. Anguilla declared independence and was invaded. Western Australia toys with the idea of becoming independent from the Commonwealth. If they went ahead I don't see soldiers from Eastern States coming over to form an army of occupation. East Bengal secured independence from Pakistan after a fight. Spain seized Olivenca from Portugal in the eighteenth century - apart from that the border has been stable for a thousand years. Portugal wants it back. If the Olivencans decided to return there would probably be military action by Spain. The treaty that set up the European Monetary Union has no provision for states to secede, however in practice, if a country doesn't follow the rules it is likely to be ejected. 89.240.30.154 (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.30.121 (talk)

Members of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands left but their status was always different. Rmhermen (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Unincorporated territories of the United States are not really in the Union, they are under the jurisdiction of the Union. That's an important distinction: an imperfect analogy may be the difference between a company's employee, and an independent contractor hired by the company. There are legal distinctions between the rights and responsibilities of members of an group, and those who merely have a partial, temporary, or ephemeral association with it. --Jayron32 18:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

September 16

Monday's leadership spill

I just discovered Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, September 2015, and the situation left me somewhat confused on the formal procedure. When you lose a leadership spill, do you resign, or do you advise the G-G to replace you with the new guy, or is there a confidence vote in the House of Representatives, or does something else happen? I'm not seeing anything in this article, Abbott's article, or Leadership spill. I was confused to discover that the Liberal senators joined in the vote (apparently because they're among the most prominent members of the party, so they play a part in internal party matters?) and also confused that the Nationals don't even get mentioned; how is this a Liberal matter, and not a Coalition matter? Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, when Tony Abott is challenge as the leader of the Liberal Party, he has to prove that he has the support of the MPs in his party. If he loses the support, he is no longer the leader of the Party. He does not have to resign. He is automatically no longer the leader. 220.239.43.253 (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The prime minister is the leader of the political party that wins the election. If the leader of the party changes, then the G-G needs to be informed by the outgoing leader. And the new leader needs to under go the swearing in ceremony. 220.239.43.253 (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Despite the confusing wording in our article, the spill was for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Australia and would follow the rules of the Liberal Party as to who gets to vote. Because the coalition has a majority in the House of Representatives, and the agreement is that the Liberal Party leader will be PM, the winner will eventually become PM, but that is still a seperate matter from the leadership spill itself.

I don't know much about the coalition agreement with the Nationals beyond what the article says, but it's fairly unlikely it allows them to have an official say in the leadership of the Liberal Party. They do get the Deputy Prime Minister after all, and I fairly doubt they would be interested in the Liberal Party having a say in their leadership. If they aren't happy with the leadership, they could always break the coalition agreement.

In terms of becoming PM Australians will correct me if I'm wrong but having lost the leadership of the Liberal Party, Abbott resigned (handed in his commission) as PM as was expected of him . The Governor-General of Australia then appointed the (new) leader of Liberal Party as the new Prime Minister of Australia as was expected by convention given that the Coalition had the majority in the House of Representatives and the Coalition expected the leader of the Liberal Party to be the Prime Minister. If Abbott had refused to resign, then things would have been a bit messier, I suspect it's likely a confidence motion would have been called in parliament. Realisticly that was never going to happen.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all that. One thing that surprised me, though, was that the Coalition agreement had to be renegotiated between the Nationals leader Warren Truss and the new Liberal leader, Malcolm Turnbull, and certain new concessions were demanded by the Nats which had not been part of the agreement with Tony Abbott. I always believed the Coalition agreement was between the 2 parties for the life of the parliament, regardless of who their respective leaders happened to be at any point in time. The last time this was an issue was in 1967, when Liberal PM Harold Holt drowned, and the Country Party (as the Nationals were then called) under John McEwen immediately announced that they would leave the Coalition if the Liberals elected Holt's presumed successor William McMahon (whom McEwen despised, not least because he believed he was a homosexual). So they elected John Gorton instead. That was all about acceptance (or not) of the leader personally, not about any matters of policy. I don't remember the agreement having to be renegotiated when Gorton resigned in mid-term in 1971, but that's a while back. The Abbott/Turnbull turnover is the first time since then that a sitting Liberal PM has left the job (although there were plenty of such changes at the top when they were in Opposition). -- Jack of Oz 20:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Conversely, the Nationals changed leaders twice during John Howard's PM-ship, giving him 3 Deputy PMs (Tim Fischer, John Anderson and Mark Vaile), and again I don't remember any renegotiation going on when the Nats leader changed each time. Warren Truss is a sort of bland Mr Nobody to most Australians, but he knows political opportunities when he sees them. -- Jack of Oz 21:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason I asked about the Nationals' input: what if they had continued supporting Abbott? I'm just imagining the National representatives uniting with the Abbott-favoring Liberal representatives, choosing him to remain as leader of the Coalition. Or is this something that wouldn't happen, because it would violate longstanding norms? I'm familiar enough with the average Westminster system to understand its normal workings, but the idea of a party supporting a government (long-term, as opposed to temporary coalitions as seen all the time in countries like Israel) without having a voice in picking its membership is simply weird to my mind. Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the issue was the leadership of the parliamentary Liberal Party, and nobody who was not a member of that select club, not even their Coalition partner the Nationals, had any say in the matter. All the Nationals could do was to seek to reaffirm (= renegotiate) the coalition agreement once the Libs had made their choice. But, as I say, even that seems to be a new development. And such discussions most certainly could not have extended to keeping Abbott as the leader of the Coalition despite not being the leader of either party. What happened in Queensland in April 2011 - when Campbell Newman became Leader of the Liberal Party despite the fact that he was not at that stage, and had never been, a member of parliament (he was first elected in March 2012) - was a crazy scenario that led to the party's defeat in 2015 and Newman ignominiously losing his own seat, and was an experiment unlikely ever to be repeated. That's the closest parallel I can think of to what you're alluding to. -- Jack of Oz 23:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

September 17

Chicago Style Tool

Is there any handy dandy tool either through Misplaced Pages or another site that will generate a google book as Chicago Style much like http://reftag.appspot.com/ ?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Zotero can do that for most any Web site, including Google Books, and output most any citation style - and all variations of Chicago 15 & 16th editions - you'll ever need. Firefox extension or standalone. No online tool gets details so precise for complex cites or offers you such control. Hit Google Books, press one Z to capture all metadata, right click and select Create Bibliography from item, choose Citation style and output (Note/Bibliography) to copy to clipboard (all of one click), done. Pasted output below. Integrated with Microsoft Office or Libre Office for cite while you write capability. Plus, full-fledge reference management software living in your browser always ready, free sync account for online access while away from your PC. Zotfile add on takes it to the next, stellar, level for document management, if you download PDFs and want auto-renaming. Of course it's open source.

Compare other tools to output below for Chicago 16th ed. citation style for: https://books.google.com/books?id=lUZnBgAAQBAJ

Full note, Bibliography: Mann, Thomas. The Oxford Guide to Library Research. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Full note, Note: Thomas Mann, The Oxford Guide to Library Research (Oxford University Press, 2015).

Author-date - Bibliography: Mann, Thomas. 2015. The Oxford Guide to Library Research. Oxford University Press.

Author-date - Citations: (Mann 2015) -- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Zotero is a bit clunky on Misplaced Pages citation templates, needs hand edit, but still saves plenty of time. One click to capture Google Book (Amazon, Library of Congress, WorldCat, whatever book site you like) in Zotero, right click on item, select Export Item, OK for your set default of Misplaced Pages Citation Template, Save. 5 clicks. Open, copy, paste. Here it is in raw form from link above:

Misplaced Pages Citation Template exported from Zotero:

{{Cite book| publisher = Oxford University Press| isbn = 9780199931064| last = Mann| first = Thomas| title = The Oxford Guide to Library Research| date = 2015-03-27}}

Delete MM-DD extraneous metadata Google Books tosses in, then all good.

Mann, Thomas (2015). The Oxford Guide to Library Research. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199931064. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"if you want to be rich you need to go to hollywood and become an actor..."

This stupid sentence is general said in Germany, but I found out that Sha Rukh Khan is the 2. most rich actor of the world with 0,6 billion dollars. Could you explain how Sha Rukh Khan could become so rich without hollywood? Are in india so many rich Regisseurs which are booking Sha Rukh? --ZinssätzigeTargobank (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting. I can find no shortage of media sites parading that figure around, but no one explains how it was arrived at. Several groups report this is a result of their own research, but then don't explain what they actually did to get the information. Not anywhere that I could find through five minutes of googling, anyway. But curious nonetheless, considering that nearly all movies Sha Rukh Khan has been in are very low budget by American standards ($5-20 million). Though we don't know what kind of royalty deals he has made with the producers. His films typically bring in around $60 million, so if he has collected a decent cut of the profits from his ~50 films, he could easily be as rich as he is described. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You can bet that the majority of the people here will have no idea who this person is. KägeTorä - (_虎) (もしもし！) 13:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan - if anyone is confused. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Which website will be most suitable for My Journey?

In this season I would like to visit India. So I need to book air ticket. I visited a website where I compared prices of ticket from Flight Ticket. But I am not sure that should I book ticket or not from this website. Please suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higginsj1980 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a travel agency. Wishing you a safe journey to our page on travel websites. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Which travel websites you should use is not something Misplaced Pages can or should give advice about (we have to maintain a WP:Neutral point of view). Sample many, and choose the one you like best. Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Historical bondage

Were there any historical examples of shackled female galley slaves, wearing fetters and leg irons? --Pioneerspafeer (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This source seems to indicate in a parenthetical comment that galley slaves in the Ottoman Empire were almost exclusively male. No idea on other places and times, though.--Jayron32 18:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems unlikely, inasmuch as rowing places a premium on upper body strength, so females would be at a serious disadvantage. The women would be put to other uses. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, many males + few females = Trouble with a capital T. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The French used prisoners as galley slaves until 1748, but again, it seems to have been men only. Alansplodge (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Why in divorce cases women are more likely to get custody?

Why are women more likely to win custody? What is it based on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.70.25 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Because they are the ones who gave birth to the child in the first place. Other things being equal, the bond between a child and their mother is stronger than the bond between a child and their father. The courts respect this. --Viennese Waltz 18:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

But if the father is the sole breadwinner and property owner, wouldn't he be able to support the kids better by providing them with a home instead of living with the mother who may be homeless or return to the house of her parents? 140.254.70.25 (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Your statement about child custody after divorce isn't universally true and talking about averages when there are vast differences in implementations is pointless and confusing .

But even where it is true, the reasons will depend on jurisdiction. In some places, what VW says may be a significant consideration. In others, the courts will care far more about other things, like who was the child's primary caregiver before the seperation. For various reasons, this is most commonly the mother, but in cases of a working mother and stay at home father, it generally ends up being the father.

Anyway, these sources are primarily intended to establish the primary caregiver issue, I would treat any other conclusions or statements of fact with caution but see e.g.

Note also, the modern standard in places you're probably referring to is often "the best interests of the child" or something similar. The implementation of this varies (and may or may not be well defined in law). Whatever outcome there tends to be a lot of controversy about whether it's really in the best interests of the child.

BTW, in quite a few jurisdictions, both parents are required to contribute financially to the upbringing of the child if they can afford it, no matter what degree of custody they have. In cases of unequal custody, this may entail the parent with less custody paying something to the parent with greater custody to help support the child.

And for various reasons after a seperation or divorce, such as if one spouse limited their career advancement as part of the marriage, the other spouse may also be required to provide some financial support to that spouse seperate from any contributions to the raising of the child.

While these details will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the scenario you outlined about the mother being homeless is generally not supposed to happen if the father is of sufficient means. (In many of these, in most cases it's generally not supposed to happen point blank, no matter the means of the parents.)

As to living with the (grand)parents, this may not be considered harmful. Particularly since whoever gets custody someone is going to have to look after the children. And if there is an increase in working hours for one or both parents plus a reduction in parent-child time (which may arise whatever the custody arrangements edit: and regardless of any change in working hours due to reduction in time spent with both parents simultaneously), time spent with the grandparents may be considered beneficial. In some places, for various reasons such arrangements aren't uncommon even if the parents aren't divorced.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• While men do not commit 100% of domestic violence in the world, they do commit the majority of it, see for example this study, which notes that in every major statistical measure of domestic violence, men commit more of it than women. Being beaten by one's husband is a common grounds for divorce: this study notes that physical and emotional abuse are a very common cause of divorce in America. Abusive spouses are less likely to be granted custody of children, for what I hope are obvious reasons. So, it isn't a great leap of faith to understand that more men are abusive --> less men are granted custody in divorce. This may not be the sole factor, but it is a reasonable one. That conclusion is positively confirmed here, where it notes that domestic violence is the main reason why one partner is granted sole custody of the children. --Jayron32 02:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Philome Obin

This is Philip Robert Obin again. Can you tell me how my grandfather, Philome Obin, became Captain of the Haitian Army? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.105.40 (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are the grandson of Philomé Obin you are probably closer to the source of that information than any of the contributors here. Our article says: "For example, it was not until after his death that his children discovered in his safe some documentation which stated that he was a commissioned officer—a Captain in the Haitian army before the American Occupation." If this unsourced statement is correct, those documents could still be in the posession of some of your relatives. --NorwegianBlue 22:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"Gertrude Svensen" in The Dinner Party

The correct name for the person called "Gertrude Svensen" in List of women in the Heritage Floor is actually "Gertrud Svensdotter", as the article of her say, and the (Swedish) references also calls her. Gertrud Svensdotter was from Sweden, and her last name Svensdotter was a Patronymic meaning "daughter of Sven": the ending word "dotter" in the name meaning "daughter". I am from Sweden myself, and no references in her home country, were her story is well known, ever refers to her as "Gertrude Svensen" - which would also have been strange, as the name "Svensen" is also a patronymic meaning "son of Sven". Further more, "Svensen" is also a Danish patronymic rather than a Swedish, which would have been "Svensson". Her first name also has the wrong spelling, as the Swedish spelling of Gertrude is Gertrud without the e at the end, but that is a smaller matter.

My question is: is the name actually wrong in the art exhibition The Dinner Party itself (which means that it would have to continue being wrong in the article), or is it simply wrongly spelled only in the article (and can be corrected)? Thanks! --Aciram (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Added a line break better to separate your question from the context statement. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article reflects an error. See the Brooklyn Museum website, which gives her name as "Gertrude Svensen" and makes another spelling error in its description, "Gertrude Svenson". Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the explanation and link. Yes, the museum indeed gives several errors: not only of her first and last name, but also of her year of life and death, which is 1656-1675, and the year of the accusation 1667/1668 rather than 1668/1669. But, as the exhibit was founded in 1979, if I understood it correctly, I suppose it was easy with such errors, as the story may not be so well known outside of Sweden. If the error is the same in the exhibition, than of course it must stay here as well - though it would be good to have the error pointed out some way, I suppose. This reminds one of one great thing with the internet!--Aciram (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

She doesn't appear to be the only one among the 999 women on the Heritage Floor whose name got misspelled: Tibors is spelled "Fibors", e.g.. See also "Writing Women Back Into history" by User:Alexandrathom (pinging her, as she might have something to add). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

September 18

Tetragrammaton transliteration variants

Both "YHWH" and "YHVH" are established transliterations for יהוה, but is there typically any significance to the use of one or the other in a specifically Jewish context? This page, a Karaite source, uses both transliterations; I'm not sure if it's a typo or if we should expect that they're indicating something by using both. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Would WP:RDL be a better locale for this query? --Jayron32 10:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There's some information on this in Tetragrammaton. See also Names of God in Judaism. FWIW, traditional Jews transliterate the word as "Adonai". --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, they don't. They translate the word as "Adonai". Actually, translate isn't the correct term, as "adonai" is still Hebrew. Since Adonai is the substitution for the actual word printed, which is done to avoid saying the word, strictly speaking the closest English word for that process is probably euphemism. They transliterate the tetragrammaton as YHWH or YHVH, transliteration is the process of rewriting a word from one script into another script. For example, the capital of Russia is Москва́, which is transliterated into the latin script as "Moskva", but translated into English as "Moscow". --Jayron32 12:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Adonai means "Lord", which is why at least some Bible translations will say "Lord God" where the translators ran into YHWH superscripted with the vowel points of Adonai. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And some readers, who didn't realise the superscript represented a different word rather that being a pronunciation guide, came up with the totally un-historical YaHoVaiH = "Jehovah" (although there isn't complete scholarly consensus about this). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, especially (probably) by those who use "Jehovah" a lot. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Around here, Jews transliterate the word as "G-d". At school we learned that the transliteration was originally "Jehovah" but scholars later decided that "Yahweh" was more accurate. We were also told to say our school motto Labor vincit omnia as "Labor winkit omnia" because they had decided the same thing about the letter "v" in Latin. That sounds reasonable - "v" is not a separate letter, stonemasons just found it easier to carve "u" that way.

The old word for "God" was eli, plural elohim, although our article says this is actually a singular form. Aramaic - speaking Christians are persecuted by Muslims, one ground for complaint being their description of God as "Allah". The allegation is that they have appropriated a Muslim term, although of course they were using it long before the foundation of Islam. 92.1.55.84 (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No, they translate the word as G_d. (I wouldn't start speaking in loud tones if people listened the first time). To make it clear, you're using the word transliterate wrong. Transliterate means "take the word from the original language and put it in a new writing system" (literate...literary...literature...writing). Translate means "take the word and give its equivalent meaning in a completely different language". I'm not saying that Jewish people don't use words like Adonai and G_d in speech and writing. What I am saying is that rendering יהוה as "Adonai" or "G_d" is not transliteration. In the first case, it's a form of euphemism (that is, word replacement to avoid offensiveness) and in the second case it's a form of translation (that is, using equivalent terms in a different language, since G_d is not Hebrew). YHWH is the transliteration of the tetragrammaton, because that renders the original Hebrew term into the latin script while preserving it in the original Hebrew language. --Jayron32 14:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Which Website Provides me the Cheapest Air Ticket?

Do You know that Which website can easily and effective guide to purchase the Cheapest Air Ticket? I have found some effective websites but quite confuse to select the most effective one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomesstella1980 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 18 September 2015

There is no single website guaranteed to have the lowest price for any one particular flight. You'll have to shop around. You can also try Comparison shopping websites which aggregate and report published rates from several other websites. You'll still need to check several, however, as there are some major discount airlines, notably Southwest Airlines (the largest discount air carrier in the world, I might add) does not sell its tickets anywhere except it's own website or by calling the company directly. Besides the fact that we don't know where you live or where you are flying to, AND besides the fact that a website guaranteed to have the lowest fare across all flights does not exist, recommending particular businesses is outside the scope of this desk. The best I can recommend is Category:Travel ticket search engines as a place to start looking for possibilities. --Jayron32 10:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There's also the one where you can bid on tickets with an unknown reserve price but you can make a slightly higher new bid once a day I think until you find out where the absolute lowest that they would accept is. There's also sites where people post which bids did and didn't work at the auctioning site. Am I allowed to say whether this is the cheapest or not? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Unreadable words in the Bible

From a not reliable source I got that some words in the Bible could not be understood. One of these is the 'daily', in 'our daily bread.' Can someone confirm or refute this hypothesis, if possible with sources? If this is true, what words in the Bible could not be understood so far due to the hand-writing. --Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE. The word in Greek is epiousios, and the Lord's Prayer (in both Matthew and Luke) is the only place in the entirety of ancient Greek literature that it's found (and there's a phrase for that: hapax legomenon). We can only interpret it by how it was translated into Latin - as quotidianum ("daily", "everyday") in the Vetus Latina translation, and as supersubstantialem ("super-substantial", whatever that means) in the Vulgate translation.

If you look at most translations of the Bible, they'll have footnotes, some of which point out where, for example, the Hebrew is unclear and the meaning has been interpreted according to the Greek Septuagint. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Should probably add that it's rarely, if ever, to do with unclear handwriting. It'll usually be either because the word is rare and its meaning is not well-understood, as in epiousios, or, as Jayron points out below, variation in the manuscripts means we can't be sure which word is the correct one. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, for one, you need to be clear on what you mean by The Bible. The collection of texts we call the Bible does not have one, definitive set of original manuscripts. Indeed, we don't have a single manuscript written by the original author of ANY of the works of the Bible, so we don't generally know what words the original authors may or may not have used. You can read more at Biblical manuscript about some extant, very old manuscripts. In many cases, when constructing modern translations, there will be differences in the exact wording between different manuscripts, such differences will be noted in the marginalia of modern translations, so the reader will know what the disagreement is. Specifically about "our daily bread", the phrase is most associated with the Lord's Prayer, which is found in two places, with slightly different wording, in Matthew 6 and in Luke 11. In Matthew, the original greek text covering "daily bread" is "τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον", in which the word "ἐπιούσιον" is used. This word is actually discussed in the Misplaced Pages article Epiousios, which notes that it is a unique word, and does not appear anywhere else in contemporary Classical Greek literature. The history and etymology of how the word ἐπιούσιον gets translated as "daily bread" is complex, and covered in some detail by the Misplaced Pages article. --Jayron32 17:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Then there's the "trespasses" question. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Why haven't I heard fundamentalists say that minors shouldn't be taken to zoos?

Cause they might see animals mating? That sounds like something some fundamentalists might say. I've seen it said that some Victorians wanted animals to wear clothes too, though I think I've seen it refuted that anyone suggested that piano and table legs wear clothes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but a conservative politician in Poznań managed to get two donkeys separated for a short time because of outrage about children having to witness them mating in the zoo (Antosia and Napoleon were reunited after a week). See "Love-struck donkeys reunited at Poland zoo after being separated for one week". ---Sluzzelin talk 22:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Both city and country children, especially the latter have ample opportunity to see animals mate, see their anatomy, and draw the obvious parallel. Add to it that children have access to more readily-available information, for example, from us, and I think such tales, while supporting beliefs about conservatives, are likely not general.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen an animal mate outside a zoo until I was a teenager. I saw worms and cockroaches and pigeons mating as a teenager, I might've seen sparrows mate in my 20s, and I don't think I've seen any other animal mate outside of 5th grade at the zoo. I heard a cat yowl sometimes in the alley in my 20s that maybe was mating (cats penises have tom-ward facing barbs to cause ovulation). (I'm from a very big city, 8 million/24 million metro). At any rate, when pigeons and sparrows mate, it doesn't look like mating (one of their cooing types that sounds exactly like pigeon mating is not even pre-mating ritual much less mating, which sounds only like his wings trying to hover and is near instant). Also, I'm not sure if there are common animals without a penis sheath. Any other common male animal's genital area tends to be on the less penis-looking side and the actual penis is inside and has a very unhuman color. And female animals have fur. Many people don't tell their children what sex is until very early puberty. So I don't know what hearing about it from their parents has anything to do with it before then. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, you want us to explain why you haven't experienced something based on your own prejudiced view of what a group of people you don't understand but assume you know enough about to make offensive inaccurate judgements about what you think they would believe? How is this even close to an appropriate ref desk question?Jayron32 06:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I used to believe a religion and read Scripture and go to church every week you know. I'm not even agnostic much less the anti-religion flavor of atheist. I never thought it'd be too common because people outside high population density just wouldn't care. But some Christian groups don't wear makeup, show female knees and have stricter limits on TV ratings. I think it's plausible that some big city fundamentalists might not take their kids to the zoo cause the elephants or chimps might mate while they're watching or something. At the least they would cover their eyes if it happened. Is that so implausible? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

We're being trolled. Everyone who lives in a big city has seen dogs mating from a very young age. 92.1.55.84 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

See his post to "Women's nipples" below. 92.1.55.84 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing dogs mating. Sniffing rears and humping on pants, not mating. Most dogs are spayed or neutered and so have no interest, cannot go into heat etc. Stray dogs are very rare, it's even possible I haven't seen one outside of Washington Navy Yard area, DC and one in the suburbs. I don't go out much. Nor do I stand at the out of the way dog pen in the park to watch for mating. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, pigeons don't mate just anywhere, they do it on ledges and windowsills that don't get opened often cause they're still afraid of the predators of where they evolved. Those places are usually blocked from view if you don't like to be seen at home from all those other apartments. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

London Missionary Society Choice of Location

Why did the London Missionary Society choose Tahiti as the inaugural grounds for their missionary activities? Why specifically Tahiti?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Not an answer but a source: archive.org has The History of the London Missionary Society which might well contain the answer. Page 20 refers to the recent discovery by Europeans of the Pacific islands, seen as virgin territory for missionaries. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Women's nipples

How does it come that there are different rules for covering nipples for men and women? Do human female breasts have some magical attribute that could traumatize children? --Scicurious (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was weird as a pre-pubescent also. But I wondered why they're allowed to show the breast as there's really no difference between parts of the beast near the top and parts near the areola. They're all about equally round and identical.

It's not about trauma, it's about sexuality. Because they are female secondary sexual characteristics that only females old enough to have children have they will make males horny. They are direct signals of reproductive fitness and show ability to breastfeed which you do with sex (intermediate steps elided). This is why big breasts are especially sexy. Some women are hot enough as it is, there's no need to make men suffer in horniness and have difficulty thinking at the business meeting or something. That's why I started masturbating, it was hard to even use the subway anymore after so long without ejaculation (since birth) cause even clothed females made me so horny. Maybe some females don't realize how horny males are. After months of masturbation clothed females in the street that looked my age or older would still make me somewhat horny.

In Africa, Oceania, and the Amazon I guess there was so much damn heat that they let females wear no top. Kind of like the Ancient Egyptian civilization which let people be naked but they still had to cover their secondary sexual characteristics after they got them. Why should their culture have anything to do with us, anyway? Maybe they associate breasts with babies so much that it becomes less sexy for them, too. We however, aren't either suckling or pregnant our whole life from 12 to menopause anymore because babies aren't likely to die anymore. Maybe this is why they showed a lot of the breast in Da Vinci's and Marie Antoinette's time but not in later Industrial Revolution when fertility rates might've been lower. It's clearly too different ed:a technological level to say if they do it, so we should do it, too. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Er...great? Thanks? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A lot of this is a "nudity taboo" in western culture. Cultural taboos do change over time, but they change very slowly. About 100 years ago the "taboo" against upper body nudity was stronger than it is today, and applied to men as well as women. It was considered somewhat shocking for men to go shirtless - which is why old swimming costumes for men included shirts.

Today, the taboos are changing... In many parts of the western world, it is now perfectly acceptable for women to go topless at the beach - yet it is unacceptable for them to do so while sitting in a cafe next to the beach. Taboos are not always logical. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Australian male escorts still can't show their nipples in ads. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:15, September 19, 2015 (UTC)

I can kind of see the logic in the beach thing. Anything in the street has more of the trappings of civilization (compare business meeting), it closes off less area to parents who don't want their kids to see things that make men very horny, sunbathers are more extroverted than average. Beaches are kind of boring as an adult if you've gone a few times — unless you're not that introverted. You just lie there for hours without anything cognitively simulating, have somewhat of a preference to reading indoors anyway, don't want to do kid things like make sandcastles anymore, might not know how to swim like me. Which leads to some statistical thing with a name where 9X% of beachgoers have gone more than 3 times (participation bias?). Beaches really are only nice when they're in nature. Especially if you have a girlfriend with you. Who wants their kids to see body parts that many/most people only show to their sexual partners and physicians? I wonder if that beach is near the sexual businesses, lol. The lingerie stores and vibrator stores and strip clubs and stuff. My classmates were as least likely to say this as any in the US and even they said it was weird that in Europe like 15 year old girls and their mother and father all sunbathe together naked on the beach. And one 15 year old boy said "15 years old! I'm going to strip off and lie down next to her. How you doing?" That probably happens, lol. Extroverted weirdos. No protective instinct for their children. "Oh I'm sorry good sir but you and your grandson appear to be erect next to my 15 year old daughter. Would you possibly mind going away where you'll probably masturbate to her slightly engorged vulva?" No one said "I don't think it's weird to strip in public with your parents." (or the polite naturist satire before that either).

I guess it was a civilizedness instinct. When I see men in an undershirt or especially topless in New York City far from a beach/pool/heat wave it's always an extroverted troglodyte. (I have never seen a breast's areola in public even though it's legal in this state). 1900 AD wouldn't be a bad vacation spot though legs was too sexy to say then and today gives almost as much instant "poor match" clue as realistically possible unlike then, so I wouldn't want to trade taboo sets (little skin that's not cause of religion = the right tail of the bell curve). I'm just not romantically attracted to females that show lots of cleavage or leg anymore. They're terrible personality matches. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

One cannot help but mention Portnoy's Complaint at this juncture... Tevildo (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why families sunbathe like that. Don't they realize how if two or three 9th grade friends suddenly did a similar "double take and erected and then ogled a few seconds" it would suddenly go from harassment/low level sex crime to just tactless if everyone had clothes on?

The original question is a problem especially for small children, related to sexualization of the little girls. On the beach in my European culture in the past, it was common and normal for all little girls to wear the same kind of bathing suits as the boys, with no bra. It used to help make it feel very natural that children have no sexuality. But since everything has been commercialized and merchandized, even children and even little children, now on the same beaches you always see the little girls wearing a bra, as if they had something to hide. Akseli9 (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

September 19

Last burial in Westminster Abbey

According to our articles Westminster Abbey, Burials and memorials in Westminster Abbey, and Cremation Society of Great Britain, the last burial (as opposed to interment of ashes) at Westminster Abbey was in 1936. However, this statement is flagged dubious-discuss and is unreferenced. Various other on-line sources of equal (viz, low) reliability state that the last burial was that of The Unknown Warrior in 1920. None of the Dukes of Northumberland, who have a private crypt in the Abbey, died in the right timeframe. Can we find a definitive reference for this - in particular, the identity of the deceased? Tevildo (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The official cathedral website says "The ashes of Rudyard Kipling, poet and writer, were buried in Poets' Corner at noon on 23 January 1936" - that's the only reference to a 1936 interment I can find on the website. Could this be the source of the confusion? 184.147.131.85 (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Here's the page for the 1920 burial (actual burial) of the unknown soldier. Again no mention of last. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah. This page allows a search by time period. Kipling was certainly not the last to have ashes buried; for example, architect J.Peter Foster's ashes were buried on 5 December 2010. And the unknown warrior wasn't the last burial either; canon Sebastian Charles was buried in 1992. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! Appropriate changes have been made to the articles. Tevildo (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

UK envelope and paper size circa 1920

I was watching some Downton Abbey and noticed that the envelopes, as well as the paper enclosed, were much smaller than the current ones. If I'm not mistaken, the "standard" envelope being used today in the UK is the DL size, being able to hold twice-folded A4 sheets . What would have been the "standard" envelope size and letter paper size during the 1920s? 731Butai (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The old Imperial paper sizes were quarto (smaller) and foolscap (larger). They went out of use in the 70s. Here is a page giving a full explanation. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

What was the worth of a Czechoslovak koruna in 1993?

Was it 1 Czechoslovak koruna = 1 Czech koruna = 1 Slovak koruna? or what was the exchange to this 2 currencies? --Hijodetenerife (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Our article at Czechoslovak koruna states it was 1:1:1. However this didn't last long, see this. Nanonic (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

is the social rot since the 60's real?

there's an annoying crowd of SJWs on youtube and other places, who say stuff like "we've come forward as a species", that the distant past (which to them is anything before Civil Rights) was slavery-sexism-H**r-no exceptions (example) and that life has become better, life has become happier. Invariably they produce Pinker's book. However, many other people, and not just right wing Christians, think there has been a marked social rot. Who is right? How could this be scientifically settled in principle? Asmrulz (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

SJW = Social justice warrior? -- Jack of Oz 21:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

yes Asmrulz (talk)

Historiography, quality of life, and Human Development Index (particularly its "See Also" section) might be useful starting points. Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It can't be "scientifically settled in principle". People discuss these things, as you correctly point out. I just want to note that this project frowns upon the righting of great wrongs. Bus stop (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

it frowns not enough. As to me, I hardly ever edit anything in the article space except typos. Asmrulz (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, we're much more concerned with waging wearisome wars over comma placements and sundry other matters of monumental moment. -- Jack of Oz 21:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Social rot and the change-in-living-standards are two different things. So one can't ask Who is right? Every generation becomes aware of what 'they' view as social rot. It is a part of a continuing cycle of society. --Aspro (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The ubiquity of cellphones could be argued to be part of alleged "social rot". The thing is, every generation things they were better off during the time of their youth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 23:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

There was a great book I read which made a very good defense of leftism and one of the points was that America's having wage rot. Capitalism still benefited the middle class until about 1970 and after that middle-class inflation-adjusted family income flat-lined and that family has to do much more work to even get that (much fewer women worked in 1970). So 100% of economic growth has gone to the upper two or three quintiles (Europe is much better). Maybe someone remembers its name. There has been some social rot. Reality shows. Snooki and the Kardashians. Others are going away (in the US, birth, abortion and miscarriage rates of the 15-17 year old demographic have all about halved since 1990, non-viral STDs have dropped since the 60's, the percent of people addicted to nicotine is flat or declining in developed countries, mass famines probably won't happen like they thought it would, the pain of slow and expensive integrated circuits). On the bad ledger, I've heard that in Walter Cronkite's day (1980s) the nightly national news was real news. Now it's like.. Diane Sawyers. I can't even watch that shit. There's almost no actual news in every program. I'm not exaggerating, it's mostly things like a 5 minute piece on one family who got laid off. And that stupid thing she does at the end of every story, she just repeats something that anyone who had at least 50% attention on the TV had already thought, not exaggerating. "Climate change, lots of disagreement." is a typical useless statement. No matter what the story was (like something that killed thousands?), she reads it correctly (unemotionally), then says the useless statement with the tone of the sweetest but overly cheery mother talking to her kids (so it seems like she's not going to read the next story for 2 seconds afterward like anyone doing that), then she loses all "emotion" milliseconds after ending and reads the next story unemotionally again with almost no pause between stories. I'm not sure if something this unscientific can ever be determined scientifically but I'd say on balance even America is improving slowly. Much slower than it could. We need a social democratic government. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

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