Why did Hungary remain a kingdom--or regency--after the end of World War I (as in, after Bela Kun's Communist regime in Hungary was overthrown)? Futurist110 (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Specifically, why didn't Hungary become a republic after the fall of Communism in 1919 like it did after the fall of Communism in 1989? Futurist110 (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just a guess, but after three short-lived republics rising and falling within a single year (the First Hungarian Republic, the Hungarian Soviet Republic, and a days-long restoration of the First Republic), with their accompanying Red Terror, White Terror and Romanian occupation, I should think that anything savouring of boring old Habsburg stability must have sounded pretty good. --Antiquary (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The answer is that the Kingdom of Hungary provided Horthy with the veneer of legitimacy for what was otherwise a a facist state. It's pretty much analogous to Francoist Spain; as Franco always claimed to be running the Monarchy in the name of a king who would later be restored, so did Horthy. As you can see at Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946), the initial situation was that the Allies refused to allow Charles to claim the throne when the monarchy was declared by Horthy et. al. Horthy was merely acting as regent till the politics became more friendly towards restoring the King. When Charles died in 1922, the nominal heir was Otto von Habsburg, a 9-year old, so Horthy just kept being regent, as they wouldn't install a 9-year old to rule. By the time Otto was old enough, there were significant international political hurdles towards him claiming the Hungarian throne; mostly due to the fact that a claim to either the Austrian Imperial Crown or the Hungarian Regnal Crown could be seen as a claim to the entirety of the empire (whether the crowns were even capable of being legally divided was complex). If he were claiming to being restored to the prior crowns, well that means bringing back the prior constitutions which would have created a whole lot of headaches. If he were claiming to being asked to be named king to an entirely different state, that created all new constitutional headaches. As to why Otto didn't just accept the throne of Hungary, I'm not sure he was particularly interested. He really wanted to restore the Austrian monarchy, not just to "Be king of somewhere" but "Be Emperor of Austria". He was directly offered the throne of Spain by Franco, a post he refused because he wasn't much interested in Spanish politics. Of course by that time it was all pointless to answer our question, Hungary became a republic for good after WWII. --Jayron32 16:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Excellent answer, Jayron! Also, I have a question--couldn't a 9-year-old have been made King of Hungary but without actually being given any powers until he became an adult? Futurist110 (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Futurist110, the usual solution is to appoint a regent or a council of regents, but in the case of Hungary, Horthy was already a permanent regent and like most dictators, not keen to let go of the levers of power. Perhaps more important were the constitutional problems with fully restoring the monarchy which Jayron has outlined above. Alansplodge (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Based on the data here: Demographics_of_Russia#Median_age_and_fertility -- Russian Jews are by far the least fertile ethnic group in Russia. My question is this--why exactly is this the case? Futurist110 (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I actually think you have the answer and are looking for the question. Once we know that Jews in Russian have the least amount of childs in a household, that is itself an answer. This is like asking, once we know someone is a virgin, why is so and so a virgin. We already have the conclusions. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC).Reply

I mean why exactly do Russian Jews have the least amount of children among all of the ethnic groups in Russia. There has to be some reason(s) for this. Futurist110 (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Maybe because they don't want as many? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

But why? Futurist110 (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's not really a useful answer, and seems needlessly abrupt. The null hypothesis would presumably be that all ethnicities are equally fertile (or as near to that as random variation would allow). If a particular group is notably different in this respect, then there is presumably a reason. And if the immediate reason is "they don't want as many", then there is presumably a reason for that too, whether cultural or geographic or whatever. I don't see anything wrong with someoneone wandering why? Iapetus (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The comment by Шурбур below seems a reasonable possibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Median age: 61.1. This will make it slightly hard to give birth. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

That high median age is a result of them having few babies, though. Futurist110 (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

How does it compare with childbirth rates in other countries? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, South Korea's total fertility rate is probably lower. Futurist110 (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think if fertility of 1 ethnic group differs by country, that would be more meaningful. For example, aren't fertility of Jews in Russia going to be the same for other countries? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC).Reply

• Jewish women are the most urbanized (98 %) and educated (65 % having a higher education) in Russia. Шурбур (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is this data from the 2002 or 2010 Russian census? Also, which ethnic groups in Russia are the next most urbanized and educated? Futurist110 (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• The data are from the 2010 census. It will be more convenient to compare similar social groups.

Children per 1000 women 15+

total urban 1328

graduate/postgr 1178

secondary 1333

primary 1927

total rural 1876

graduate/postgr 1457

secondary 1827

primary 2702

Russians 1405

graduate/postgr 1186

secondary 1413

primary 2105

Jews 1264

graduate/postgr 1225

secondary 1324

primary 1714

One may then speculate that Russian graduates were oppressed more in the SU though. Шурбур (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

An awful lot of Russian Jews emigrated, some to Israel, some via Israel and some elsewhere, after the collapse of Communism. 1990s Post-Soviet aliyah has some information on this. I can't lay my hands on RS but I've definitely heard that those who chose to stay behind had an older demographic. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

What exactly is RS? Also, it is worth noting that Russian Jews were in demographic decline ever since the 1960s (the exodus of Jews from the Soviet Union only started in the 1970s on a large scale). Futurist110 (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

What exactly is RS? See Wikipedia:RS. Alansplodge (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes there was a similar phase with former german emigrants in russia who where invited back to West-Germany in the 1980-1990 with a simmilar result. It was mostly young people who used this and the older mostly prefered to stay in russia. So i guess that ethnic group with german roots showed a similar low reproduction rate after that. --Kharon (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The data in my link above (Demographics_of_Russia#Median_age_and_fertility) shows that Russian Germans were, on average, much younger and much more fertile than Russian Jews were in 2002. Futurist110 (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Post-Soviet Jewish Demographic Dynamics: An Analysis of Recent Data [Revised as of October 9, 2018] confirms that mass migration to Western Europe, North America and particularly Israel is the major factor.

I'll take a look at this link. I've read some of what Mark Tolts wrote before and I wonder if I'll find any new information in this article. Futurist110 (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

In addition, Why Fertility Levels Vary between Urban and Rural Areas? says (quoting research in Finland): "For many countries, fertility levels tend to differ by education level, with the lowest for university educated individuals and the highest for individuals with only compulsory education".

Makes sense considering that studying at a university takes up a lot of one's time and one's money--leaving less time and money available for child-rearing. Futurist110 (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

A History of the Jewish Community in Russia (and former USSR) by Igal Lapidus says: "Russian Jewry is almost exclusively urbanized... Today, Jews are integrated into most sectors of Russian society and economy, and their level of education and standard of living are higher than those prevalent in the general population".

Alansplodge (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

One would think that the greater standard of living (and possibly wealth) of Russian Jews would allow them to have more rather than less children, though. Futurist110 (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Allowing them to doesn't mean they want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. As a general trend in Demography, increased wealth in a society usually results in people having fewer children, because:

(a) fewer children will die (because of their society's improved healthcare) so they don't have to have more to offset such anticipated deaths;

(b) their personal wealth will to some extent offset the need to have their children (grandchildren, etc.) support them in their old age, so they need fewer;

(c) the financial support measures characteristic of wealthier societies (personal and state pensions, other welfare services) similarly offset the need for support by offspring; and

(d) the cost of raising each individual child becomes relatively greater.

In a rapidly developing, previously impoverished society, (a) can lead to the Demographic trap because people's expectations lag behind rapid improvements in healthcare, until the Demographic transition has matured. This however does not apply to the society and ethnic group which you (Futurist110) are considering.

As a purely personal conjecture, I would hazard that the history of persecution of Jews in Russia until quite recent times (e.g. within my own lifetime) might discourage people from having children who would run the risk of suffering its potential renewal. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.42 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are hotels in the U.S. allowed to charge price based by country of origin. So if the Euro dollar is worth more than the American dollar, can make it more expensive base price, and if came from a 3rd world country, base cheaper price. I know the computers can analyze formulas, but my question is if it's legal. We already know that universities can do that, International students pay a higher tuition. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC).Reply

National origin discrimination is illegal in the United States. State universities typically charge all out-of-state students a higher tuition (since these are funded primarily by taxes paid by state residents), which includes international students. Since that policy is based on state of residence and not country of origin, it's fine. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I thought International students pay an even-higher base tuition than out-of-state tuition. So as far as I know, so it's 3-levels of prices: in state, out of state, and International. And some 2-year colleges in a city, have a 4-level tuition: in city, outside of city but in state, out of state but in country, and out of country. So, if colleges/universities can do it, why not hotels? Your comment on national-origin discrimination, I already know it's true in terms of hiring someone, and selling houses to someone. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC).Reply

"So, if colleges/universities can do it, why not hotels?" Hotels are not usually supported by the taxes of residents, unlike public colleges. --Xuxl (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

National origin discrimination is generally prohibited under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for public accommodations (and employment, programs or activities which receive federal funds and some others) which would include hotels etc. It's also covered under several other areas of federal law. However I'm fairly sure there are areas which the CRA and other laws do not cover. I'm not sure if it's even tested if the CRA applies to providers of services or products over the internet for example. It has been tested for the ADA [1] [2] but the definition of public accommodations is wider there. I think the case for the CRA is a lot less clear [3] [4] [5]. The last link may be of particular interest since it seems to mention Airbnb. State law may cover additional things but of course, that wouldn't necessarily be US wide (unless every jurisdiction has such laws). BTW, about education I believe it's complicated. If the educational institution receives federal funds then the CRA would likely apply. Perhaps in some cases it may be a public accommodation but I'm not convinced it's so clear cut if the educational institute receives zero federal funds, especially again I suspect, online only educational institutions. Note that many legal challenges to things like affirmative action have been based on the Equal Protection Clause which will not apply to non citizens although AFAIK most of these have been to institutions who receive federal funds anyway. These may be of interest Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke Grutter v. Bollinger [6] [7] [[8]] [9] [10]. Note that although the CRA also applies to schools (and I'm not sure what the definition of schools is) this primarily relates to segregation. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Something to keep in mind about the Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, you're right on that. However that only directly applies to government/public universities. For private ones, the requirements are AFAIK held to come from equal protection clause via the CRA (or otherwise via the reception of government funds, federal or state) [11] [12]. For institutions who chose not to receive such funds (which is very rare but is possible), it's again not clear to me that the CRA or other areas of law will apply especially for internet only institutions. I'd also note that while these may apply to US citizens and lawful permanent residents, I'm not convinced there's case law on how it interacts with non citizens who are not lawful permanent residents even those lawfully in the US, especially those with F visas. While you likely still couldn't discriminate based on national origin per se, it's possible a compelling could be made that discrimination based solely on long term residency status (rather than national origin) could be made, since there's no guarantee they could work in the US after graduation e.g. [13]. The debates surrounding affirmative action show that it's far from simple. Some of the earlier sources also reflect such complexity even where national origin or race does directly arise. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 AFAIK mostly only affects employment. Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the situation with colleges and universities gets trickier, perhaps in part because there is no constitutional right to go to any particular college. There are generally more applicants than there are openings, and that's where affirmative action issues arise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Let’s get back to what was asked about... hotels. The price of a hotel room can fluctuate wildly... depending on demand. The same room can be very expensive one month, and reasonably cheap the next. Even the day of the week when you want to reserve the room can impact pricing. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Happens all the time and is generally legal. See Price discrimination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • I heard that some places discriminate prices on-line by what operating system you're using, that Mac users are more likely to be richer than Windows users and therefore willing to pay more. The only example I was told is airline companies. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC).Reply
  • Yes but the fact remains, all evidence suggests they cannot normally do to for reasons of national origin. To do so runs a strong risk of violating the CRA. This suggests no decent US hotel is going to openly admit to doing so. Note however it's likely to be less clear cut for currency conversions. If a guest chooses to pay in Euro, they could potentially offer a terrible rate if they wanted to. There is probably still some risk of national origin discrimination, but it could be reduced by smart management, for example, making sure you always advertise and advise customs of both prices. As the Trivago person likes to say, different prices may be advertised in different places . I'm suspect the case is a lot less clear cut if someone advertises a different price in a German travel magazine than they do in US radio advertisement. But by the same token, I strongly suspect any competent management team is going to say they did so because of the specific audiences of the different venues, which had nothing to do with national origin (or race etc). Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • BTW, there's also the complexity of how the CRA interacts with people who aren't US citizens or permanent residents and are currently located outside the US. But still, it seems a risky strategy considering you could also affect US citizens. On a related note, this specifically notes that airlines can't practice price discrimination for reasons of national origin [14]. Nil Einne (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
• In my experience, hotels quote a room rate based on the dates you want to stay and the type of room you prefer before they have any information about your identity. What are they going to do, say "I'm sorry, but we charge Lithuanians 11% more" when they find out who you are? As for foreign exchange rates, U.S. hotels normally accept payment in U.S. dollars. Exchange of foreign currency is handled either by credit card processors or those currency exchange booths you see at airports. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Don't credit cards have an bank with country of origin? For on-line pays. Back in 2008, the Euro dollar was worth so more more than the American dollar, it was actually cheaper for people in England to do Christmas shopping in the U.S. That is, fly to the U.S., spend some nights at the hotel, and Christmas shop, fly back to England. So imo a way around it is to pay cash - it's like you have to pre-trade the Euro dollars for American dollars. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC).Reply

Are you referring to Eurodollars, or just to foreign currency such as Euros and pounds sterling? Are prices so much cheaper in Chicago that people fly there to shop and save? I would have thought that a customer would need to be spending tens of thousands of dollars to be able to make a saving. Don't most visitors to America spend in American dollars? Dbfirs 07:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned above, US hotels can't charge guests different rates due to their nationality. However, there is no requirement that they charge the same rate in every currency. A US hotel will usually offer the best rate in US dollars (regardless of the nationality of the customer). If they allow guests to pay in any other currency, there may be a service charge or other fee applied. This nominally covers the cost of the currency conversion for the hotel, but in some cases it may be quite large. If you have to pay in a foreign currency, then it is generally best to use a credit card and have the credit card company determine the conversion rate. If the hotel offers an option to pay directly in a foreign currency either when booking or at checkout (this isn't very common in the US, though it is fairly common in Europe), then it is often the case that they are giving you a pretty terrible conversion rate. Dragons flight (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just to be clear, if there is a U.S. Hotel that accepts payment in Euros, they aren't charging you a higher rate to stay in the room; they are charging you for two services: first as a hotel and secondly as a foreign currency exchange. The fees for the second service may raise the cost of your stay, but you still pay the same amount for the room itself. Also, they don't care about your country of origin. You could be traveling from the EU and as long as you pay in dollars, you pay the same rate as Americans do. An American paying in Euros would also have the same surcharges on their stay as European would. --Jayron32 17:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

However, although they can probably justify a fairly high fee, while IANAL and this isn't legal advice I wouldn't say there is zero risk if it's too high depending on lots of factors like those I mentioned earlier. More so in the era before smart phones as now even most customers with poor maths and memories can instantly compare the rate the hotel is offering with that their bank will offer. If they can't justify why they charged such a fee, the courts may consider that they're really just trying to discriminate against people because of their national origin. A loosely related example is that banning customers or employees from speaking languages besides English (let alone a specific language) without a good reason can be problematic even though the law doesn't explicitly deal with language. Even though it affects people whatever their race, ethnicity or national origin, it disproportionately affects people based on these factors [15]. There's a difference in that speaking in English may be more difficult or uncomfortable for some people but most people should be able to easily either use their banks's conversion or use a money changer but it will ultimately come down to the details. Noting also that the corollary, requiring someone is able to speak some language if there's no reason it's of benefit in the job can likewise be problematic, also requiring English fluency if it isn't required. [16] Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

A couple months ago, I discovered a new Internet cat meme on YouTube. The cat's name is Ollie. He resides in the United Kingdom. He's also been proclaimed "The Polite Cat", due to his human-like facial expression. What can you tell me about Ollie the Polite Cat? (And shouldn't there be an article about him?)142.255.69.73 (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The consensus seems to be that this is just a cat with a photoshopped expression. There are articles about it (e.g. [17]), but thankfully not on Wikipedia.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia isn't Know Your Meme. There likely isn't enough notability to have an entry here. †dismas†|^(talk) 21:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

See Media Hype. Many just live for a few days - like Tamagotchis... --Kharon (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

You may wish to check Ollie the Polite Cat out on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr and Imgur. On those social media pages, you may find more about Ollie the Polite Cat. Hopefully, there may be enough information to create an article on Wikipedia.2604:2000:7104:2F00:D863:4B1F:1999:7426 (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

None of those social media platforms is a reliable source for establishing the notability of a topic on Wikipedia. Not a single one of them. No matter how much you hope, IP editor, no acceptable article can be built on such a flimsy basis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

When it comes to this map ([18]), is there any way to know which subsaharan language on the above map has the largest geographic distribution? If so, are there any citations corroborating this? At first glance, Somali looks the largest, but I'm not sure. HUZIXIISD (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

There are ways to calculate the areas covered by those different colored splotches, but the greater question is "do those colored splotches represent what you think they do, or what they purport to". For example, when defining "geographic distribution", how do you define if an "area" speaks a "language"? Do you mean the people who live in an area? What defines such an area? What about areas with multiple languages spoken in an interspersed area? There are places on that map that are essentially unpopulated; no one lives there. Why are those colored in? How can they "speak a language" if there is no one there to speak it? A much better map would be a heat map that shows each language, displaying both the location of the speakers and the number of speakers there. --Jayron32 17:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Between the countries that are at only one time zone (and that they are at the time zone they should be, unlike as some example greenland that is at 5 time zones but all those areas to a single one, -3) what is the country with biggest area?201.9.248.95 (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cross referencing List_of_time_zones_by_country with List of countries and dependencies by area yields India which only has one time zone as the winner. I don't know if that fits your "at the time zone they should be" criteria though. EniaNey 16:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

China is the 3rd/4th largest country in the world by area (depending on how you define "area" and "largest" and "china"), and all of the larger countries (The U.S., Canada, and Russia) have multiple time zones, whereas all of China is at UTC+08:00. So the answer to the question "What is the largest single time zone country in the world" is "China" --Jayron32 16:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

yes... If the question is “What is the largest country to have one single time zone?, then the answer is China. If the question is “What is the largest country with all of its area falling within a single time zone... without ignoring the time zoning of surrounding nations... I think the answer is Algeria. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, it depends on what you mean by "should be". There is no Time Zone Authority that mandates time zones, every sovereign state sets its own clocks however the heck it wants to. So there is no "rule" to "ignore.", so there is no "should be" If, in defining "time zone", we just mean "the 15 degree slice of the Earth whose international waters are defined as at a certain time zone", For ANY country which is wider than 15 degrees longitude, it would be impossible to meet the definition the OP laid out. It would also be impossible for countries smaller than 15 degrees longitude which were offset enough to bridge two of those 15 degree zones (since that country would have part of its territory outside of the defined 15 degree "time zone"). That leaves us with some pretty small countries. If the OP's arcane definition can be defined to mean "largest country wholly within the defined 15 degree slices of the earth that nominally define the Time Zones", then Algeria doesn't work either; it crosses between the UTC 0 and UTC +1 time zone bands, and actually lies mostly in the WRONG band (Algeria sets its time to UTC +1, but most of its territory is in the UTC 0 band, see map at List of UTC time offsets). Given what I think is the new criteria, and eyeballing the map in the above article, I think the largest single-time-zone country wholly within the correct colored band (that is, unlike the Greenland example the OP used as a disqualifier) on that map is Zimbabwe, which is wholly within the correct band, (UTC +2). All other countries which are larger seem to "cross" multiple bands. --Jayron32 17:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The question "largest country wholly within the defined 15 degree slices of the earth that nominally define the Time Zones", is the real question I wanted to ask. Sorry if I wanst precise enought.201.9.248.95 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cool. In that case, I think "Zimbabwe" is the right answer. It's a question, however, that maybe doesn't have a lot of significance. Because the time zones taper to nothing at the poles, that raises the problem that countries in the higher latitudes are basically screwed by compared to those near the equator. Greenland, for example, is about 1100 kilometers across. At the equator, a degree is about 111 kilometers. 111*15 = 1665 km, a space Greenland could COMFORTABLY fit in. The only reason it crosses 5 time zones is that at it's northerly location, the size of a degree of longitude at 77 degrees latitude (about the widest part of Greenland) is only about 25 kilometers across, or less than 1/5 the size of at the equator or exactly why Greenland crosses 5 time zones. See here for calculations regarding the size of a degree of longitude. --Jayron32 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not entirely sure whether the OP's clarification is completely clear. There's no reason a time zone has to be in hourly offset, and while most are, not every extant timezone is an hourly offset. While I personally think non hour offsets are crazy, I'm not sure you can say they're more natural or correct. Even for historic time zones with very odd offsets like Bombay Time. So when you say 15 degrees, do you also mean only hourly offsets (or discrete 15 degree arcs), or the extant time zones (so including the non hour offsets that currently exist, but not the ones that don't). Or do you mean any 15 degree slice of earth, recognising that there are theoretically a very large number of timezones (Planck time or Planck length) and a country could if they wanted to, use some weird offset and really be no different from whatever country you find who uses a hour offset? I think the former 2 are currently the same and the answer is Zimbabwe, but if I understand correctly the third is Algeria and the second could change to that at any time. Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I read in a book "the land of Ireland" by brian de breffny, published by Harry N. Abrams, Inc NY, on page 187, that John Murray published in london 1825....."Letters from The Irish Highlands" consisting of letters... the life of the Blake family of Renvyle County of Galway about the area of Connacht Ireland. Not from Maria Edgeworth? So is that John Murrays or Maria Edgeworth who published that. I don't see it on John Murray's work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.197.214.174 (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Letters from the Irish Highlands of Connemmara, by a Family Party was published in 1825 by John Murray, though there was also a second edition the same year published by Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green, and there have been one or two reprints since. The publishing house of John Murray was owned in 1825 by John Murray II (1778–1843), son of John Murray I (1737–1793). Maria Edgeworth wasn't a publisher, and I can find no particular connection between her and this book except that she seems to have been acquainted with the authors. --Antiquary (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

A lot of Christians believe suicide is a sin. Where does this come from? In the early days, Christians had a disdain for valuing their own lives and sometimes went to great lengths to get themselves martyred or even died by their own hand. Jesus himself caused his mortal body to be killed, per dominant theology. So why is suicide a sin? Temerarius (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are asking two very different questions here. This question ("Where does this come from?") is not clear. Are you searching for a historical answer (what people believed in the past) or a theological answer (the biblical references that supporters and opponents would use)? Your next question (why is suicide a sin?) is very broad, and many people have different opinions on it. I am not going to give my opinion, because this is an issue that people have very strong feelings for and opinions about, and I don't want to upset anyone. You may find your answer on Yahoo Answers, though: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081212132445AASvnWx You may also ask this question on Quora. SSS (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nothing in the Bible expressly prohibits suicide. I suggest you read Christian views on suicide.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Where you'll discover the commandment "thou shalt not kill." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Which, as many people (and in particular conservative ones) remind us, might maybe better be translated as "thou shalt not murder", and thus has all kinds of loopholes, from "just wars" to "self defence" and to stoning children who disagree with their elders. Adding suicide to that list should be easy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

In a bit of possibly circular reasoning, the argument is made that it has to do with the unlawful taking of life. Thus, warfare, capital punishment, and abortion do not qualify as murder because they are legal - because humans have declared them so, via the legal system. Whether they are morally right is another question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

And maybe even more to the point, read Sin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure there are as many opinions as there are websites, but this one makes the distinction that while suicide is a sin, it's not an unforgiveable sin.[19] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry I wasn't clear, I was asking for a historical perspective rather than a theological one. Temerarius (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Sin" is a theological concept. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's a theological concept, but "when did this theological interpretation become common?" is a history question. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The BBT is on in the background, and one of them has just said that the American flag can't touch the ground...is that true? ——SerialNumber54129 09:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

From the United States Flag Code: "The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise." (link) - Lindert (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Obviously it "can" touch the ground, but the flag code says you should avoid that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

An obvious exception is when the flag is draped over a coffin, which is clearly beneath it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It may happen, but I don't think it's supposed to [20] [21] [22]

The flag should not be lowered into the grave or allowed to touch the ground.

. BTW regarding the original question according to some sources there's a myth that a flag needs to be destroyed once it's touched the ground. This isn't correct, provided it's fit for use, after cleaning if necessary, it can still be used [23] [24]. Nil Einne (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Jack's point was that the code apparently says the flag should never touch anything "beneath it", but the coffin is beneath it. If the wording is to be taken that literally, it seems that the flag should also not be folded up and stored, as it would then be touching something beneath it. Does air count? Maybe it has to hang vertically in a vacuum at all times.... --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. The boy wins an award. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

As noted on this part of the flag code,[25] "(n) When the flag is used to cover a casket, it should be so placed that the union is at the head and over the left shoulder. The flag should not be lowered into the grave or allowed to touch the ground." I think the phraseology "beneath it" means relative to a flag in normal upright position. Obviously, the authors of the flag code have no problem with a flag draping a coffin. Also, the flag code is not legally binding, at least not to civilians. It's flag "etiquette". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Note that most counties countries take a dim view of their flag being dropped on the ground, the exception being in the Commonwealth (and some other countries) when military colours are lowered to the ground in a Royal Salute, a practice which dates back to the 16th century. Flags on the ground says: "Americans are usually stunned or horrified when they see it for the first time because they have been conditioned by the idea that the American flag dips to no man". Alansplodge (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I assume your fourth word is also supposed to be "countries"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thank you. A slip of the digit. Alansplodge (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Commons has a picture (at right) entitled "Pvt Harry Shelley receives British Distinguished Service Cross from King George V.jpg". The caption says "Pvt. Harry Shelley, Co A, US 132nd Infantry, 33rd Division receiving the Distinguished Service Cross from King George V".

The source says "Pvt. Harry Shelley, Co A, US 132nd Infantry, 33rd Division receiving British Distinguished Conduct Medal from King George V".

Another source says "Pvt. Harry Shelly being decorated by King George with the Medal of Honor for gallantry in the advance from Hamel on July 4th. He was the first man to be decorated that day. Gen. John J. Pershing and Gen Holman (British) in the background. 33rd Division. Molliens-au-Bois, France, Aug. 6th, 1918. [Handwritten note on back of photo: "Probably the Distinguished Service Cross not MoH."].

Now, the British DSC was for officers only, so we can rule that out, the DCM was for British and Commonwealth troops, but I wouldn't rule out some awards being made to Americans in the First World War in the interests of Allied comradeship, and our article on the battle says "Fourteen Americans were also decorated by the British, including four Distinguished Conduct Medals, four Military Crosses, and six Military Medals. Corporal Thomas A. Pope, who had rushed a German machine-gun during the German counter-attack on 5 July, was one of those who received the DCM, being awarded the medal personally by King George V on 12 August 1918".

So, was it an American DSC, a Medal of Honor, or a British DCM, or what? And, was the Private's surname Shelly or Shelley? And who was General Holman - I've found a General Holman in Russia in 1919, but he seems to have been in the Indian Army Intelligence Branch during the First World War. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

"I've found a General Holman in Russia in 1919, but he seems to have been in the Indian Army Intelligence Branch during the First World War. "

Would that be "Lt.-Col. and Bt. Col. Herbert Campbell Holman" of the Indian Army? He is listed in the 1918 New Year Honours among the new Companions of the Order of the Bath. He was already a member of the Order of St Michael and St George and decorated with the Distinguished Service Order. We do not have an article about him. Dimadick (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, interesting character, but as I said, probably not the General Holman in the pic. (I have indented your reply for ease of reading). DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The second source I linked above, says the General Holman in the picture is Herbert Campbell Holman, but I'm not convinced it's right. His dates were 1869-1949, see National Portrait Gallery photo and buried not far from me in Crowhurst. The Germans have an article on him d:wiki:Herbert_Holman. DuncanHill (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah! It could be him - the German article has him as QMG of the 4th Army, of which John Monash's Australian Corps was part, and Monash of course was in charge at Hamel. So, I think we've got the General, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

And I found this forum thread which says he received the American DSC, and the British DCM, "for extraordinary heroism in action near Hamel, Belgium, July 4, 1918. With an Australian soldier, Private Shelly went out and silenced an enemy sniping post and brought back eight prisoners". He was from Chicago. There is some confusion about the date of the photo - I've seen both the 12th and the 8th given. DuncanHill (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

And the American Department of Defense list of DSC recipients lists him as Harry Shelly. DuncanHill (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

This, reprinted from the Chicago Tribune has the King giving Shelly the DCM. I haven't been able to find the actual citation for the DCM in the London Gazette though. DuncanHill (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here's the citation for the American DSC, as you will see it is dated 1919, so the award in the picture must be of the award of the DCM. DuncanHill (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

And I've found Yockelson, Mitch (2007). ""We Have Found Each Other at Last": Americans and Australians at the Battle of Hamel in July 1918". Army History (65). US Army Center of Military History: 16–25. which includes the picture and says it was the 12th, and the British DCM. I shall request the renaming of the page on Commons. DuncanHill (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just read through much of International status and usage of the euro, and parts of it surprised me. For one thing, why did the microstates have to sign agreements in order to be in the eurozone? Andorra I can understand, since its coprinces are in the eurozone (maybe the EU would sanction France if their president were helping a non-EU country join the eurozone without authorisation), but the others I don't quite understand. Was there the implied threat of sanctions if they used it without permission, e.g. "if you start using the euro and minting coins unilaterally, we won't recognise your banks' international monetary transactions"? Merely getting left out of the central bank's government doesn't seem a huge penalty, especially for tiny states whose money has long been tied to their much larger neighbors. And secondly, I just don't quite see how this is different from one state adopting another's currency, e.g. the idea of Panama adopting the euro (International status and usage of the euro#Unilateral adopters, or how Andorra used the franc and the peseta without some sort of agreement. What am I missing? Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

PS, I'm taking my Merely sentence from the "Unilateral adopters" section: Former European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet has stated the ECB – which does not grant representation to those who unilaterally adopt the euro – neither supports nor deters those wishing to use the currency. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nyttend -- if the microstates were just passively using Euro currency, then that might not have required an agreement, but microstate-minted Euro-denominated coins are considered legal tender within the EU, which definitely does require some kind of agreement. When Panama adopts the dollar, it does not start printing dollar bills (in fact, it had better not!)... 02:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that per the above article, Andorra used the Euro for quite a few years before the monetary agreement was concluded. See also Andorra and the euro. You may also be interested in the agreement itself [26]/[27] or this report on the agreements with the other countries [28]/[29]. While the issuing of coins is a big part, it also deals with institutions having access to interbank settlement and payment and securities settlement systems. While I assume they had that anyway before the agreement, the agreement makes it less likely the EU will unilaterally withdraw their access and in particular, without notice. (The agreements require 1 year notice for unilateral termination except when there's non compliance.) See also [30] Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps they wanted to be certain of access to TARGET2? Matt's talk 23:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

What's the history of academic dress? From when collegians start puting that? Does it an emulation from some scientist? -- 03:36, 18 November 2018 Sadjad mehnati

The article Academic dress contains some hints, including a link to this publication, and more can be found via Undergraduate gowns in Scotland, particularly in the links included in the Footnotes section. The article Town and Gown also alludes to the origin of academic dress.

Long story short: distinctive academic dress dates back to the earliest foundations of European universities in the Middle Ages, which evolved from Cathedral or Monastic schools whose staff and pupils naturally wore ecclesiastical or monastic dress. As universities developed in their own right, Lecturers continued to wear distinctive dress as a mark of their status, and students were often required to wear (different) distinctive dress so that they could be easily recognised amongst non-students in places they weren't meant to be, either at certain times or at all. When attending the University of St Andrews I was told that the original choice of red for undergraduate gowns was so that students could be easily spotted in brothels: this may be apocryphal. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.42 (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Watching an old film (The Small World of Sammy Lee), in the background in one shot was a shop called "Vyners". I can remember it being a chain of shops, but not what they sold. Can anyone remember? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure it was a shop, and not Vyners School? I can't find anything on a chain of stores named Vyners at all. Not in discussion forums, historical documents, ANYTHING. That leads me to believe that 1) It wasn't a shop, but was something else (like that school) or 2) It wasn't a real shop, but a fake one set up for the shot; either a backlot set or a fake storefront or sign set up on location. --Jayron32 03:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

My research yielded the same results. I also had a good time scanning dozens (if not hundreds) of photos of Soho circa 1963, and a few interesting Pathé film clips; probably saw every storefront -- no "Vyners". (Interestingly, both the Beatles and the Stones had photo shoots done in Soho, 1963). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I made some screencaps of the scene (or one of the scenes) you seem to be referring to here [31]. The sign below the name clearly say "novelty" and "shoes" and the items visible in the window seem to be shoes. It looked like the car went past an entrance to Whitechapel station [32] not long before it went past this store, but it's hard to say whether that was really true. I don't think it's possible to tell if it's a chain solely from that part of the film. Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It seems The Grave Maurice is semi famous [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] and was at 269 Whitechapel Road. This suggest Vyners was probably something 263-267 (The Grave Maurice looks quite large and so is possibly more than one store and I'm not sure if Vyners is a whole store) Whitechapel Road. Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

This [38] say Vyners was at 267 Whitechapel Road and has a modern image of that section. It doesn't comment on whether it was a chain store. BTW that includes discussion of other locations in the film. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also looking at it again I realised I misintepreted the sign. I now think it's not "novelty" and "shoes" but "novelty shoes". Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Nil Einne, very helpful. I haven't been able to find anything about a chain of shoe shops called Vyners, but the signage seemed so familiar! (I should point out I did not grow up anywhere near the Whitechapel Road). DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, there is one mention of a chain (or at least another link). In a forum called The Newham Story is a thread of reminiscences about Angel Lane Bridge in Stratford a couple of miles up the Mile End Road from Whitechapel. One reminiscence (about halfway down headed "Life Could be a Dream") is an essay about living in Stratford in 1959 and says: "Had a look in Vyners shoe shop, they have a nice pair of beige suede stiletto’s in the window 39/11d, I’ll have to see if I can afford them on Friday". In the next sentence, the author describes catching a bus from outside Boardmans, a department store which I remember in Stratford Broadway. I grew up in nearby Leytonstone, but there was definitely no branch of Vyners there. Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

According to Google maps, Vyners at 267 Whitechapel Road has been replaced by a jeweller. The site is behind Whitechapel Market, as you can see from the picture. In 1976 it was still a shoe shop (named Neptune Shoes). The pub at 269 is now a pawnbroker and bookmaker (as in the modern picture of the Grave Maurice site). The name "Grave Maurice" is still engraved in the brickwork. 265 (the piano shop) is now a bazaar. The watchmaker at 261-263 is now a sports shop (below and a furniture shop hostel (I was confused by the word "beds"). The underground station is no. 277. A car travelling east along Whitechapel Road would pass Vyners before passing the station. I note that Brady Street used to be called North Street. 92.19.170.212 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

And for the curious, Closed Pubs - The Grave Maurice says it originated in 1723, rebuilt in 1874, a haunt of the Kray Twins and finally closed in 2010. No clue where the peculiar name comes from though. Alansplodge (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, it's Maurice of the Palatinate (a palsgrave) 1621-1652, who fought for the Royalists in the Civil War and was a popular figure during the Restoration. [39] Alansplodge (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is there a journal article, a website or a book that deals with racial and ethnicity tensions or inequalities in Canada and Bangladesh in comparison in the sociological perspective of conflict theory? Donmust90 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can't find any article that explicitly deals with Canada and Bangladesh directly; This article deals mostly with Bangladesh, but mentions Canada; don't know if it has the details you need, but it at least deals with racial conflict and mentions both countries. I hope that gives you a start. --Jayron32 03:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Come someone help find out who E. Bedford Grey was? He was an 19th century engraver or artist who made this engraving File:CALIFORNIA – KING KALAKAUA AND SUITE, UNDER ESCORT OF MAYOR OTIS AND STAFF, VIEWING THE SEALS FROM THE CLIFF HOUSE, SAN FRANCISCO. SKETCHED BY E. BEDFORD GREY.jpg. Simple google search will yield nothing. Also can anyone find the source which the engraving was originally published in? KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's very unlucky that Bedford Grey/Gray seems to be a popular paint colour. However, the search string "EB Grey" brings up a lone hit in google books. [40] Possibly from Cornwall, born c. 1860? But I can't prove that. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Considering Hong Kong has the most expensive housing, why does it have one of the lowest rates of homelessness? (Sources please.) Benjamin (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

What is your source for those two facts. Before we can answer the why? bit, we need to know that your presumptions are true. --Jayron32 03:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

If so, please provide sources accordingly. As I would think should be the presumption here, I'm not trying to argue to the point. Benjamin (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think you're making statements ("HK has low rates of cheap housing and of homelessness") and asking for sources to back up those statements; am I correct? Nyttend (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, I assume my assumptions are correct. I would want sources to refute them if they are incorrect, but, again, that's not what I'm here for. I'm seeking sources that would answer my question. Benjamin (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hong Kong ranked world's most expensive housing market for 8th consecutive year. However, I could not find any sources about Hong Kong has the lowest rates of homelessness [41]. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 06:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

List of countries by homeless population lists Hong Kong as having the second lowest rate of homelessness. Benjamin (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's a report for 2014. Prices have been soaring since then. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 09:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

This has an estimate of ~1800 [42]. Singapore is very low, but that's a government estimate so I'd put it in the same category as registered homeless in Hong Kong. Nil Einne (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

This says that homeless rates have jumped sharply in recent years as rents have increased and that official figures are probably significant undercounts [43]. Though, even so, the numbers suggested here are still quite low by global standards. Dragons flight (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

What is the mortgage status of those tallest working-class residential towers in the world I hear about? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I suspect that part of the answer is that Hong Kong has weak regulations on housing standards and is a very developed city. The former means that tens of thousands of people can and do live in cage homes, essentially a rentable property consisting solely of one bed. In Europe, those people would be regarded as homeless, but they are not in HK. The latter means that there aren't many options for sleeping out in the urban core. Public spaces are designed to deter rough sleepers and I would imagine (though I don't know) that the efficient police force would not tolerate them in public parks. Matt's talk 23:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

During World War II, we all know about internment camps for Japanese living in the United States, but what happened to Americans who may have been residing in Japan before the war? Were they similarly detained (or worse)? I don't know much about this, but I became curious about wartime Americans in Japan after hearing of Katsuma Dan, a Japanese scientist who married Jean Clark, an American researcher in 1936. I believe the family lived in Japan, and I know that Dan worked there throughout the war, though I don't know what his wife was doing at that time. Dragons flight (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not reliable sources, but these ([44][45][46]) are all agreed that the relatively small number of Americans still living in Japan when the two countries went to war were either interned or put under house arrest before eventually being repatriated. --Antiquary (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

This article suggests that she continued working in Japan throughout the war:

'The outbreak of WWII and the complexities of being an American in Japan who needed to look out for and protect her children from both militaries, reduced Jean’s productivity in the laboratory. Following the war, and the famous “the last one to go” incident, Jean returned to America and to Woods Hole'.

Alansplodge (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

You might be interested in reading our very detailed article about Weixian Internment Camp. It wasn't in Japan itself, but in the part of China that was occupied by Japan long before 1941. For a broader overview, see List of Japanese-run internment camps during World War II. Obviously, neither article is specific to US citizens. Matt's talk 22:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

If reincarnation is as random as karma and logic allow then it's exceedingly unlikely any of your loved ones will be a loved one in the next life. And you'd be more likely to marry your ex-kid or ex-parent than your spouse (is there an incest lockout?). Even the reunitings into the same type of relationship would have a 50% chance of swapping genders, do they say it's random like that or is the chance higher?

Obviously there's limits. Nuclear families that die at the same time can't come back as that right away if rebirth is immediate. And some reincarnations are chronologically possible but statistically insatiable (i.e. some precociously fertile boys probably make son when they're 11.25-12.25 and don't run from the girl but there's probably too many dads that die 12-13 years before their sons for them to all immediately reunite as the first group) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

First off, those religions don't view souls or spirits in the same way the western Abrahamic religions do. "You" are not You. In Hinduism, your current life is a momentary glimpse (from a bad angle) at a facet of a higher self (Atman), which (at least in Advaita) is in turn a drop of water in the ocean that is God. In Buddhism, your "soul" is just an overlapping collection of a few different spiritual forces that will eventually untangle (and if "you" are following the dharma of a Buddha, the sooner it should happen).

I've only ever seen the act of incest regarded as fundamentally biological, even if there are spiritual consequences (be it abomination, sin, bad karma, or whatever). I've never heard of anyone being accused of incest on the grounds that their wife was really their father in a past life -- and I do know that Tibetan monks would exploit their claimed ability to divine who one was in a past life to favor patrons and punish those who did not adequately support them (e.g. by identifying a patron as the reincarnation of a rival's great-grandfather, prompting the rival's family's inheritance to be "returned" to the patron). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I should also add that (outside of the Gelug-pa, which the Dalai Lama belongs to), Tibetan monks (especially Nyingma-pa) would go up to peasants and say "hey, you have bad karma, but luckily your daughter is the incarnation of some Dakini so you can get rid of that bad karma by letting me practice Tantra with her." (No, tantra is largely not focused on sex, but yes that's exactly what the monks wanted). "Oh, your daughter's pregnant? Wasn't me but you're gonna need to take care of the kid anyway because he's a Tulku or whatever. No, I'm not helping raise the brat, I've got to find a new 'dakini.'" So if they could have used "in a past life, you and your fiancee were really mother and daughter" to disrupt marriages they didn't want, they certainly would have. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Citation needed for that. But anyway, Buddhism does not teach reincarnation, but Rebirth (Buddhism). I suggest you read that article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It would seem to be a narrow distinction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, but it's an important one to understand why SMW's question is meaningless to the people in that faith. Matt Deres (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

One thing many religions have as a common theme is some kind of life-after-death. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is there any possible way I can donate to a place that supports the arts in the UK?2604:2000:7104:2F00:E489:B375:36EB:1AC5 (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

That sounds very vague. What kind of arts are you interested in? Generally speaking the big arts venues get a lot of funding from Arts Council England and, in my opinion, don't need your donations. On the other hand there are countless small theatres, venues and galleries that would, I am sure, welcome donations. You really need to say what kind of arts you are interested in and would most like to support. --Viennese Waltz 07:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Venues always need funding, even if they receive Arts Council grants. One way to support the arts is to become a friend of an organisation that you like. I'm a friend of the BMAG and BRB. Buying tickets to shows and exhibitions is another great way to support the arts. As a friend of the BMAG, I can get into most exhibitions for free, but I still buy a ticket. Many organisations offer the chance to leave a legacy in your will. I think most welcome sponsorship. Corporate sponsorship is very important, but the individual can do their bit in a small way with several schemes. The BRB, for example, welcome donations to their pointe shoe appeal. You can also just send an organisation a donation. --TrogWoolley (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are the Articles of Confederation of the United States still in effect, and then augmented by the Constitution? Or did the Constitution totally supersede the Articles? I ask because nowhere in the Constitution is the federation of the United States ever formally established. The Articles do establish the union, whereas the Constitution reads as though it is being created for an existing union. Therefore, to me it seems as though parts of the Articles, specifically those establishing the United States, must still be in effect. Is my analysis correct? Has there ever been any legal findings on this? If I am in error, what is the current legal status of the Articles? Thank you.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm fairly certain this has come up before. Have you checked the ref desk archives? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sources like This show up rapidly in google searches phrased similar to the OP's question. I think my most productive phrasing was "were the articles of confederation ever repealed", but playing with Google and scanning the first few pages of results often gets quick answers. That paper is fairly dense; some discussion forums (like this one) on this topic note that the Articles of Confederation ceased to be a legally binding document when the government which it authorized, the Congress of the Confederation, officially dissolved. Since there are no organs of the Confederation-governed U.S. in existence, there is nothing in the Articles of Confederation which has the power of law. That is, since the role of a constitution is to define the scope and role of a government; insofar as there is no government in existence whose role and scope is so defined, the constitution itself carries no legal weight. As an aside, the story of the Confederation Congress's last day of official meeting is something rather fascinating little footnote of itself. I'm sure there are some weird sovereign citizen nutjobs that maintain the Articles of Confederation are still legally in force, but I don't know that any court in the U.S. would take such silliness seriously. --Jayron32 18:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

One interesting bit of the Constitution is this: "Article VI - 1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." The reason I bring this up is because it appears to be talking about the Confederation in the past tense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also note that the Articles permitted modification if all thirteen states agreed to it. One could argue, I suppose, that the first twelve states were operating illegally, but once Rhode Island ratified the new constitution and began operating under it, all thirteen had agreed to do something other than the Articles. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Constitution took effect once enough states ratified it. It didn't require 13, though. Something like 9 or 10. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, 9 out of 13. But as Nyttend says, that was illegal under the Articles of Confederation. The ratifying states decided to ignore the Articles and press for the others to join them. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Supreme Court in 1868 ruled that the reason no state was allowed to unilaterally secede was that the Articles of Confederation said the union was a perpetual one. Thus anything not addressed by the Constitution but covered by the Articles remains in force. Or maybe the Articles were not in effect in 1868, the Supreme Court was making things up and grasping at straws, and some other basis has to be found for making the US behave more like a street gang and less like a civilized union of equals like the EU. Edison (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Edison, the point of SCOTUS was (1) the Articles prohibited secession, (2) the Constitution was supposed to be a more perfect union with greater centralized power, and thus (3) the Constitution must not be interpreted as weakening the union by permitting secession. Unrelated things from the Articles, e.g. permitting the Province of Quebec to join the union without a vote of Congress, weren't covered by the SCOTUS ruling. See Texas v. White#Decision for a quote. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Once the UK leaves the EU, which category will they fall into? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Whichever category you think applied either before 1 November 1993, when the EU came into being in accordance with the Maastricht Treaty, or 1 January 1973 when the UK was admitted into the existing European (Economic) Community. As someone who can remember back that far (indeed, I voted in the UK's 1975 referendum on whether to remain in or leave the EEC/EC, and lived in Germany for part of the late 1970s), I don't recall UK–European relationships being in the least bit street-gang like. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.131.235 (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Except maybe during soccer matches. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is no UK soccer team – that is to say, no soccer team that represents the UK as a whole. There is such a Rugby Union team, the British and Irish Lions (which originated when Ireland was part of the UK and has ignored their subsequent political differences, as does the Irish team proper, which includes players from Northern Ireland), but violence is vanishingly rare amongst Rugby Union spectators.

Of course violence has occasionally happened at some soccer matches, including some international matches between teams, club or representative, from within the UK and the EU respectively, but similar violence occurs worldwide, and to the best of my knowledge has in Europe never stemmed from UK–EU rivalry. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.131.235 (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think the first claim needs clarification. The Great Britain Olympic football team did complete at the 2012 Olympics in both the men's and women's competitions. Yes there was great controversy over selection, and this team did have to follow the standard Olympics rules on age limits and that and the relative prestige, conflicts etc meant it was far from the best UK team. But it was clearly a team intended to represent the UK as a whole hence why the union flag etc would have been used for a gold medal etc, whatever the non English FAs thought of that. It's true that there's no sign this is ever going to be repeated anytime soon for the men's team both due to opposition from the FAs and may also due to qualification questions, but it was so recent that I don't think you can just dismiss it as too historic to count unlike you perhaps can with the older teams by this time. It's true there's been no other significant United Kingdom national football team anytime recent discounting things like Universiade teams etc. Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

A fair clarification. There was, as you say a "one-off" UK (though called GB) soccer team, but there isn't now and likely won't be one post-Brexit, which is the period Bugs evoked. My response was of course in part a deliberately serious reply to the less important aspect of his frivolous comment: my main intention was to counter his implication that the UK will behave like "a street gang" towards the EU and/or vice-versa. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.131.235 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The term "Great Britain" at the Olympics is shorthand for "Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team", but not without controversy. See Who, What, Why: Why is it Team GB, not Team UK?. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Who was the first individual with the surname King? I imagine there was a point in history before where having this surname would have been frowned upon by actual kings. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The name goes far back into the Middle Ages when most people went entirely unrecorded, so no-one can know for sure who the first man with that surname was. However, "The earliest known bearer of this surname was Aelwine se Cyng who was documented in the Old English Byname Register in 1050 AD" ([47]). From the same source, "The nickname was...used to refer to someone who conducted himself in a kingly manner, or one who had played the part of a king in a pageant, or one who had won the title in a tournament. In other cases it may actually have referred to someone who served in the king’s household." As such it doesn't seem like it would be too objectionable to actual kings, but even if they did frown on it there was nothing they could do about it. Medieval bureaucracies weren't developed enough to allow them to dictate what names ordinary peasants (as the great majority of people were) could have, and in any case why would a king care what some piffling villein's neighbours called him? --Antiquary (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Our Surname article says that surnames were in generally use in England "by 1400" so 1050 is an early example. Alansplodge (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, if it were a heritable surname it would be a very early example indeed for an Anglo-Saxon, though some Norman families had them before the Conquest. Aelwine se Cyng's moniker was almost certainly the form of surname called a byname. A byname becomes a heritable surname when a son takes it despite it's being inappropriate for him, like a Smith who isn't a smith or a Black who's blond, but in practice it's usually difficult to know when that happens because of the shortage of records. --Antiquary (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The main reason such surnames wouldn't bother English kings, of course, is that they didn't have them. ——SerialNumber54129 14:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

"The Chief Defect of Henry King / Was chewing little bits of String..." Alansplodge (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, all.

As far as I understand it, this vid essay seems to claim that George Bataille locates the abyss between an object and a redefinition of that object as a tool.

Did he actually say this anywhere? - i can't find it.

The quote comes at about 5.30

Edit: wikipedia isn't letting me link to YouTube. If you're sufficiently interested, the film is called How to Stare into the Abyss, on a channel called Zero Books. -- 09:33, 21 November 2018 Adambrowne666

Henry Campbell-Bannerman's report to the King after the Cabinet meeting of 31st January 1906 referred to "the progress of affairs at Algeciras and the little difficulty with Turkey at the head of the Red Sea".^[1] What was that little difficulty? DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the Taba Crisis of 1906, which apparently started on 10 January? --Antiquary (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

That must be it, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

In many of the media interviews with POTUS[48][49][50][51] [52], there is a very loud engine sound in the background.

1. Where is that sound coming from? I highly suspect it's the Marine One but can't confirm it.

2. Why not start that engine later after the interview? If it's indeed the Marine One then it's obviously not going anywhere without the president. Mũeller (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

With the chopper already running, the prez can make a quick exit. Reagan used to do the same thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if others have as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why would he need to make an exit so quick that the couple of seconds it would otherwise take to start the choopper needed to be skipped? An assassination attempt maybe? ——SerialNumber54129 14:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Um... starting a chopper isn’t like stating a car. You don’t just turn a key and fly off. There is a lengthy checklist that the pilot has to go through to get a helicopter ready to fly (much more than “a couple seconds”). As to the reason the chopper has to be ready to fly well before the President boards... that is for security reasons. If there is an assaination attempt, the President needs to be evacuated quickly. In fact, The Secret Service really hates it when the President stops to give interviews before boarding. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The noisy helicopter is also handy for pretending you don't hear a question you don't want to answer, and quick getaways are more likely to be needed to avoid unpleasant questions than to avoid assassinations. - Nunh-huh 19:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Blueboar and Nunh-huh: well, thanks for answering my questions, anyway  ;) yes, guess who doesn't know anything about helicopters! Or interview techniques either, for that matter  :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is it true that Romans didn't like even numbers? Temerarius (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes. That's why they gave the old lunar year 355 days instead of the real 354. They couldn't do anything about the twelve months, but if your year is an odd number of days at least one month has to have an even number of days. They got round that by splitting February into two parts - one of 23 days and one of 5 (the leap day we have as the 29th used to come between the 23rd and the 24th). Festivals largely fell on odd dates - e.g. kalends on the 1st, nones on the 5th or 7th, ides on the 13th or 15th. 2A00:23C1:3180:6501:3066:C989:8306:7E60 (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

That was quick, thanks. Is this information on any WP page? Also, they didn't have 12 months, in earlier times, they had ten months then winter. That kind of counts as an uneven number? Temerarius (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also, the deeper question is where does this dislike for even numbers come from, did the same thing exist in other cultures of the time or of now, and could we add to pages for Parity: Mathematics, Roman Calendar, etc etc. Temerarius (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The earliest version of the Roman calendar had 10 months because its main purpose was to regulate agricultural matters, and apparently nothing agriculturally important went on during Jan./Feb. in early Rome. The months with numerical names (September=7 to December=10, and in earlier times also Quintilis and Sextilis) are based on counting March as the 1st month, as is also the placement of leap adjustments before March, even though the Roman year no longer began on March 1st for a long time before Julius Caesar's reforms... AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I'm not sure if it's stated anywhere on Wikipedia, but the ancient Pythagoreans considered odd numbers masculine and even numbers feminine... AnonMoos (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Long ago (~10 years?) I started reading a novel set in Cornwall. One of the main plot points at the beginning was a painter persuading a local lass to model for him. I downloaded it from Project Gutenberg, so it was almost certainly published before 1923; I would fairly confidently assume it's by a British writer, though perhaps not a Cornish one. Any ideas what it might be? Henry^Flower 20:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd ask "Anything ring a bell in Culture of Cornwall#Novels set in Cornwall?" (WHAAOE), but nothing mentioned there is old enough. Cornwall has long been known for its popularity with painters because of the quality of light found there, so the theme is probably not unique. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.131.235 (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone here know why the Khmer percentage of the total population in Buriram Province in Thailand skyrocketed between 1990 and 2000? It increased from 0.3% in 1990 to 27.6% in 2000:

Northern_Khmer_people#Demographics

Did a lot of Khmer people move to Buriram province between 1990 and 2000? Or did something else happen there during this time frame? Futurist110 (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

What railroad would the king have followed on this route to and from west and east coast described on Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States#Train trip across America (December 5–11, 1874) and Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States#Train trip homewards (January 10–20, 1875)? Asking any railroad/train enthusiasts who might know the exact route taken based on the towns he passed. The goal is to create a precise map of his journey.KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not an expert, but you may want to look at First Transcontinental Railroad which was completed in 1869. Alansplodge (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I delved into this when writing the article. The short of it, is that there were multiple railroad lines involved. Private rail cars were provided to Kalakaua, sometimes courtesy of the railroad, and sometimes by individuals. I could not tie it down reasonably enough for the article or a specific map. Please see Commons: Category:Old railroad maps of the United States. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

As you saw, the so-called "first transcontinental railroad" refers to the combination of the Central Pacific Railroad and Union Pacific Railroad companies, which connected the US west coast to the existing and complex network in the eastern states. He would certainly have followed this route as far as eastern Wyoming. Now, I have the 1948 Handy Railroad Atlas of the United States (reprinted by Kalmbach some decades later, date not shown). This reference shows a triangle of Union Pacific lines, branching off the main line at Cheyenne and at Julesburg, Colorado (by the Nebraska boundary), and joining at LaSalle, Colorado, from which a Union Pacific line continues south to Denver. If these lines all existed and belonged to the UP by 1874 then I guess he would have gone via Cheyenne and LaSalle to Denver and via LaSalle and Julesburg to continue east, so he didn't have to change railways too many times. But I don't know if they did, and I don't know if Aurora was on that route. There were other railroads operating north and northeast from Denver in 1948 and I'm sure some of them would have existed by 1874.

The Union Pacific main line east from Nebraska today continues to Chicago and would be the obvious route as far as Chicago if it was open and belonged to the UP by 1874, but again, I don't know if that's the case.

After Chicago, in 1948 the rest of the trip could all have been on the Pennsylvania Railroad as it served Chicago, Ft. Wayne, and Washington, but once again, I don't know whether this was the case in 1874. And even in 1948 it would have involved an inconveniently long route; switching to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in Pittsburgh would be more direct.

In short, to do better than guesswork (for the route after Cheyenne) we would need contemporary references, for example, newspaper reports saying which stations the train passed through. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

What things do people in their teens and twenties do? 81.104.74.28 (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Try Teenagers and UK culture. Alansplodge (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't say anything. Please, give me a list of the things they do. 81.104.74.28 (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Temerarius (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Probably not often. Paul, who was a first-century Jew, wrote in one of his letters: "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?" (1 Corinthians 11:14) - Lindert (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article Depiction of Jesus has some insights as to how the "Jesus look" in art evolved. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

That article says that early Christian artwork shows him with short hair and clean shaven. Whether that reflects what Jewish men would have done is arguable. It's hard to distinguish what is propaganda - differentiating Jesus from Jews. I think the quotation from Paul is a better way forward, but he was also a propagandist in this respect. I think you could expect that men would have had luxuriant payot at the very least. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

However, see Nazirite. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.131.235 (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yup. If you showed up in first century Palestine, you'd see a few men walking around with long hair, because they were Nazirites. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

They were not supposed to touch wine or go near the dead, and there's no mention of him making the kinds of offerings Nazirites were supposed to make. Basically there just is no overlap and it would very probably be mentioned if it were so. Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

In 1st century A.D. Judea, men who wanted to show that they were mature adult responsible members of the Jewish community (as opposed to callow immature youths, or men who identified more with Hellenistic civilization than Jewish) commonly wore beards, and that included traditional Jewish religious leaders. Hair would have been long by 1950s standards, but that's true for most historical eras... AnonMoos (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

"men who identified more with Hellenistic civilization than Jewish) commonly wore beards" But many Greeks were also proud of their beards.: "The ancient Greeks regarded the beard as a badge or sign of virility; in the Homeric epics it had almost sanctified significance, so that a common form of entreaty was to touch the beard of the person addressed. See, for example, Homer Iliad 1:500-1 It was only shaven as a sign of mourning, though in this case it was instead often left untrimmed. A smooth face was regarded as a sign of effeminacy. The Spartans punished cowards by shaving off a portion of their beards. From the earliest times, however, the shaving of the upper lip was not uncommon. Greek beards were also frequently curled with tongs." Dimadick (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Homer was a long time before the 1st-century AD (at least 750 years). Under the Roman Empire, statues of Zeus were bearded, and beardedness was associated with certain groups (see Misopogon), but most men who identified with Greco-Roman culture were clean-shaven... AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

According to an article by William Montgomerie (on whom I am trying to write a page) he was awarded the "Society of Arts Gold Medal". Is this the Royal Society, and if so which medal is it? I can't find it either on Wikipedia or the RSA site. Several other sources say the medal was awarded in 1844. SpinningSpark 20:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's unlikely to be the Royal Society, who to the best of my knowledge never had "Arts" included in its formal or informal names. The Royal Society of Arts (in full, The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce) received its Royal Charter in 1847, shortly after the date in question, so "Society of Arts" would be a likely term of reference in 1844, and it did award various medals and other prizes from its 1754 foundation, one instance being a silver medal awarded to Edward landseer in 1812/3.

Although there may have been various Arts-invested societies around at the time, I assume the William Montgomerie in question is the surgeon who distinguished himself in Singapore: this website refers specifically to his medal being from "The Society of Arts in London", which is unlikely to refer to any other than that which became the RSA shortly thereafter. It would however be nice to add more details about its early system of medals, etc. to our article on it. Unfortunately its online Transactions stop at 1843, just too early for Mongomerie's medal, but a thorough perusal therein would likely shed light on its general prize and medal giving activities in its pre-Royal period.

[Edited to add] Hold the presses! This entry from the 1843 Transactions refers to his award of a gold medal regarding the cultivation of nutmegs (rather than for the uses of Gutta percha). I daresay it's reasonable that he received more than one gold medal (or other awards) from them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.131.235 (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I found that myself in the meantime. There doesn't appear to be a definitive list of medal recipients, at least, not available online. SpinningSpark 23:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why has there been more negative than positive coverage of Donald Trump from the mainstream media?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.28.56 (talk • contribs)

Because he does more negative than positive things. --Jayron32 00:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am not certain about that. In Greek television news, I have seen reporters using Trump's announcements as comic relief amidst typically grimmer news of the day. In other cases, the newscasters and reportes laugh uncontrollably for a few minutes in reaction to what the guy is saying. Dimadick (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why Trump Is Winning and the Press Is Losing. Alansplodge (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is rather worrying. A subdued press under the control of the government is what China has and what Trump seems to want. Next step would be social conditioning, anyone not toeing the line can't book a flight or use a train. Dmcq (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• A lot of the negativity is due to the fact that positive news is boring, while negative news is exciting... ie by being negative the TV media boosts ratings and print media sells more papers. Higher ratings and more papers sold translates more advertising revenue. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
• I suspect you'd find plenty of negative coverage of Trump long before he ever became a candidate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials". William J. Brennan, Jr., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1964).

One of many similar sentiments from Wikiquote:Freedom of the press. Alansplodge (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

(mentioned here)

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's a place called Khanera in the Soran District of the Erbil Governorate, near the Iraq-Iran border. I don't see anything about it on Wikipedia but it's on this United Nations Joint Humanitarian Information Centre map. What ends up as "Xenere" or "Khanera" in German and English could be many things in Arabic or Kurdish, so I'm not sure what the original spelling is... Adam Bishop (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

In a private conversation elsewhere, a person with whom I talked to speculated that, had JFK lived, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev would not have been ousted the next year. Basically, the logic was that LBJ was more confrontational than JFK was and thus caused the Soviet leadership to remove Khrushchev and replace him with Brezhnev.

Anyway, do you think that there is any truth to this speculation? Or was JFK's assassination completely irrelevant in the Soviet decision to remove Khrushchev from power? -- 02:46, 25 November 2018 Futurist110

Read about Nikita Khrushchev for some insight on why he got the boot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

There were also domestic considerations -- the so-called "harebrained schemes" (grandiose initiatives that yielded little practical result). See History of the Soviet Union (1953-64)#Reforms and Khrushchev's fall... AnonMoos (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Khrushchev's De-Stalinization was also controversial. Dimadick (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was watching a movie and this business card came up. What does the "D" stand for in front of the first phone number? "T" and "F" stands for "telephone" and "fax" respectively, but I can't figure out "D". Mũeller (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Direct"? It could be an oblique reference to a cell phone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wordreference Language Forums - D before a telephone number has the most plausible answer: "T for the telephone of the company and D the direct line" (i.e. a number which goes straight to the person's desk rather than through the company switchboard). Another less likely suggestion was "D for Domicile" (i.e. the person's telephone at home). Alansplodge (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

See also P is not for telephone which agrees with the "direct line" hypothesis. Alansplodge (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It would help to know what language the film was in... also what decade. Conventions have changed over time and place. Assuming an older English language film, is it possible that the letter was a “P” and not a “D”? If so, it might stand for “Personal”. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply