FriendsWithYou (Artist statement, Portfolio) is an American group of two artists. Are they associated with spiritualism spirituality or something?

(And let's include Netflix series True and the Rainbow Kingdom (Guide for parents) into discussion, since the duo is behind the show.)

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC) (Edit: Fixed typo. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 19:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see any indication on their site to suggest any connection with spiritualism, at least on a quick scan. They talk about spirituality, which is quite different. If you're worried by their mention of mediums, that's Medium (arts), and again, nothing to do with contacting the spirits of the dead. Do you have any other reason for your question? Rojomoke (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of spirituality, but I mixed them up as I was typing. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 19:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid confusing readers, when you make a change to a question, it's a good idea to use "strike" this way: spiritualism spirituality. Dbfirs 21:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 07:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's get out of this typo blunder and let me ask again. Are FriendsWithYou associated with spirituality or something? Do you think which religion or movement is their inspiration? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 10:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article, which is directly cited in the Wikipedia article on FriendsWithYou as the reference to the sentence in that article which uses the word "spirituality", answers your first question. Your second question (Do you think...) is not answerable in this forum. --Jayron32 16:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How did I miss that one? Thanks. Still wondering what are influencing the group on the spirituality thing, though. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the article on George_Griffith and noted that he apparently completed a circumnavigation of the globe in 65 days. The article does not specify the date of this adventure but referred to his account published in Pearson's Magazine. It also states that the journey "shattered the existing record". The magazine articles were published in book form in 2010 as "Around the World in 65 days". The blurb on the book says that his journey occurred in 1984. I decided to check what the Wikipedia article on circumnavigation records had to say about this and I noted that the journey was absent from the list on that page. My eye was drawn to the period at which Mr Griffith's journey is said to have taken place, as below.

Note: Train had made a previous journey in 1872 of 80 days with a stop-over in Paris for a few months.

One of the references used is http://www.wingnet.org/rtw/RTW001O.HTM which states he took 67 days 12 hours and 3 minutes in 1890 and that he repeated this round-the-world trip again in 1892, setting a 60 day record.

The other reference http://www.skagitriverjournal.com/WA/Library/Newspaper/Visscher/Visscher3-Bio2.html says:

Train may have gone to the well once too often, however, because he decided to repeat his fete a year later, using Fairhaven as his base, and announced his goal of completing his trip in 60 days. Visscher, the editor of the Fairhaven Herald, was again on hand as a booster. Almost every source dates this trip in 1892, but both Roth and Lelah Jackson Edson in The Fourth Corner detail his departure from the Fairhaven wharf on May 9, 1891, after he raised $1,000 locally to defray expenses. He returned 64 days later after two missed ships and by that time the luster was off his rose.

The Wikipedia article on Train says the following:

In 1890, Nellie Bly traveled around the world in 72 days, instigating Train to do a second circumnavigation of the earth in the same year. He completed the trip from Tacoma to Tacoma in 67 days 12 hours and 1 minute, a world record at the time.[2][5] A plaque in Tacoma commemorates the point at which his 1890 trip began and ended. Train was accompanied on many of his travels by George Pickering Bemis, his cousin and private secretary. Bemis was later elected as mayor of Omaha, Nebraska.

In 1892, the town of Whatcom, Washington offered to finance yet another trip around the world in order to publicize itself. Train finished this trip in a record 60 days.

So as you can see we have a number of discrepancies here and potentially unreliable references. If Train made his 3rd journey in 1891 or 1892 in either 60 or 64 days he negates the claim of Griffith to have beaten, let alone 'shattered', the world record by completing the journey in 65 days in 1894. I wonder how verifiable each man's journey was, i.e. whether they reported their whereabouts during the journey and if this did not occur whether that invalidates either claim.

I have now discovered that Train's autobiography is available online at https://archive.org/details/mylifeinmanystat00trai. Train says that his third journey took 60 days. 77.95.178.84 (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole article on circumnavigation records seems to need improvement, due to the unclear definition of "circumnavigation". For example, it accepts two flights by Wiley Post that the airtlce on Circumnavigation does not mention, and I remember reading (but I don't remember where, to cite it) that those flights were considerably shorter than the circumference of the Earth. --70.29.13.251 (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. Here's a source for Griffith: [1] It's a contemporary report that gives his departure date as March 12, from London, and his return date as May 16: 64.5 days. (Search the book for Griffith and check both results; one give the departure and the other the arrival.) 70.67.222.124 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Re Train, he seems to have said different things at different times. As you note, his autobiography claims 60 days in 1892 on his third time making the voyage. In this source, he said he made the trip five times and reached 60 days on the fifth trip. Best you can probably do is report the discrepancies in the article.

If you want to go to the trouble of setting up a seven-day trial account, you will be able to get a lot of dates from contemporary newspapers at newspapers.com. For example, the Vancouver Daily World and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer seem to have been reporting regular updates on a Train round-the-world trip, reported as his third, through May to July 1891.

From the snippet views I glean that he sailed for Kobe on May 11, 1891 from Vancouver, after his actual official departure an unknown period of time earlier from Whatcom, Washington (on May 8, per your skagitriver source?). The Philadephia Inquirer reported his arrival in New York on July 9, 1891,[2] with the cross-continental journey to Washington still to come. Even if May 11 was Day 2, that has him arriving in New York on Day 61 with no chance of doing 60 days. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a list of fastest circumnavigations is that of definition — wouldn't anyone at Amundsen-Scott be able to complete a circumnavigation in a few seconds? Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article offers no inkling of their age. It just says they were dug up in the 1870s. The reader will likely be curious as to whether they date from the 1800's, the 800's, or the 600's. Lots of dates as to when they were displayed, but nothing as to radiocarbon dating of the context in which they were found, or other traditional scientific methods of archeology as opposed to older practice of just digging things up and displaying it. Edison (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's 8 references in the "bibliography" section which are not currently cited, but available for further reading. Have you checked those? --Jayron32 16:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at them before coming here, hoping to find a RS which could be added to The first just raves about how cool it is to scan artifacts with a "lazer" scanner.The second I was unable to use control F or"find" to look for the specific artifact, but it did mention some leather backing surviving, implying radiocarbon dating should be possible. I did not find a date estimate, but did not have time to read every word of the work. The one from the Brit Museum rated an "unsafe site " warning from my computer. Some had no link. The 8th one implied a similar master plate (but not specificlly these" might have been used in the 600's. Edison (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Commons Category page here, "They are all dated to the Vendel era, 550-793 CE." DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mention in the article of Sutton Hoo would indicate the 6th century. Wymspen (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but it says these plates are copies of older plates, and did not say that the Sutton Hoo artifact had decorations actually made from these (copied) master bronzes. People still make replicas of Arthurian weapons for sale at museum gift shops. Granted, 19th century archaeology often amounted to treasure hunting, with little thought of carefully documenting the historical context of the finds, but if there were remnants of the leather backing of the helmets, or other organic material, or pottery or other artifacts found with these,or what culture produced them, there should be some clue as to what century or "age" they date from. The bibliography was not very helpful, and each encyclopedia reader should not have to plow through hundreds of pages of scholarly prose about the joys of "lazer" scanning, or the divine right of kings, looking for this basic information. So far the article just tells the reader they date from before 1870. This article is currently on the front page of Wikipedia as a "Did you know?" I went to it and I still do not know some essential information which should be provided with any encyclopedia article about such artifacts. That is why I came here. Edison (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Origins of Drama in Scandinavia (p. 66) by Terry Gunnell says: "sixth-seventh century". The Longobards (first Century BC-AD 600): A Tentative Explanation by Noël C. de Caprona says: "The plate has been dated sixth century AD, and could represent a 'lleallhunding' or 'Hunding' berserk" (no preview, but the text is visible as a search result). Alansplodge (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And from the bowels of Google Scholar, Berserk Rage through the Ages (p. 2) by Anatoly Simonovich Liberman: "The Torslunda plate, a Vendel- era (about 6th or 7th century) artefact from Sweden, allegedly linked to berserks" (click on "pdf" to see the text). Alansplodge (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) directly under the Department of Justice or is it under the Federal Bureau of Investigation? If Department of Justice then does that mean that lying to the Counsel is not a crime (I know that lying to the FBI is a federal crime)? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  Please ping me when you respond. 17:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article you linked, under the first sentence of the unsurprisingly titled section "Origin and powers", it directly and unambiguously answers your first question. Regarding your second question, I didn't do much more than skim it, but this blog post from lowfareblog.com seems to discuss much of the minutiae around the legalities of lying during the current Russia investigation. It may come in useful for you. --Jayron32 18:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When reading reports like this [3] where it says "a judge sentenced him on Wednesday to 40 to 175 years in prison", what does the range "40 to 175 years" actually mean? Is it something like the difference between his the maximum possible incarceration vs. when he would become eligible for parole consideration? And who / what factors determine how long someone will actually serve if the judge's instruction provides such a wide range? Dragons flight (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See if Criminal_sentencing_in_the_United_States#Indeterminate_sentencing or other info in that article helps. Generally the parole board will determine if the prisoner is eligible for release. RudolfRed (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that article is not very helpful - it describes a sentence with lower and upper limits, but then says, "the legislature generally sets a short, mandatory minimum sentence that an offender must spend in prison (e.g. one-third of the minimum sentence, or one-third of the high end of a sentence)." That suggests that the actual time served in prison could be as short as one-third of the lower limit, so Dr Nassar might get parole in less than 14 years. That contradicts what the judge said about it being a death sentence (meaning he will die in prison). I prefer the UK system: the maximum sentence is "life" which usually comes with a tariff that must be served in prison before a parole application can be made. In some case the tariff itself is "for life" meaning that the criminal will never be released. Wymspen (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See List of prisoners with whole-life orders. 86.169.56.163 (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the upper and lower bounds of the sentence. He's already serving a 60-year term for an earlier trial, adding a minimum of 40 years to the sentence means he will be in jail a minimum of 100 years. --Jayron32 13:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An old tale about a judge handing down a multi-decade sentence to a guy who's already like 80 years old. Defendant: "I can't serve a sentence like that!" Judge: "Well, do the best you can!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How much money (including real estate and clothes) does the millionth richest person in the world have today? Would he (or she) have had more or less money in the past? And is that person's holdings expected to grow in the future? And if that question is unanswerable (which I'm 97% sure it is), when were there a million millionaires?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some information at How many millionaires? Depends who’s counting. Alansplodge (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if this is reliable, but I thought it could be interesting to discuss it, even if only to confirm it is not reliable: http://www.globalrichlist.com/ --Lgriot (talk)

Independent of who this 10milth wealthiest person is, there is almost certainly some point in the past in which the person with that rank had less wealth than the current title holder. See Economic inequality, Income distribution, distribution of wealth, and Gini coefficient. Generally, the ultra-wealthy are wealthier now, relative to the common worker, than they were in the the early 20th century. While it gets a little more confusing and harder to call for the top 10 richest, once you go down to the millionth rank, you're talking most likely about a CEO or similar, and those tend to be paid better now and are more wealthier than they were a few decades ago in the USA [4]. This question would probably be easier to answer with good sources for a specific country. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably somewhere around $5-6 million, if the numbers from our HNWI, UHNWI and Millionaire articles are realistic. 93.142.116.5 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eat me, building off SemanticMantis' point, you have to consider inflation, as well as a millionaire in which currency. During the last period of the Zimbabwe dollar, everyone was a millionaire (I remember seeing something noting that a couple of eggs would cost $1,000,000,000), while many millionaires in today's US dollars would not be millionaires 50 years ago if they'd had the same wealth, simply due to inflation in the US dollar. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of television programmes nowadays to do with buying and selling cars. I have noticed in these that at American car auctions there appear to be auction house employees who point at the bidders and shout at the auctioneer. What are these called, and why are they thought to be necessary? DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Auction assistants. --Jayron32 05:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the linked description is what would be called a porter here, but doesn't include the pointing at bidders and shouting at the auctioneer. DuncanHill (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for information on the historical frequency of given names in Germany and the UK. Ideally, I'd like a resource that is circa 1900, but I'm not sure if such a list exists. I'm trying to explore the idea that someone who lived in Germany more than a century ago had given names that would be rare in Germany but that those same names would be less unusual if this person had emigrated from the UK. Dragons flight (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of sources for the UK: top 100 given names (male + female) for those born in 1900 [5], and a paper on given name popularity over a much longer period, which doesn't have a chart for 1900, but has one for 1825. [6]. I'll see if I can find anything equivalent for Germany. --Xuxl (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of sites for German names. The sources don't look perfectly reliable, but it should work for your purposes: [7] and [8]. --Xuxl (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at Google Trends data on various programming languages for fun and noticed that China is by far ahead in the number one spot for each term. [9][10][11][12] [13] What's going on here? Are Google Trends data not normalized against population? OR Am I mis-interpreting the results somehow? Or is the IT field really that strong in China? Mũeller (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per the name and description, these seem to be relative rankings i.e. how popular those search terms are compared to other search terms in those regions. As mentioned in Google China, Google is very unpopular there and also tends to be quite restricted or difficult to use. It's quite likely that many using Google in China have specific reasons and it may be that other alternatives e.g. Baidu don't work so well for programming language related queries or people looking for programming language related queries have been taught, read or otherwise believe it's best to use Google. Also I'm not sure if the Great Firewall always functions the same or is sometimes relaxed e.g. in places etc that teach programming languages. Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Western society is probably to focused on itself to notice that China spends 4% of its GDP on education and thus 7.5 million new graduates entered the job market in 2015 according our article Higher education in China and its sources. More important even is that 40% of Chinese students are studying for a "STEM" degree (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). To put that in perspective: (cite)"China had 4.7 million recent STEM graduates in 2016. India, another academic powerhouse, had 2.6 million new STEM graduates last year while the U.S. had 568,000." [14]. The United States actually spends even more (6.3% of its GDP) on education but the cost of living is also much higher and additionally a professor in the States earns roughly 100 000 $/year while a Chinese professor earns 6000 $/year. So "Oktember, Septober, Nowonder"(Stan Laurel) is the most fitting answer to your question i think. --Kharon (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But for Python at least, India has the same ranking as Canada, US, Australia at 4. The UK, France, Germany are only on level below at 3. China is the highest possible, at 100 so while this could be a factor, I think it's clear it's far from the only thing and the results are still a wonder if we only consider that. I maybe should have made this clearer but I'm not saying the specific reasons I mentioned are necessarily correct or the only factor but I think it's resonable to say if a search engine only has about 1% of the market and government actions make it very hard to use, you shouldn't expect searches will necessarily be that representative of what the average population is searching for compared to other places where Google is so popular that Googling is a common verb and the rarity of people not using Google is a very common joke. You should expect that's there's a possibility the search patterns will vary since there's a fair chance you're only seeing a specific subset of the population. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Access to Google in the People's Republic is heavily restricted by the Great Firewall; most Chinese use Baidu. As a result, I would put basically zero stock in these data. They're as likely to be a result of Google's analysis code screwing up as anything else. Another possibility: apparently some PRC hotels catering to foreigners have unfiltered Internet, so this could be a lot of foreign programmers/IT employees/etc. visiting the country and looking up job-related information on Google, which, because most of China doesn't use Google, makes up a huge proportion of mainland Chinese queries that Google receives, causing the skew. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google China is the #3 searchengine in china with a search market share of roughly 35% and reported 3000 Websites blocked in mainland China does not fit the term "heavily restricted" to well. Besides censorship is actually common worldwide. Compare for example Censorship in Malaysia, Censorship in the United States or have a look at Internet censorship and surveillance by country. Additionally purely educational links are usually not censored anywhere unless the content touches medicine(nudity), history or politics/religion. So i do not see the relevance for Google Trends statistics on terms regarding programming languages. --Kharon (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting your statistics from? Please provide a source I already provided our article which has links to sources which support my claim that Google is about 1% in China as of 2013. It was roughly 35% in 2009, but it's not 2009. Also censorship being common worldwide is beside the point. This isn't a debate over censorship. Both me and 47 have already explained why the controls the Chinese government places over Google are relevant. But to repeat again, the fact that Google has a tiny market share in China and therefore these statistics are only coming from a tiny percent of searches in China is relevant. Nearly everyone agrees the primary reason for this is due to the limits on Google use but frankly that part is largely separate from the point. Censorship or not, in many other countries Google dominates to such an extent that not using Google is a common joke and Googling is a verb in English and when used as a verb it actually almost always refers to actually using Google. And censorship or not, in nearly all countries barring a few, you can visit Google in your browser and search and provided there's nothing wrong with your internet connection this will only take seconds. I can tell you this is the case in Malaysia and while not from personal experience (well discounting US VPNs and Tor), I also know it's the case in US. This is not generally the case in China although again, this point is somewhat separate anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, What does this mean? Le Zouave du pont d'alma a dit,

Specfically is relates to the article of Otto Buggisch. The statement is in TICOM I-58 p.3, which can be referenced from the Buggisch article. scope_creep (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Zouave and Pont de l'Alma and google translate will do the rest. Please do your homework first, then ask for help if you need it. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi μηδείς, yip I saw them. Do you not think I didn't look everywhere for a solution. I can't determine if they are related to the statement, the document or Otto Buggisch or in what manner, or even if they are connected to Otto Buggisch in some why. scope_creep (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest, then, that you post the paragraph from the source here for us, rather than telling us we can find it if we do the work. The French is clear as day. But I am disinclined to go looking for refs at articles then finding some uncertain text somewhere on line when you already have the material at your disposal. Just post it, and a lot of people will eagerly explain it. μηδείς (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For context, at the pont de l'Alma in Paris, there is a huge sculpture of a zouave serving as one of the bridge's pillars. His feet are underwater and his head reaches to the height of the bridge itself. It is a popular way to measure the height of the Seine's waters by stating what part of the zouave's body the waterline reaches (i.e. the knees, the belt, etc). So, when "le zouave du pont de l'Alma a dit", it means litteraly "The zouave frnm the Alma Bridge has stated", but since the zouave is an inanimate object that does not speak, it usually refers to this particular context of the Seine River flooding and the zouave indicating by how much (and the Seine is flooding this weekend, according to various news stories). --Xuxl (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that in the news the day before yesterday, curious how it turns up here, in relation to this. Proper synchronicity. μηδείς I ×will. I'll post the details, exactly as they are written. It is a measure, or an indication of depth, but not the official depth indicator, which is not used. Possibly some kind of indication they looking for depth. I'll post it today. scope_creep (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point the context has been made clear. It's just good form for the future to give the broader context, especially a link to the relevant URL if possible. You already know what you are talking about but theory of mind should make it clear that giving your interlocutor a hint will speed communication. It used to be a part of our guidelines to ask OP's to link to what they had already read, but some shortsighted admin removed that on the rationalization that IP's don't read the guidelines anyway. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A better translation into English would be, "The Zouave of the Alma Bridge has spoken." Wymspen (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps: “According to the Zouave of the Alma Bridge, ...” (Question: do we have an article or section about this statue, explaining how it is used to measure the water level on the Seine? If so, a link to that article or section would help English language readers better understand the French language idiom.) Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Pont de l'Alma#''The Zouave'' statue and flooding. Alansplodge (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I checked the original document, and there is nothing after "....a dit." Using "according to" or "stated" (as above) rather implies that there is something to follow, while "... has spoken." is final and requires no object. As to what the fellow was talking about, it has something to do with breaking a complex code - so perhaps that phrase was the key to the code in some way. The interrogation report doesn't make it very clear. Wymspen (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have found another document which describes the C36 mechanism. It is document I-92. It says. About the same time in 1944, the French had adopted a system of sending internal settings by means of an ordinary sentence for each wheel. It mention's who used it, specifically the de Gaulle party in Corsica, but it was a code which was never broken. It was considered academic interest only. So it is related to that. New knowledge for me. There is enough in chapter 3, I-92 to describe the mechanism. I think I can close this now. It has been weird. I thought we had it above, with the translation, but no. Really wide of the mark.

Thanks Wymspen, Blueboar, μηδείς, Xuxl. The information if anybody wants to read it, including the two documents TICOM I-58 and I-92 will be available from Otto Buggisch, and the C36 device is described in C36 cipher device, that the de Gaulle delegation to Corsica was using in 1943/44, and will be updated accordingly.

A CBS News story yesterday said that this Arizona Native American nation resides on land split by the US-Mexico border, and that a wall would cut the nation in half and divide families. The Wikipedia article says all their reservation land is in the US and that the border is its southern limit. First, does the nation have an official presence on the map in Mexico, or in land documents, or do individual tribe members own small holdings on the Mexico side? Second, are there cases elsewhere in the world where two countries have a fenced border but make an exception and leave unfenced the border which goes through the land of some tribe whose lands are on both sides, so they do not have to use some official border crossing point to go back and forth? This is distinct from cases where borders are open and unpatrolled and unfenced. Edison (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I googled the subject, and one item that came up was this map.[15] The reservation is entirely within the US while the "traditional lands" are in both US and Mexico. Mexico doesn't do reservations. Interestingly, it was all in Mexico until the Gadsden Purchase was made, which split the traditional land. You'd have to dig further and see how border crossings are currently being handled. This is one of many issues that will arise if the wall ever becomes reality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Akwesasne reserve at the border of Ontario, Quebec and New York state straddles all three jurisdictions. Of course, the border between Canada and the United States is not fenced, and is formed by the St. Lawrence River at this particular point, but there are some special arrangements for residents to cross from one part to the other that are not open to regular folks. --Xuxl (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't "split the nation in half", it would "strand" 2,000 out of 28,000 Pima (Tohono O'odham people) residents who already live in Mexico in Mexico--if requiring people to use a legal border crossing counts as stranding. The issue of a wall has nothing to do with making arrangements for travel. That can be addressed already through legal means. It would simply prevent unregulated crossing, which the Pima themselves find onerous, as they bear the cost of many non-Pima illegals who use their tribal resources (needing rescue and medical treatment while trekking through the desert), while the state and federal government currently refuse to reimburse them, for which issue, read the article I have linked to. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What it would split in half is the land, even if over 90 percent of them live in Arizona. The obvious solution would be to build the wall around the northern half of the land. But I'd like to know who's compelling the tribe to pay for policing the border? By what authority? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the tribal police and medical facilities are eating the cost of all illegals (not Pima themselves) crossing the border who need rescue, etc. They aren't being billed by the state or feds, and the state and the feds are not standing there saying, yo, Pima EMT, you have to save these people dying of dehydration. The obvious solution would be to prevent Pima land from being used as a conduit, which the wall would do.

Yes, it would be an inconvenience to have to go to a checkpoint to cross. But it's also an inconvenience to have coyotes and drug runners smuggling people and violent crime through the land in the first place. It's not a problem that can be wished away, if it were, the Pima wouldn't be suing the state and the feds for aid in the first place. The question of the Pima has interested me since I studied their language and culture in the 90's. The fact that Pima north of the border have the highest diabetes rate in the US, while those in Mexico have normal weight is another interesting real-time social science experiment. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they're doing it voluntarily, that's a somewhat different story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the duties of police and other patrols are to actually bring patients to an emergency room by AZ or tribal law, but Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act applies to people who are presented as needing emergency assitence at a hospital. Note the law obligates such care, but does not fund it. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's typical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent some time looking at this on google, and although I cannot find anything specific to people arrested crossing the border, many websites say that a medical examination and minimum treatment regardless of nationality are required by Supreme Court decisions, and we do have Prisoner rights in the United States which applies to all detainees, not just convicted people in actual prison, rather than jail. So it seems if you are in medical distress, they have to at least examine you professionally, which then brings Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act into play, one would assume.

This site mentions various relevant federal laws. This site specific to NYC says No matter the nature or severity of your condition, you will not be allowed to keep your medication on you after you are arrested. However, if you anticipate that you will be arrested and want to take your medication while you are in custody, it is still a good idea to bring a one or two-day supply of your medication in its pharmacy-issued prescription bottle. Here's a link to this google search: us law medical rights of arrested persons. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they have to absorb the cost, then other patients' costs will go up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really "absorbing the cost", though, is it? I call that "passing the costs on to other patients". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The British Financial Conduct Authority lists a specific company with a "No longer authorised" entry and a current "Authorised""Authorised entry with different reference numbers. Apparently there was a switch from the former status to the current one on 1 July 2011. But what might be the reason for this switch? A change of address? Or what else? --KnightMove (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have accidentally given the same link twice. The second link, to the authorised company, should be this. DuncanHill (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, thank you & sorry. --KnightMove (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A check on the Companies House website does show a change of address - but otherwise it appears to be the same company continuing. The FCA listings do show different categories - with the earlier one categorised as Firm, while the current one is E-money. This probably indicates that the company changed the type or range of financial services provided, so had to change their FCA registration to reflect this. Wymspen (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A firm it is in either case, and it did issue electronic money in rather the same way before. But since posing the question I've realised that the UK has introduced a new law in the year the switch occurred, the Electronic Money Regulations 2011. Certainly the company needed additional permissions to comply with the new law. However I still don't exactly understand why this required a change in the entry. --KnightMove (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Politically, in what issues could they conflict? They both seem to be politically conservative Germans (well, except Kurz who is only kinda German), but why aren't they real allies? --Hofhof (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, they're separate countries; unless you're talking EU policy, why would they be engaged either in conflict or alliance? Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know who they are. And yes, this is obviously EU policy.--Hofhof (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Laurent Picard.

Please help find Laurent Picard in the back row. I want to crop it for the article. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess is the headshot shown. Was I right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Idunno. He'd be 47 when photo was taken in 1974, and file description says he's in the back row. And, the photo w/dog (at commomns) was taken 1n 1989, and he looks younger then. maybe ... maybe not. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:5816:CC2:4ADE:73A0 (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)→ Here he is in 1974-75 → [16] from here ... seems you were right (note cleft chin, hairline, etc.) —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:5816:CC2:4ADE:73A0 (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an obit with an undated photo, the same as linked above. Looks like your guy to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!!!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is this ism or something that says everything is either good or evil. I think it starts with a "u" and is named after some Muslim guy from way back when. Does anyone know what it is called? Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of Manicheanism? Even if not, reading the article may lead you where you want to go. μηδείς (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought of Manicheanism at first, but didn't mention it, since it does not start with or contain a "u", and it predates Islam by a thousand years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thank you, Cullen328 and μηδείς. Okay, my memory is not great. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make that about 800 years before Islam, and the religion lasted far after the early days of Islam. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your memory seems good, but your math skills need practice. Manichaeism was established by Mani in the 3rd century AD, and Islam was established by Muhammad in the 7th century AD. Manichaeism predates Islam by only 4 centuries, not 8 centuries. Mani was a Gnostic of Jewish-Christian background, and his religion borrowed Gnosticism's emphasis on dualism and struggle between good and evil. Manichaeism "is based on a rigid dualism of good and evil, locked in eternal struggle." Groups of Christian "heretics" with similar dualistic ideas included the adherents of Bogomilism, Catharism, Marcionism, and Paulicianism. Dimadick (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dimadick. Did you write all that from memory, or did you have to look it up? In a week, I will likely remember only 25% of that and forget the other 52%. You see, my memory is bad, but my maths skills are nearly perfect. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to Cullen. I remembered when Manichaeism was established primarily because I have an interest in Late antiquity (3rd to 7th century AD) and often work on related articles. I noted that our article on dualism mentioned several dualistic versions of Christianity, several of which were (like Manichaeism) Gnostic-derived and that their adherents were persecuted as heretics during the Middle Ages. I am somewhat familiar with the Bogomils, Cathars, and Paulicians, mostly because of my interest in religious persecution within the Byzantine Empire, the Bulgarian Empire, and the Languedoc. (I could care less about their theology.) We have a relatively decent article on the Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229), a 20-year long military campaign aimed to wipe out the Cathars. Some modern historians have called this Crusade a medieval genocide, and I have read several non-fiction books and a few novels spotlighting it. There is a possibly apocryphal phrase describing how the Crusaders distinguished between actual Cathars and any other person living in the area: Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. ("Kill them all; let God sort them out.") I first read about it when I was 11-years-old, and it still forms a large part of my opinion on what kind of tolerance Christians preach about. Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very interesting area indeed. And "Kill them all; let God sort them out." is horrific! Humans! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The "U" called to mind Ahura Mazda], which is the main beneficent god in Zoroastrianism, which predates and influences Manichaeism. He is known as Ohrmuzd and various other transcriptions begining with "u" or a "u" sound. That religion is older, which is why I mentioned Manichaeism first, which is closer in time to Islam. You may as well look up Melek Taus and the religion of the Gnostic Yazidis who have so recently been subject to Islamist genocide. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, μηδείς. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some people often say that constitutional monarchies are useless anachronisms and waste of money in the modern world just because their functions are largely ceremonial. How is having a ceremonial president in parliamentary republics like Germany or Italy really different in term of usefulness? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In theory at least, the ceremonial head of state still plays a role in the stability of the state. The President of Germany has a number of reserve powers, which he/she is only supposed to exercise "in case of political instability". He/she also has the right to veto laws which violate the constitution. The veto is not exercised often, but our article has a list of presidential vetos in 1951, 1961, 1969, 1970, 1976, 1991, and 2006.

The President of Italy has a number of duties denied to the Prime Minister. Only he/she may declare a state of war, or call for a referendum. Dimadick (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above reply misunderstands the OP's question. The question is whether there is any practical difference between a ceremonial president and a constitutional monarch. --Viennese Waltz 10:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is that there is no single pattern, for either constitutional monarchs or for non-executive presidents (I wouldn't call them "ceremonial" as they often do have some reserved powers). I have never seen any attempt to make a full comparison - though I suspect that (on average) the presidents have more powers than the monarchs. That doesn't preclude the possibility of comparing two specific nations, and finding that in that case the monarch is actually more powerful. Wymspen (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The big issue is that while these broad categories of government types exists, in reality there are subtle differences between every country and every other one; even picking two constitutional monarchies, or two non-executive presidential systems will show distinct constitutional differences regarding the role of the head of state; indeed the differences within each of those categories is likely to be as large or larger than the differences between them. --Jayron32 13:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has asked two very different questions in their caption and their text.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question in the caption/title: having a ceremonial head of state, whether monarch, president or some other title, frees up the actual head of government to concentrate full time on governing rather than performing the various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties that most countries also wish to be performed. If you look at the daily activities of, for example, Queen Elizabeth II and her immediate family which are published as the Court Circular in several daily newspapers as well as on its own web page (linked from the article), you'll see that these duties are (at least) a full-time job in themselves.

The question of whether counties (that is to say, their citizens) should wish such duties to be performed is a debate not within the factual scope of the Help Desk. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.130.24 (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just started building the Outline of air transport. For it, I wrote a description for air transport, but I'm afraid it leaves something to be desired:

Air transport – transport of passengers (people) and cargo (goods) through the air, in aircraft, made possible by aviation (the design, development, production, operation and use of aircraft, especially heavier-than-air aircraft). Air transport is faster than land and maritime transport. Applications of air transport include travel and freight transport, especially helpful when material delivery is time-critical such as with various types of perishable produce. Most air transport is accomplished by the use of airplanes (or other aircraft) operated as fleets managed by air transport companies called airlines. Airlines maintain a system of scheduled flights, in which pilots operate the aircraft, taking off from and landing at aerodromes (airfields), which include one or more runways, which may or may not be supported by a full airport.

It does't seem to quite capture the essence. So my question for you is...

What is missing?   The Transhumanist 11:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: please {{ping}} me if you reply. -TT

The Transhumanist. Have you looked at less conventional forms? Hot air balloon, Airship, Hybrid airship, Delivery drone (Unmanned aerial vehicle). By the way it probably should read "

Air transport is generally faster..." CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon wants to deliver cargo to the customers' doors using drones. You need to exclude drones from your article.
Sleigh (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with The Transhumanist below)Amazon aren't the only ones as the sections on Delivery drone#In healthcare, [[[Delivery drone#Smuggling]] and Delivery drone#Food indicate. As a Wikipedia:Outlines rather than an article I think that drones qualify as a listing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys. By the way, I've added this to the end of the description:

For public safety (to prevent collisions), air transport in each region is monitored and directed by an air traffic service.

I left out less conventional forms explicitly, due to bloat considerations (an issue in outline leads), but they are referred to generally (see "especially" and "or other aircraft") and will be covered in the body of the outline.    The Transhumanist 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about charter helicopters and helipads? And charter seaplanes?
Sleigh (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your answers. (Please {{ping}} me).    The Transhumanist 13:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Transhumanist: I think you're over-stretching the need for a direct antonym here. There's "public transport"; but that does not mean that we have a meaningful category called "private transport"; that terminology is just not used. Public transport indicates that taxicabs are not considered public transport, though the article taxicab, by its use of the word "other" in the phrase "other public transport" indicates that they are sometimes so considered. --Jayron32 13:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, the article private transport also excludes taxis, and refers to them as a form of public transport.

Category:Vehicles for hire, which include taxis, is in turn included in Category:Public transport by mode. So, if taxis are mode of public transport, they need to be included in the public transport article.

Somehow, the contradiction needs to be fixed.    The Transhumanist 14:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article private transport contains zero indication that it is a real concept outside of Wikipedia. It looks entirely like someone saw the article "public transport" and decided on their own that the antonymic term needed an article, and so created one without regard for whether or not it was a legitimate concept. I see no evidence that it is. --Jayron32 15:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It depends where in the world you are. "Public transport" has two meanings: transport available to the public (which taxis are) or transport potentially shared at the time of use by several members of the public (which usually also implies a fixed route, not a route of the passenger's choice). Taxis are the first - so are private hire minicabs (a big distinction in the UK) or limo hire. Here in the UK, I can only 'hail' a car on the street if it's a taxi (which requires onerous licensing). If I book in advance though, or go to a minicab office, I can have a less regulated (although still regulated) minicab. Uber have further blurred this difference.

WP seems to have taken the other definition, which excludes taxis. This is usually a North American distinction - 'taxis' are socially acceptable to most classes of people, but it's a failure in middle class life to be reduced to 'riding the bus'.

Yet in many countries, taxis are little more than very small buses. It's common to share them with other passengers, sometimes when coincidentally going in the same direction, sometimes when travelling a regular fixed route. This is common worldwide, everywhere from Belfast to South Africa. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: I moved the section on auto rickshaws from public transport to shared transport, but I'm not sure that's correct.    The Transhumanist 14:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Andy on this one. In my understanding, public transport refers to all sorts of transport you don't own yourself, including taxicabs, rickshaws, livery vehicles, etc. If you're paying for a per-use ride of the vehicle and someone else is driving it, it is public transportation. --Jayron32 15:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In newspapers.com (a pay site) I'm seeing references to the term "private transport" at least as far back as 1950. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Transhumanist:, it's a mistake to think that all forms of transport must be either public or private. As with any other division, people and things can move between different classes. A taxi is usually privately owned, and at most times it's also privately hired, and if so it's essentially a form of private transport. But it can also be publicly owned and can be used to provide public transport: for instance, a railway company can use taxis to complete its passengers' railway journeys when something goes wrong. You could say a taxi is sui generis. Moonraker (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what the crux of the confusion here is, which is the meaning of the adjective public. Does it refer to being owned by the public (i.e. the state) or does it refer to being usable by the public (i.e. available for anyone to use so long as they pay the price of use). As far as I know, public transport usually refers to the latter; actual ownership of the vehicle is not what is considered (that is, non-state companies may own and manage public transport resources). But, because there is a difference in perceieved meaning, there will be a difference in classification. Once again, as always, this is why simplistic, binary definitions aren't interesting or useful. --Jayron32 17:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 That is mostly correct but doesn't take us far. As you say, the ownership doesn't make a real difference, although it might help to show a general character that isn't private. The essence of public transport is that it is available for public use by more than one member of the public at a time. Usually there is a fixed route and some kind of timetable. A taxi doesn't have a fixed route or a timetable, and usually it is hired privately by one person. It's a mistake to think that everything can be divided neatly into "public" and "private" (especially foolish with colleges and universities, for instance), but taxis don't have much in common with public transport except that someone pays to make a journey. That can also be true of hiring a car to drive from A to B, but I don't think anyone would suggest a rented car is public transport. Moonraker (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, though; binary thinking is not as useful as continuum thinking, and even more important is understanding why we have the concept in the first place. To understand whether or not a taxi cab is or is not public transportation, we first need to understand what public transportation is as well as what its purpose is. If the purpose of public transportation is to provide on-demand, short-distance transportation in a metro area so that locals don't need to own automobiles, then taxis are public transportation. Even informal forms of transportation such as carpool, HOV lanes, or slugging are considered as part of a government's public transit policy. A deeper understanding of why you are asking the question is needed before one can provide a meaningful answer. --Jayron32 17:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Betty MacDonald "became the only woman labor adjuster in the National Recovery Administration" in the 1930s, says Barbara Levy: Ladies Laughing, Gordon & Breach, Philadelphia 1997. In a short bio of the author in "Who's who in the East", 1957, I also find "labor adjuster NRA". What exactly was a "labor adjuster" in New-Deal America? What did he (she) do? --Mautpreller (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"As a representative of employers, he worked with his union counterpart in settling disputes over the wages to be paid." Source. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! "Settling disputes over the wages to be paid." However, MacDonald's job was with the NRA, so I think she might have been a representative of the state rather than a representative of employers. Your source is very interesting.--Mautpreller (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources about Donald Trump's grandpa's political or ideological views?--Hofhof (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Frederick Trump or Malcolm MacLeod? He had two grandfathers, as most of us do. --Jayron32 22:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about Fred, but I suppose reliable sources about both would be interesting. --Hofhof (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did a DNA test on an online geneaology site, using cotton swabs in my cheeks, and I have now received the results. I'm a bit curious about the results and wondered if anyone here can help explain some things. I am European, of English and Irish heritage and had already done some geneaology research with family records. I got back about 3-5 generations back to the 19th Century: my family is mostly (3/4) from Lancashire, with Irish from Co. Wicklow too (1/4). So now my DNA results are 95% Europe, mostly comprising of 48% Irish/Welsh/Scottish and 44% Scandinavian (the rest is Italian), plus 5% African (mostly North Africa, with 1% Nigerian). So I am curious about: 1) It says 0 % English, how is that? 2) Why is the Scandinavian so high if I have no immediate ancestors from there? 3) How far do the results of the tests that you can purchase online generally go back in time? --Ecolchester (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unhappily: Genetic Ancestry Tests Mostly Hype, Scientists Say . They can only tell you what DNA markers you have in common to a certain population. --Hofhof (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you have Scandinavian ancestors who moved to England? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most Lancastrians do... Danish and Norwegian “vikings” who settled in the region in the “dark ages”. Blueboar (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ecolchester -- if by "English" the company basically means probable Anglo-Saxon ancestry (traditionally Angles, Saxons, and Jutes), then you could have very little of that. There were strong historical Celtic-Viking connections in some cases (starting out almost purely negatively with the plundering of monasteries and such, but in time growing beyond that). See Kingdom of Dublin etc... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]