According to the intro to Yeti, the scientific community generally regards the abominal snowman (and presumably his gutsy cousin, the abdominal snowman, as well) as a legend. The intro to legend says A legend...is a narrative of human actions that are perceived both by teller and listeners to take place within human history and to possess certain qualities that give the tale verisimilitude. Not being a human, how is the abominable snowman a legend? I understand that he's not a myth, because mythology explains origins and backstories, and abominable snowmen don't appear to be part of those. But how is he a legend, rather than being a non-legendary character in the folklore of the region? I just don't understand the terminology (and the divisions between the classifications) well enough to understand why he's a legend, rather than being something else. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in the word origin[1] which requires it to be about humans. A legend is a story about most anything that allegedly happened but cannot be proven. And note the various terms in the Yeti article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but the text I referenced is quite clear, and it comes from one of the most prestigious folkloristics programs in the USA; I don't see how it could be inaccurate, unless there's a scholarly dispute over the meaning. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text you quoted seems to be an unsourced sentence in our article, are you saying it's a direct quote from some place? If so, it should probably be more clearly attributed. Anyway, it doesn't say "...is a narrative of solely human actions". Most Yeti stories I'm familiar with have a humans doing actions in there somewhere. I agree with Bugs that the intro to legend seems a bit too narrow, or at least confusing. But this is sort of a version of the genre problem isn't it? I don't think anyone's solved that for legend vs. folklore. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think much of that definition of legend.Prestigious does not neccessarily mean right. This is the Merriam-Webster definition which the yeti fits into quite well.Full Definition of LEGEND 1 a : a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable b : a body of such stories <a place in the legend of the frontier> c : a popular myth of recent origin d : a person or thing that inspires legends e : the subject of a legend <its violence was legend even in its own time — William Broyles Jr.> Hotclaws (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm interested in the scholarly definition, not a dictionary definition reflecting the uses of the ignorant. Or perhaps you could explain why we prefer a dictionary to a scholar in the field who's been published by one of the best folkloristics programs in the USA? Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See jargon and Semantic overload. Words have different meanings in different contexts. The use of the word "legend" in the context of that particular branch of learning doesn't have to mean the same thing in all English uses. For example, how a chemist uses the word "nucleus" is different from how a biologist would. The chemist isn't wrong because his definition doesn't include the use of the word "cell", nor is the biologist wrong because her definition doesn't include the word "nucleus". Just because one folklorist, even a respected one, uses the word in one way doesn't mean other uses are wrong. The use of the word "legend" to describe the Yeti is perfectly cromulent. --Jayron32 14:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused - can you clarify why you think the sentence you quoted from our article has any specific weight? Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not finding any scholarly sources that say a legend must be a human. Here's a nice scholarly overview that I just skimmed "It Happened Not Too Far from Here...": A Survey of Legend Theory and Characterization [2]. It gives several different characterizations that people have used, along with many many further refs. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I just realized that ref is already in the article. Note the block quote from the scholarly article in our WP article does not specify human subject matter. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For some material specifically about non-human humanoids, this article [3] is all about "Unkown hominids and New World Legends". SemanticMantis (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article, SS Ancona, has a rather superficial account of this event and some points differ from the accounts at www.wrecksite.eu. Can anybody find me a more detailed account of the sinking please? In particular, it seems unlikely that exactly 200 passengers were killed and how many of those were US citizens? Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says "over 200", 9 of which were Americans (although I am skeptical that the exact number of Americans can be known when the total is unknown). StuRat (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the "over", but surely there must have been a definitive total? For US fatalities, I found nine, eleven and twenty-five on various websites, none of which looked particularly authoritative. Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alansplodge, what about newspaper accounts? I am finding quite a few at the google newspaper archive. The first I saw said there were 656 people aboard. One account from Nov 15 mentions the nine Americans and numbers those lost at 208, but accounts seems confused with news trickling in slowly as different numbers of survivors reached shore on different days. My first link will let you browse through the other articles. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. I'll have a detailed look later on. Alansplodge (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be a difficult question, should it? Everyone agrees it was July 25, 1868, as per 15 Stat. 178. However, multiple sources also point out that the government wasn't organized until May 19, 1869, and that until then it was under the jurisdiction of Dakota Territory. That's fine; sometimes territories were under the control of other territories. But what piques my curiosity is the last section of the above linked act:

SEC. 17. And be it further enacted, That this act, shall take effect from and after the time when the executive and judicial officers herein provided for shall have been duly appointed and qualified

Which makes me wonder... Doesn't that mean that the act itself did not take effect until May 19, 1869, when said officers were appointed and qualified? Or at least April 15, 1869, when the first governor of Wyoming Territory took his oath of office? And thus are all the sources on the internet incorrect as to when Wyoming Territory actually came into being? (or rather, was intended to come into being; obviously, things like that have a way of being forgotten in lieu of the reality on the ground) --Golbez (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's really two parts: the creation of the territory, and the creation of the government. Two separate things, perhaps?

Note that the first section of the Act provides that the "[area that is now Wyoming] is hereby, organized into a temporary government by the name of the Territory of Wyoming"—the use of "hereby" would seem to create the government instantaneous (on July 25, 1868), but the last section of the act preempts this, making the effective date of the whole act "when the executive and judicial officers herein provided for shall have been duly appointed and qualified." So it would be the date of appointment and qualification - i.e., May 19, 1869.

I personally favor May 19, 1869. That is the day the first territorial governor adopted the seal of Wyoming (Wyo. State Library). The Encyclopedia of the Great Plains, for what it's worth, says: "Territorial government for Wyoming was organized on May 19, 1869."). Neutrality^talk 02:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was the same feeling I had, that the first section seemed to be instantaneous, whereas the last section was for the act as a whole. However, if I go with May 19, 1869, that goes against literally every source on the Internet for this, which doesn't work. But, as you say, it appears that the territory itself was made in 1868, and I'll stick with that, with a note explaining the delayed organization. (Though, it couldn't be saying "the government is organized on July 25 1868" because the government plainly was not organized until May 19 1869...) --Golbez (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does technology impact the rate of employment? It is clear that after a new technology gets introduced (like a harvester) people will stop buying products produced with more traditional means (which might be more expensive). This could imply that many workers are made redundant. But if we analyze the rate across the decades, is unemployment getting up and up? Or is this just an irrational fear? --Denidi (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Structural_unemployment#Causes_and_examples has some basic information, but no numbers. Perhaps you could follow links from there, leading to more information? --Jayron32 00:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank. Technological unemployment linked in that article is the article that answers my question. --Denidi (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far new technology doesn't seem to have reduced employment overall, since those who lose one job just start doing some other job. For example, people were then needed to design, construct, drive and repair harvesters. Fewer people are needed there, per acre harvested, but then farmers started harvesting more acres. Also technology created other jobs, such as in automotive design. Theoretically, though, there should be a time when technology can replace all of the work done by people, which will be a challenge to our system of capitalism. At that point you'd need to distribute the wealth generated by machines to all the people, if they are to survive. StuRat (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more basic than that. When people no longer have enough money, they will stop buying stuff. Then adjustments will have to occur on the corporate side. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole concept of buying and selling things might be outdated, when a replicator can make anything you need. I suppose we would still need to buy the raw materials and energy, but that's about it. (If the same device can disassemble junk and get the raw materials from them, then even better.) StuRat (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would you pay for the replicator? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have a friend replicate one for you. StuRat (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would you pay for the materials? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing my point. There would be no free market, because nobody will give you a job, because anything that you could do as a job, a machine could do better and cheaper. So, you basically arrive at socialism, where everyone just has to be given stuff from the government, as that's the only way to obtain anything in such an economy. The government, in turn, would get all this stuff using robots, including those mining for raw materials. (You really can't have private companies doing this, as then you would need a way to transfer the things produced from those companies to people with no resources. You can't even have the government pay the private companies for those items, because where would the government get their money ? No more income means no more income tax, so all that is left is to tax the same companies they are paying.) StuRat (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A transmogrifier box: put in whatever, write a label on the box for the stuff you want it to become, and use the box. It can even become a duplicator if you want! Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to the Salvador Dalí Museum in St. Petersburg a sculpture of Dali's mustache can be found. I am not able to identify the artist who is at its origin. I appreciate your help! Bikkit ! (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bikkit, I can't find any mention of it on the museum website. But you could ask the curator, her email is on the right at this page.184.147.131.85 (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was a helpful idea. I wrote and they have answered already! Bikkit ! (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Glad to hear you found your answer.184.147.131.85 (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters. Care to share the sculptor's name? Thanks! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can share the pragmatic answer, I received by e-mail:

The mustache in our garden was removed from a Billboard advertising our Museum at our opening in 2010 [!B!: They advertised in 2010 and re-opened early 2011]. The mustache is made from styraform [!B!: Probably styrofoam?] with black lacquer by the billboard company and we thought it made a great photo-op. It is 40 feet wide and 14 ft. high.

So probably the artist's name is Tom, Dick or Harry.

I needed this information for the Dali' Mustache article in which I want to include not only the reception/perception of the book but also the reception/perception of the mustache itself [trademark, (pop) icon, ...] - and in St. Petersburg they make ample use of it: E.g. kids are guided (headphones) through the exhibition by ... Dalí's TALKING mustache... ! Bikkit ! (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to determine what materials were historically used to polish silver throughout the ages. Was it just soap, water, and cloth, or did they have a polishing compound of some sort, or was there a particular chemical reaction known? Would the exact time period and location matter, between, say, ancient Egypt in its heyday compared to the European middle ages? The best I can find via google is that silver WAS polished and cleaned, but not how. Fieari (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two (slightly contradictory, however) for Ancient Egypt. (1) This says both gold and silver were polished with Egyptian agate (though not the method). (2) This, on the other hand, says: "We cannot always assume that ancient silver was intended to have a bright, shiny surface. The deliberate production of a black surface on Classical silver objects has been the subject of some debate in recent years while in the ancient Near East some such tradition is implied by the Talmudic ruling against burning sulphur on the Sabbath to blacken silver." 184.147.131.85 (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Talmud also refers to polishing silver with a substance named Template:Hebrew ?gretikon; see Jastrow's dictionary (p. 273, no direct link possible) who identifies it as Greek (κρητική), chalk or "white earth", and note Rashi's interpretation cited there. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some brief info and historical quotes at Conservation_and_restoration_of_silver_objects#Historic_methods_of_treating_silver. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeweller's rouge springs to mind. DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Powdered pumice mixed into a paste with water is still used today according to Google. There's plenty of the stuff in Italy apparently. Alansplodge (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

France switched calendars in 1582. So, in the article Henry III of France is the listed date for the beginning of his reign over France in Julian and the listed date for the end of his reign in Gregorian, or does Wikipedia use a different standardized date to switch calendars? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JG.—Wavelength (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently heard on the news US student protesters at theUniversity of Missouri chanting "Hey hey, ho ho, reporters have got to go!" Similar student protester chants with various targets along with "What do we want?"" (some demand)!" "When do we want it? "Now" were common on US campuses in the 1960's in protests over civil rights, opposition to the Vietnam war, anti-nuke,and countless other issues. This led me to wonder where and when did this pair of call-and-response chants originate? They sound like they could have been used by striking workers at any point in the growth of labor unions,by suffragettes or by any protesters led by someone with an amplifier or a strong vocal apparatus, as an alternative to just milling around muttering like a western movie lynch mob, while causing the target of the protest to have to hear them as opposed to just closing the blinds and ignoring them. So are these two chants ubiquitous in the English speaking world, or only in the US, and what is the earliest recorded place and time for these two protest chants? Do they predate the Berkeley California Free Speech Movement of 1964? ~~

"What do we want !" ... "Politeness !" ... "When do we want it !" ... "Whenever it's most convenient for you !" StuRat (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Edison, earliest I can find for “hey hey ho ho” is 1956: [4]. And earliest I can find for “what do we want” is 1963: https://books.google.com/books?id=JtgvAAAAMAAJ&q="when+do+we+want+it+now", see also https://books.google.com/books?id=AC80AQAAIAAJ&q="when+do+we+want+it+now". (sorry about the links, no idea how to fix. both should end with the phrase in quotes after the final q if you want to see what I saw). All three sources suggest the chants originated in the American Civil Rights movement, though perhaps from opposite sides. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were chants like this on the Aldermaston March in the 1960s, and I would think also in the 1950s when it started. I had a booklet of songs for one of the marches - some were popular songs e.g. by with pro-peace lyrics, for example Down by the Riverside, others were new lyrics for songs. I definitely remember the "out out out" format. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently at a protest where, much to my embarrassment, "The people - united - will never be defeated" was chanted: click for its origin. (The people - united - get defeated on a regular basis.)

Although only used in a limited context, I'm rather fond of "What do we want?" "Brains!" "When do we want it?" "Brains!"--Shirt58 (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If defeated, the people were ipso facto not sufficiently united. What do we want? Better memory! When do we want it? When do we want what? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I offer this with some diffidence, since I'm not finding any really good sources; but I'm pretty sure that the "Hey hey ho ho ..." form, at least, originated as a school cheer for sports teams (here is someone's memory of such a cheer being used, I think during the Great Depression) that was later adapted for protest rallies. I wouldn't be surprised if other protest chants had a similar origin, since sports cheering is one of the few forms of mass chanting familiar to folks (and especially to youth) throughout the United States. Deor (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When Election Day rolled around, I read up on it a bit. And, in the USA, it's scheduled on the Tuesday right after the first Monday in November. (I think I have also seen this for other holidays and such, but none come to mind right off hand.) So, my question is: what would prompt such an odd schedule? Why not simply "the first Tuesday of the month"? What's the point here? What's the reason or rationale, if any? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:C192:5F05:ECE8:1646 (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 1st is All Saints' Day, so perhaps they wanted to avoid doubling up (when the first Tuesday is November 1st) ? (Although apparently they didn't mind doubling up with All Souls' Day on November 2nd.) StuRat (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a website that offers plausible reasons. The standard nationwide federal election date was set in 1845 when the economy was heavily but not totally agricultural. November was a "slow month" for agriculture, after most harvests were complete, making it easier for farmers to take time off to travel to the polls. November 1 was to be avoided, both because of the Catholic All Saints Day (mentioned above), but also because businesses closed their books for the previous month that day, which was a big deal before computers. Tuesday was seen as the best day of the week because isolated rural farmers often needed a full day of travel by horse or on foot to reach the polls. Most would not travel on Sunday, the Sabbath, so Monday was the day to travel to the polls. They could vote early Tuesday and then travel home. Wednesday was out of the question, because it was the traditional market day. Later November dates increased the chances of early wintery weather. That led to the standardization of the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal general election day. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That makes sense. But as much as that was applicable in 1845, none of that is applicable today. Why is it still like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:C806:E841:D393:A093 (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because nobody has found a persuasive reason to change it. Or in other words, why not? --70.49.170.168 (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Election Day fell on November 8 in 1853, 1859, 1864, 1870, 1881, 1887, 1892, 1898, 1904, 1910, 1921, 1927, 1932, 1938, 1949, 1955, 1960, 1966, 1977, 1983, 1988, 1994, 2005, and 2011. The next time that Election Day will fall on November 8 will be in 2016. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way, GeoffreyT2000: The algorithm calls for election day to fall on November 8 once every seven years on average, but not every seven years like clockwork. Over the long run, the date falls equally frequently including and between each of the seven dates from November 2 and November 8. And that is just how it has gone, for 170 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really pedantic comment: The Gregorian calendar has a 400-year cycle with 400×365 + 100 - 4 + 1 = 146097 days. This happens to be divisible by 7, and that means the days of the week must have a 400-year cycle for the dates they occur on. 400 is not divisible by 7 so the dates cannot be exactly equally distributed. If the number of days in 400 years had not been divisible by 7 then there would have been a 2800-year cycle with exactly equal distribution. Exercise: How many times in 400 years will Election Day (United States) be on November 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friday the 13th#Occurrence mentions a related phenomenon. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Election Day falls on November 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 56, 58, 57, 57, 58, 56, and 58 times respectively in 400 years. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't compute it myself but will take your word. The counts assume all years are included. Presidential elections are only in years divisible by four, and most other elections are in even years, but off-year elections can also follow the election day rule. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit strange there's a bunch of speculation, and some sourcing, but no one linked Election Day (United States) which says and has since long before this discussion [5]:

The actual reasons, as shown in records of Congressional debate on the bill in December 1844, were fairly prosaic. The bill initially set the day for choosing presidential electors on "the first Tuesday in November," in years divisible by four (1848, 1852, etc.). But it was pointed out that in some years the period between the first Tuesday in November and the first Wednesday in December (when the electors are required to meet in their state capitals to vote) would be more than 34 days, in violation of the existing Electoral College law. So, the bill was reworded to move the date for choosing presidential electors to the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, a date scheme already used in New York.

This is a bit ORish but does include a link to the debate so you can check it out yourself and see if you agree with the intepretation of our article as to the reason as per the debate [6].

Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many things are scheduled for the 2nd through the 8th day of a month, as compared to the first day of a month? This really doesn't require any knowledge beyond the second grade to answer. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does. The question becomes: What is "wrong" (i.e., undesirable) with the first day of the month? And why is the schedule purposefully trying to avoid that first day of the month?

Yeah I don't really understand μηδείς's point. There are obviously many possible reasons why it could have been scheduled from the 2nd through 8th avoiding the 1st as opposed to the 1st to 7th. Hence why there has been some other suggestions in this thread, and even our article mentions there have been many theories (although some of these may also related other aspects of the scheduling). I'm sure people could come up with more theories in this thread, although it would be offtopic. But our article, supported by a reference to debate (which as I indicated above, I didn't bother to read) claims a specific reason. I guess the later part of μηδείς's point was correct, although I don't think for the reason they were making it. Nowadays I think many second graders (depending somewhat on what that means where you live) could probably find the answer to the question by searching on the internet and reading our article. Or at least if they could understand our article sufficiently to get the answer. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Election Day (United States) does not explain why election day is a rigidly predetermined day at all. In many countries general elections are scheduled within a "window" of several months rather than one preordained day. Choosing the actual election date within the window is up to the legislature or the executive and is not announced until a fairly short time before (several weeks or a month or two at most) which launches the actual campaign period. The effect of always knowing the exact date of upcoming elections is that all politicians are always busy campaigning (sucking up to their voters) instead of spending at least some time serving their entire constituencies. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You state: "The effect of always knowing the exact date of upcoming elections is that all politicians are always busy campaigning (sucking up to their voters) instead of spending at least some time serving their entire constituencies." If we had an uncertain ("floating") date, wouldn't that simply exacerbate the problem that you cite? They (the campaigning politicians) would never know when the actual date would be, so they would always be "on" and "prepared" (and, therefore, campaigning more, not less) (in case the election sneaks up on them sooner rather than later). I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:4085:35B1:37E0:4972 (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That has never been the case in Westminster jurisdictions, which typically do not know their election dates until relatively close to the date. Some of them now have fixed election dates, but that hasn't suddenly meant they're always in campaign mode. Except, that is, to the degree that most politicians, no matter which system they inhabit, are always in campaign mode, even when they're in bed with their spouses. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a defined meaning of the term E-cash? At Talk:Electronic money#What to do about redirect "E-cash" I try to find a solution for this redirect, but I'm overall unsure. --KnightMove (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is no, there is no defined meaning of "e-cash." I suppose that "e-cash" simply means "electronic cash," and "cash" means "ready money," so a redirect to electronic money seems appropriate. That leaves as an unresolved question what is the meaning of "electronic money." The first paragraph of our article has three different definitions, which are inconsistent with each other, and then it has a sentence of examples that are inconsistent with any of the definitions. The fact is that, for decades, most money has been stored electronically and most transfers, as measured by volume, have occurred electronically. John M Baker (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a pretty clear-cut definition of "e-cash" via an online dictionary: noun 1. money that is exchanged electronically over computer or telecommunications networks. 2. any of various systems of payment for purchases made on the Internet. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/e-cash

Here is another definition from a more financial based-site: DEFINITION of 'eCash' An Internet-based system that allows funds to be transferred anonymously. Similar to credit cards, eCash was free to users, while sellers paid a fee. Because of security concerns, eCash remains more of an idea and less of an actual payment system. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/ecash.asp

Here is a scholarly source regarding e-cash: One is the on-line form of e-cash (introduced by DigiCash) which allows for the completion of all types of internet transactions. The other form is off-line; essentially a digitally encoded card that could be used for many of the same transactions as cash. http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/jason.frand/teacher/technologies/goshtigian/define.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calebell (talk • contribs) 04:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These prove there is one bottom line when regarding ecash, the internet. Calebell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, during humanitarian crises or major incidents and disasters, do Red Cross volunteers deal with minor injuries etc so that the more experienced full time emergency services can deal with patients in more serious conditions? Or do thud walk with both? 2A02:C7D:B8FF:7E00:11FD:E116:9BC:F69E (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"thud walk" = "they work" ? Do you have autocorrect run amok ? StuRat (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For that particular organization, see Emergency management#The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The page on Field triage is also enlightening. It's likely that "volunteers" are pre-registered, vetted for qualifications, perhaps trained, and coordinated in teams before undertaking activity under the auspices of the IRC or any formal organization. Deborahjay (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is, if they actually do anything meaningful, rather than focusing on getting in front of the cameras in order to drive donations. On that note, these articles read like a hagiography. Anyone feel like taking a chisel to them? Probably could stand to give everything in here a once-over. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many have previous qualifications. They're all new & just trained in disaster and emergency management, first aid and giving general support. That's why I'm wondering how they work with full time emergency services and aid agencies or the military. 2A02:C7D:B8FF:7E00:1DCD:E5A7:5665:CFB9 (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I guess this question must have at least partially arisen because of the recent horrific attacks in Paris, you ca see the IFRC's view of their involvement here [7] in particular [8] and [9]. If you understand French, you could probably find more info on how ARAMIS works by search the French Red Cross website and other such places. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Trudeau promised to introduce Prime Minister's Questions to Canada[10]. But our article Question Period says Canada already has it (like most commonwealth countries). What am I missing here? 731Butai (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Question Period, members of Parliament can direct questions to any other member (well, to the Speaker of the House, technically), not necessarily to the Prime Minister. In practise, questions are often directed to the PM anyway, but often also to other cabinet members, or to any other member, depending on the issue under discussion. It also takes place every day instead of once a week. For example, if you check the Hansard for the last session of the 41st Parliament in June, click on "Oral Questions" (the official name for Question Period), and as far as I can see, no one asked Stephen Harper any questions and he didn't speak at all. Now the Liberals want to introduce a weekly period where the PM answers questions specifically. The idea is apparently to make the PM "directly accountable to all Canadians". Adam Bishop (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to add that the UK also has Question Time in addition to Prime Minister's Questions, as do other Commonwealth countries. So the introduction of a PMQ session in Canada would be similar to the way things work in the UK Parliament. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the following question at Talk:Nicolae Ceauşescu/Archive 3 over 7 years ago, and am still waiting patiently for any response. In the meantime, maybe I'll ask here and see if my luck is any different. Here goes:

• I've looked extensively for any information about this, in vain. Was his date of birth, 26 January 1918, according to the Julian calendar then applying in Romania, or has it been converted to the Gregorian equivalent? This is relevant because Romania did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until 1919, the year after Ceauşescu's birth.

Thanks in advance. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, you'll probably never find an answer; the birth records from WW1 are patchy even in paperwork-obsessed countries like Germany, let alone the Balkans. Ceaușescu was born to an alcoholic smallholder in a village near a disputed border in a war zone after four years of war; any "birthdate" is just going to be a nominal "he was born at around this time" date from when the authorities got around to registering the birth. ‑ iridescent 10:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand that some published dates do not necessarily represent the "truth", but they're the best we have so we have to go with that. But the question of which calendar was being used is different. There are only 2 possibilities. I think the more likely one is that 26 January was from the Julian calendar in use at the time of his birth. But I have to accept it's possible, if unlikely, that he was born on 13 January (Julian) and at some later time this was converted to 26 January (Gregorian). In the absence of any evidence either way, the question remains unresolved. He may have started out life as a peasant, but he became President of Romania, so I'd be surprised if there were not some reasonably comprehensive biography of him in which this detail is revealed. That's assuming anyone ever knew, one way or the other. Is there any detailed information about how Romania administratively handled the change of the calendars in 1919, particularly as it applied to living people? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article (found from following the sources on the ro-wiki version of his bio), his birth certificate was registered on 26 January, but gives his date of birth as 23 January—if that certificate was issued at the time of registration, that would be on the old calendar. It looks like the 26 January date given in the en-wiki article is wrong either way. ‑ iridescent 10:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's good enough for my purposes. It should be 23 January (Julian; = 5 February Gregorian). I've alerted Talk:Nicolae Ceaușescu to the need to change this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The Romanian article gives the birth date as the 23rd, with links to two newspaper articles, the second of which [11] has an image of the birth register [12]. According to google translate, 26 is doua zeci si sase and 23 is douazeci si trei (dispensing of diacritics). I see 26 in line 2, and possibly 23 in line 3, where the latter seems to refer to the birth date (s'a nascut). If this is indeed the original birth register, then dates presumably would have been entered according to the calendar then in effect. This birth register appears to be a fairly recent find, the offical date given during his time in power was the 26th. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The old boy was unavailable for his 72nd birthday, but he did leave his country a nice Christmas present. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could ask here? Contact Basemetal here 12:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Having known a few Roumanians before and during the time of Nicolae Ceauşescu's death, my sympathy lies with Bugs' unhelpful comment: Nicolae Ceauşescu's Dead. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

In a horsemill, used for grinding or other purposes, back in the middle ages and olden times, would there have to be a person running it the whole time to make sure the horse/ox/donkey went round and round in circles without stopping?

Or was there some clever method I am not aware of that "motivated" or somehow made the animal to go round in circles, grinding non-stop? I'm assuming that without a person leading it at all times, the animal would simply stop working... but then, I am asking because I don't know.

2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:55A4:2B34:D86D:81F5 (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the animal is stupid enough: Carrot in front of mouth attached to stick attached to body. I don't know if the animal is stupid enough. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a child I saw a mill which was pressing sorghum (like sugar cane) with a horse or mule walking in a circle. There was a man in attendance, but I don't think he was walking in a circle. He just stood here and encouraged the animal, while feeding sorghum into the press or mill. Many mills or other machines powered by an animal walking in a circle or on a treadmill needed someone to feed raw materials into the machine, or to process the output of the machine. Edison (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of encouragement? Words? Gentle prodding? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous videos of these things in operation. I found Horse powered saw mill, Belize which has a team of eight horses supervised by one man standing in the middle, while the horses go around on their own. Later in the clip, the supervision is done by a small boy. There's also Antique Horse Mill where a single horse does the work apparently unsupervised. However, I also found TEN HORSE-POWERED SWEEP Runs Corn Shredder which seems to take about a dozen people; but judging from the amount of general faffing about, it seems likely that neither the horses nor the humans have ever done this sort of thing before.

As to how you train a horse to do this, I don't know, but in the days when horses and carts made regular delivery rounds, the horses would generally learn the routes and halts without the driver having to tell them. I found this page about Romania where horse-drawn transport is still common, which says "From time to time a cart driver falls asleep at the reins, but even then the horses usually know where to go". Alansplodge (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys :) 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:55A4:2B34:D86D:81F5 (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One important factor is that horses are creatures of habit, almost as if they all had OCD. So, once you establish the routine, not only will they be willing to walk in a circle with a harness on, they will feel very much like "something is wrong" if not allowed to do so. Also note that the genetic tendency to avoid work is an evolved method of conserving energy, where starvation is a concern (as it was with people). However, animals not prone to starvation (say if their numbers are limited in other ways, such as predation) may lack this evolutionary adaptation. StuRat (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't find any data regarding the number of Muslim women marrying Jewish men in Israel. When I Google that all the results I get are regarding the reverse situation (Jewish woman and Muslim man). Does anyone have any idea how to get that data? If only to say that there are none.

• I've suddenly realized I have a few more questions. As far as I understand a Muslim court would accept to marry a Muslim man and a Jewish woman because such a marriage is legal under Islam but not a Muslim woman and a Jewish man because that is not acceptable under Muslim law. On the other hand a Jewish court will not accept to marry any two people who are not Jewish. Therefore the only choice for a Muslim woman and a Jewish man wishing to marry is to go abroad register their marriage. (Whereas, as stated, a Jewish woman and a Muslim man can be married by a Muslim court). Is any of this incorrect?

• The same applies to a Christian-Muslim situation, i.e. a Muslim man and a Christian woman will be married by a Muslim court, whereas a Muslim woman and a Christian man have no choice but to go abroad seek a civil marriage, because a Christian court will only marry two people who are both Christian. Is that correct?

• What happens if a Karaite Jew and a non Karaite Jew wish to marry? Are there Karaite Jewish courts? Would a Karaite Jewish court register a marriage between a Karaite and a non Karaite? How about a normal (Rabbanite) Jewish court?

Thanks

Contact Basemetal here 09:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

only ones with a death wish -- Q Chris (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About question #3: The reason why a Muslim woman cannot marry a Christian man is in Islam, not in Christian law. Christian churches nowadays marry many couples where only one is Christian, the other being of another religion or atheist. Akseli9 (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain this is not a recent development in Western Europe? E.g. do the Greek Orthodox do that too? Remember that most Christian Arabs in Israel belong, as far as I know, to the Greek Orthodox Church, not to the Catholic Church. So I wonder if your information is also accurate in that case? Contact Basemetal here 10:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. It is more a recent development in Western Europe. Akseli9 (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the U.S., at least, Roman Catholic churches will not marry a couple unless both members are (at least nominally) Roman Catholic. I have known several couples where one member of the couple had to go through adult catechism and officially joining the Church. See Marriage (Catholic Church) and Disparity of worship. In fact, the Roman Catholic church requires both members to be in full communion with Roman Catholicism, not merely just professing Christians, or for the union to receive a special dispensation, though those are becoming more common. Protestant churches are often more liberal, one need not belong to the exact same denomination. --Jayron32 13:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Interfaith marriage in Christianity which only has information about the Catholic church, but suggests that the situation has changed since Jayron's experience above. Alansplodge (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how it has changed, where I say that the "union to receive a special dispensation, though those are becoming more common." and the article you linked states "The Roman Catholic Church requires a dispensation for mixed marriages." I'm not sure where those two statements come into conflict. --Jayron32 16:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I seem to have misread your post. Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is mainly a discussion of who would perform a religious ceremony, I have nothing to add to the above. May I point out that traditional Arab women who are devout Muslims or live in a village setting or otherwise close to their birth family, are unlikely to have enough contact with Jewish men to develop a relationship leading to marriage. Conversely, a secular (non-practicing Muslim) Arab woman in a setting (e.g. urban) where she'd meet Jewish men and become involved with one to the point where the couple chose to marry - likely leading to ostracism by traditional members of her family (or worse: the so-called "honor killing" by male relatives) - wouldn't expect a religious wedding. To get some sense of the unlikelihood of Muslim/Jewish F/M couples in Israel, look for figures on unmarried Muslim women in employment and higher education and subtract the number who live in their parents' home. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers. I do know at least in one case of a marriage between a Jewish man and an Arab woman, namely singer Mira Awad, but she is a Christian. In general Arab Christian women seem to be better integrated but here we're talking show business and there's really no difference between Muslim women or Christian women or Druze women. There's got to be Muslim women in show business who work everyday with Jewish men. Take for example the case of Muslim singer Nasreen Qadri who sings as much in Hebrew as in Arabic. That not even one Muslim woman is married to a Jewish man even in show business might also have to do with the greater stigma that carries among Muslims and the supremacist attitude of Muslims who are very loath to "give away" their women, which is, in their mind, a shameful thing, which is very different from "taking" the women of others. Contact Basemetal here 18:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In August 2014, a high profile inter-faith marriage in Israel attracted considerable interest from media and from the general citizenry. See [13]. --Jayron32 18:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it seems the Jewish bride chose to first convert to Islam. But is this something that Israeli Muslim courts require? In principle, as far as I know, Muslim courts will accept to marry a Muslim man to a Jewish or Christian woman without requiring that the woman first converts to Islam. Are things different in Israeli Muslim courts? Contact Basemetal here 18:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, part of it is the understanding of "conversion". I'm not Muslim, but my understanding is that Islam has the doctrine that every person is born Muslim in the sense that there is but one God, who has but one plan for his creation, and who has the expectation that all of humanity would observe His law. People exist in either a state of adherence to his laws or not, thus all people who are not properly practicing Muslims exist in a state of apostasy rather than in a state of simple "believing in something else" or "not a member of the Muslim faith". According to Muslim doctrine, we're all Muslims, some of us are just not doing it right. This concept is known as "fitra", that is it is in our born nature and purpose to be Muslims. One becomes a practicing Muslim the moment one makes a sincere statement of the Shahada. See also Religious conversion#Islam. --Jayron32 21:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One is in fact mostly born a "practicing Muslim" (to use your terminology), simply by virtue of being born to a Muslim father. I have heard that Muslim fathers often whisper the shahada into the ears of their newborn child, but that is not a requirement and failure to do so does not change the fact that that child, were they later to convert to another religion would be deemed an apostate from Islam. I have heard that theory that you never really "convert" to Islam (but only "revert" to Islam), but the "apostasy" (again to use your terminology) of not "reverting" to Islam in the first place is very different from the apostasy of leaving Islam deliberately and explicitly. As far as I know the latter is punishable by death according to all schools of jurisprudence (madhhab), whereas the former isn't, at least if one happens to be a Christian or a Jew or a Zoroastrian, etc. Regarding that Israeli Jewish woman who converted my understanding is that she converted formally (i.e. pronounced the shahada in front of two witnesses, etc.) although it is difficult to be sure as the article just mentions that once in passing and it might be that they are implying (incorrectly) that she converted simply by virtue of marrying a Muslim. It might also be that she did convert, but just because that's what she felt like doing, without it being a formal requirement for her to marry that Muslim man. If it was required of her by Muslim authorities in Israel then I think that that would not be in keeping with normal Muslim practice. Contact Basemetal here 23:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reported perpetrators of the recent massacre in Paris was actually convicted of "criminal terrorist conspiracy" based on his intent to leave France to go fight in Yemen. [14] Similarly, one of the perpetrators of the Curtis Culwell Center attack was arrested immediately before planning to leave to Somalia.

Question: how many of these "free-range terrorists" are there? By which I mean, people criminally convicted of an imminent plan to go fight for ISIS or Al-Qaida, who though (apparently) banned from foreign travel are nonetheless allowed to roam their home countries relatively freely? Has anyone gathered a public website/database of them all? Wnt (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not just their home countries, the Schengen Area comprises most of Europe; France does not have any regular border control. - Lindert (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Schengen Area is only applicable to European countries; France has land borders with Brazil and Suriname (although neither Brazil–France relations nor Foreign relations of Suriname#France mentions border controls) and presumably maintains border controls at seaports and airports. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at least when you enter France by air from outside the Schengen Area, passengers are separated into those with EU passports and those without. The ones with EU passports still have to go through security but I guess it's faster for them. If you were flying between France and, say, Spain, there is no border control. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to CNN, President Hollande's address to a joint session of the French Parliament (i.e., a Congress of the French Parliament) at Versailles today marked "the third time since 1948 that a French president has done this."

Before this, the most recent occasion when a French president made a speech before both houses of Parliament in Versailles was on June 22, 2009, when Nicolas Sarcozy gave a speech on the Great Recession. (NYT, book) Yet this 2009 AP article on the Sarcozy speech says: "The last presidential speech to France's parliament was in 1873..."

So (1) is either CNN or AP wrong here (CNN says that there have been three speeches, while the AP seems to imply that there have been only two, unless there was some speech in between '09 and 15); and (2) if these were the second and third occasions, what was the first? Neutrality^talk 18:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess its a typo. The date should be 1848, as per [15] which notes that before the 2009 Sarkozy address, the prior occurrence was during the Second French Republic, shortly after Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte's election to the Presidency in the French presidential election, 1848. --Jayron32 19:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems likely. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 19:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on S.S. Kresge has no free portrait of him; the only images are a nonfree portrait of him and a free picture of his house. By 1924, Kresge was worth more than a third of a billion dollars, so presumably his picture had started to appear in print by the end of 1922. Does anyone know where I could find a pre-1923 image of him? I was thinking of the New York Times or one of the Detroit papers, but I'm not familiar with searching the NYT archives, and I'm not familiar with the Detroit papers at all. His article mentions The Book of Detroiters, published 1914, but the archive.org edition is all text and no pictures. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article:

"France had been bombing various targets in the Middle East, including Syria, since October 2015. ISIL's motive was retaliation for French involvement in the Syrian Civil War and Iraqi Civil War. In the weeks leading up to the attacks, ISIL had claimed responsibility for several attacks, such as twin suicide bombings in Beirut two days earlier, and the crashing of Metrojet Flight 9268 on 31 October"

Why is France such a target for ISIS? Why France instead of the plethora of other countries that were involved in the Syrian Civil war and Iraq civil war? Is France just an easier target? 199.19.248.7 (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Islam in France: "With an estimated total of 5 to 10 percent of the national population, France has the largest number of Muslims in Western Europe." Wnt (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised in episode 8 of this year's Downton Abbey to hear the earl refer to Mrs Patmore's "B&B". Is this an anachronism? I see from Ngram that Bed and Breakfast was used as early as the 1840's, but B&B sounded very recent to me. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OED Online has a 1993 draft entry under "B and B, also b and b" with four citations dated 1961, 1964, 1967, and 1986, so it looks as if Downton Abbey did get it wrong. In fact, none of the 1960s cites actually uses B&B as a noun meaning a type of guest house. The 1961 one refers to a criminal who broke into a factory and fell asleep as "the B-and-b raider", and the other two use the abbreviation to refer to bed and breakfast service rather than the establishment offering them. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]