Germany enforces web seach providers to cut results from the search hits.[1][2] The Störerhaftungs law effectivly resticts motels and cafes to provide free internet access in Germany. Again for reason of copyright abouse the internet is beeing filtered. Is Germany stil performing themself what they have China blamed for? Or is it still missing knowledge how to handle negative information by individuals? --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 16:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is quite tough to parse. Answering it would imply trying to guess what you meant. --Denidi (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not think about what the Germans think the internet is. 175.45.116.59 (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Most (if not all) western countries oblige ISPs and search providers to block certain copyright infringing websites, and Germany is not unique in making the owner of an internet connection legally responsible for its use (although German laws are stricter than many there). Right to be forgotten, which is what your links refer to, is an EU-wide provision, so it's not limited to Germany. Here's what Havard Law School (so Americans) think about the German/European understanding of the internet. The difference between somewhere like Germany and China is that political censorship is limited/non-existent - you can write what you like about Merkel and pretty much as long as you don't make a death threat the Polizei won't be knocking on your door, whereas it's very difficult to criticize the government in China without resorting to bizarre code. Internet censorship by country has more information. I can't parse the last part of your question. Smurrayinchester 09:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last part may have something to do with the right to be forgotten, but I'm not sure what. Note that I'm fairly sure the right to be forgotten doesn't really exist in China unless you happen to be a member of the political class or otherwise have the right connections, then may be you can get the censorship authorities to remove info on you you don't want people to know. (It could also be removed incidentally.) So even in that aspect it isn't really comparable. As for copyright issues, I'm fairly sure most of those who criticise China on censorship, including the US but also Germany would be very happy if China cracks down on sites considered to be havens for copyright violations. Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smurrayinchester, about the last Question: For example, in the web is information about a company or person is running out of money. The effects may be like, customers pay later or abuse the information in an other way. Or don't order there due later warranty issues or simply know they can have cheap service in time. A typical German view is to recognize less money similar to a disease and treat them like a sick or banned person. If everyone would try to save just himself, they might find themselves in similar situation. Somebody in Silicon Valley said: “We hired «experienced» staff” as a result of owning such information. This statement sounds like having the ability to know and handle the truth. It also includes the habit in owning such information to prevent damages without causing further damage to anyone else. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 13:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be grateful if a UK editor could clarify this for me: November 26 Cameron made a statement to the Commons in favor of British airstrikes in Syria. A some point after that Corbyn sent a letter to his MPs saying that he'll vote against such strikes as Cameron's arguments hadn't convinced him. But how much time did pass between Corbyn's becoming aware of Cameron's arguments, taking some time to think about them, deciding they did not convince him, writing his letter and sending it. It all seems to me to have happened pretty fast. Did I miss something? Contact Basemetal here 23:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been clear for weeks (at least) that Cameron would be calling for airstrikes sooner or later, and Corbyn's position agin 'em has likewise been clear for a long time. DuncanHill (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but since the letter (text) purports to be an answer to Cameron's statement Corbyn could have waited till Friday or even Monday before he sent it, to make it at lesat look like he really gave Cameron's arguments some consideration. This letter came so fast that it looks like nothing Cameron could ever say would ever convince Corbyn. Is that the case? Contact Basemetal here 05:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent says the letter was produced "within hours" of meeting the Shadow Cabinet to discuss Cameron's case. According to Channel 4 News there was an agreement among the Shadow Cabinet to wait a weekend before making a statement, but that Corbyn released the letter early apparently to maintain initiative and to get Corbyn's supporters (who currently make up a majority of the Labour membership, but a minority of the Parliamentary Party) to start needling MPs over the weekend. On an important issue like this, you can't waste a moment. "A week is a long time in politics", as RAB Butler Harold Wilson once said. As for the second part of your question - we can't read Corbyn's mind. Smurrayinchester 10:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't take long if we could. DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian, the main left-of-centre broadsheet newspaper, says "Corbyn wrote to his MPs on Thursday saying Cameron had failed earlier in the day to explain how an aerial campaign would protect UK security" and that the "letter was met with surprise among the most senior Labour MPs, who were believed to have agreed to spend the weekend sounding out constituents on the issue before presenting their position next week". [3] Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's perhaps worth remembering that the length of time it would take to consider something would depend on several factors including the length and complexity of what you're considering, and how much new info there is that hasn't been revealed before. For example, it's probably fair to say someone who rejects the TPP an hour after the full text is released didn't read and understand the proposed agreement in entirety. (Of course this doesn't mean your objection is illconsidered, it could be that there are certain parts so untenable that the rest of the agreement is irredeemable.) Cameron's statement was long, but not that long and it doesn't seem like much of it was really new or unexpected. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill's comment above puts me in mind of this gem from Beyond My Ken's blog (posted on 30th January 2006 but still worth repeating):

This year, both Groundhog Day and the State of the Union Address fall on the same day. As Air America Radio pointed out, "It is an ironic juxtaposition: one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication and the other involves a groundhog." … Correction: I should have made clear that the Air America comment dates from last year, 2005, when Groundhog Day and the SOTU address coincided.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.126.19 (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to post. So I will post this here. How exactly does one contribute to a charity in the name of another person? I mean ... I will write the check or pay with a credit card. So, the "payer" is obviously going to be me (my name), on the check or the credit card. Does one simply put a notation on the "memo" line of the check? And, if not paying by check but rather by credit card, what does one do? And, how exactly does the person get notified that a contribution was made in his name by me (through me? or through the charitable organization? or does he not get notified at all?)? I want to give Christmas gifts and this year my gifts will be donations to a charity in the name of, say, my friend. I will be doing this with several gifts (several friends), not just one. So how exactly does one go about this? Thanks. If it matters, this is in the USA. 2602:252:D13:6D70:186C:D475:39EF:E0EC (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the cases I have seen they already have a system set up for this. On the form you just check the box that says it's in somebody else's name, and provide their name and address, then they send that person a card telling them the gift was made in their name. If the charity you have in mind doesn't do this, you could call them and ask if they would. I suspect most would be willing to do so, if the contribution made it worth the effort.

One warning, though, is that the charity in question now has the names and addresses of two people they view as potential revenue sources, so you both can expect junk mail. Therefore, if you give to PETA, the recipient of your gift can look forward to a continuous chain of letters with pics of tortured animals, until they agree to give (my Mom gets those). StuRat (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, man. I didn't even consider the "junk mail" component. But, you are right. I have contributed to many charities. I often "regret" it, when I start getting a ton of junk mail of their solicitations for more contributions. That's not fair of me to foist that upon another person -- a friend of mine, no less. And in the name of a "gift", no less. Wow. I am glad that you mentioned it. I had not thought of that at all. 2602:252:D13:6D70:186C:D475:39EF:E0EC (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what spam filters and shredders are for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But, still, I think it would annoy the recipient of such a "gift". And rightly so. 2602:252:D13:6D70:A8EE:8AAC:331:7E78 (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some charities are less obnoxious, and rather than send you pics of tortured animals might send you useful things, like return address labels, notepads, and calendars (hopefully with pleasant pics). StuRat (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9562:88E6:981C:9C76 (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 2602:252:D13:6D70:9562:88E6:981C:9C76 (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at this "ultimate guide to what to buy every month of the year", and was curious about how the explanations behind different products seemed to contradict.

Mainly, it seems that both high demand and low demand could lead to lower prices. The low demand made more sense to me -- I understand why there's cheaper perfume after Valentine's day and cheaper camping gear as cold weather approaches. But then the guide also suggests that spring break causes luggage to go on sale, barbecue season leads to lower prices for barbecue supplies, and of course the start of Christmas shopping today (it's Black Friday where I am) means deals on electronics.

What determines which situation is at play? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.181.130 (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The former would seem to be cases where someone is trying to get rid of excess stock which they no longer need due to lower demand and probable changes in how much they display and have on hand (i.e. clearance and similar sales). The later would seem to be when sellers (probably both retailers and manufacturers/suppliers) are competing against each other to get customers by offering items currently in high demand at lower prices. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Black Friday electronics in particular, there's also a loss leader factor. Stick out a few flat-screens at ridiculous markdown, and you get people into your store to buy other goods at normal prices. Plus, people (think they) have to buy Christmas presents, so if they don't buy from you, they'll go to a rival. By only buying the marked-down goods, you effectively foil the loss-leader scheme. Smurrayinchester 18:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Percieved necessity seems like a solid determining factor. Only some folks go camping, but a lot of people barbecue. That might be the biggest distinction cause of all. 216.169.181.130 (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing is an art, not a science. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to raise more money from Stamp Duty Land Tax so he upped the rate on homes over 950,000 pounds (not sure of the exact figure). This sounds a lot, but ordinary terraced homes in inner London suburbs sell for more. What happened was that purchasers demanded lower prices by way of compensation or didn't buy at all, so the tax take went down. Likewise, retailers filled their stores with stock for Black Friday yesterday but nobody bought it (everyone was buying online). 79.78.126.19 (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure how that is relevant. In a temperate country, everyone needs winter clothes but these will generally be cheapest on clearance after winter, if you can find your size. Even many of the examples you mentioned like many electronic items or luggage will be cheapest on clearance although these are less seasonal and more old models. Barbecue stuff is fairly seasonal and some places will definitely have clearance type sales after the season. And while camping gear may be cheapest just when it's considered out of season most places will have many sales during the season but places which do continue to stock camping stuff during the middle of winter will generally have no sales on the gear (except perhaps store wide ones) during winter after they're done with any clearance sales. Of course some sales may be a combination, e.g. in the just past Black Friday sales, Amazon US had the 32 GB Nexus 6 for $199 (less with certain discounts). Many people bought them including resellers planning to sell them on eBay, Craiglist or even back on Amazon. This sale was very likely a combination of a semi-clearance type sale (they still plan to stock it I'm sure but with the 6P and other newer phones it's no longer such a hot item) plus Christmas gadget sale. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am Malay but some Chinese and Indian friends also consider studying overseas.

We heard racist hate crimes are common in the West, like Indian students killed in Australia, shooting blacks in the USA and attacks on Muslims in Europe. Our literature text by David Hare shows British assault Indians. Even worse is attacking Chinese mistaken for Japanese or Sikhs mistaken for Muslims.

International students, foreign workers and tourists also more likely general crime targets and more likely to face general racism. In Singapore, general crime rate is very low, racism is milder than the West and hate crimes almost never happen here. What we are taught to protect from crime in Singapore may not work for hate crimes and in other countries. Maybe can also compare racism levels in different Western countries and against each race in Singapore.

This is follow up for my previous question with more details. Also how to find old questions and the answers? Terima kasih untuk jawapan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.60.127.58 (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your old post is here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2015_November_18#how_can_singaporean_studying_or_holidaying_in_western_country.2C_protect_from_racist_hate_crime.3F. You should write down the reference desk and date for your Q, to make it easier to find after it is archived. The link to the archives is on the top of this page, on the right side. Better yet, come back before they are archived (in about a week), then you won't have to search through the archives to find them, you can just do a Control F on this page, and type in your name to find it. StuRat (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Q, note that your perception of attacks on foreigners in the West is likely fueled by biased press coverage in your nation. It's possible more Singaporeans are killed in Singapore than abroad, but that just doesn't make the news, as it's not as shocking. (Can anyone find the actual stats ?) Based on this [4], it seems like Singapore is relatively safe overall, but Geylang is the most dangerous area. Similarly, when traveling abroad, you need to avoid the most dangerous areas in those nations. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have Crime in Singapore, but that's just a stub at the moment. List of major crimes in Singapore is probably more useful. For the OP's question, Racism by country might be a good place to start. Tevildo (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the Michael P. Fay story, I would think leaving Singapore would be liberating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because a single incident from 21 years ago is an infallible guide to the situation today.

ObPersonal, but when I lived in Singapore (having previously lived in Hong Kong)I found it pleasantly more orderly and cleaner than most other countries in the area I was aware of. When discussing the recent death of Harry Lee (Lee Kuan Yew) with my Father (admittedly a little right-of-centre in his views) he remarked that he would have liked Lee to have been made President of the UK for life :-) (yes, I know we don't actually have that position). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The recent Oliver Fricker case shows that nothing has changed. Of course it's "orderly", with the threat of such barbaric punishments. What the OP should do, once escaping the shackles of Singapore, is to find other Singapore-born persons at his new destination, who can clue him in on where not to go, and so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbaric? From our article on Birching:

"In Britain birching as a judicial penalty, in both its juvenile and adult versions, was abolished in 1948, although it was retained until 1962 as a punishment for violent breaches of prison discipline. The Isle of Man (a small island between Britain and Ireland with its own legal system as a British Crown dependency) caused a good deal of controversy by continuing to birch young offenders until 1976."

I can assure you that a significant minority of UK citizens would vote for birching being reinstated: I myself an undecided on the subject. From our Judicial corporal punishment article:

"In Delaware, the criminal code permitted floggings to occur until 1972. One of the major objections to judicial corporal punishment in the United States was that it was unpleasant to administer."

And from our Corporal punishment article:

"One reviewer for The Economist writes about Moskos's [2011] argument that "Perhaps the most damning evidence of the broken American prison system is that it makes a proposal to reinstate flogging appear almost reasonable. Almost."

How standards change when one is discussing distant foreigners' judicial practices. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think for your peace of mind, you should stay in Singapore. Better safe than sorry. 175.45.116.59 (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, thanks for explaining about the archives. Not only attacks on foreigners, but also violence against local minority races (blacks in the USA are not foreigners) seems common in the West, which also has racist parties and protects media which promote racial hatred, like Charlie.

There maybe biased press coverage in Singapore and equally, the West maybe biased against Singapore. Most Singaporeans support harsh punishments to keep Singapore safe. Only angry when innocent people get punished which is rare. Racist incidents are reported in the media, quickly deal with and scolded by Singaporeans. When terrorists want to attack Singapore, a few local Muslims found out and reported to police. So Chinese, Malays, Indians, even other races, we get along well and make good friends. Churches next to mosques and temples, void decks used for Chinese funerals and Malay weddings, we celebrate our cultural festivals with friends and neighbours from all races. Western countries cannot see or imagine this.

So why some Singaporeans want to study in the West? Because need very good grades to get into Singaporean universities and some want to study specialist courses that cannot get in Singaporean universities. Comparing racism levels in different Western countries and against each race in Singapore can help us choose universities. How to find out the more dangerous areas in a Western country? Even Geylang is quite safe to go with friends for meals. Cultural differences list can also be useful, for example, swastikas are common symbols in Indian religions but Nazi symbols in the West.

Re: "Churches next to mosques and temples", it's exactly the same in the US. For example, see List of mosques in the United States (that's just the more notable ones). This isn't reported in Singapore, however. An American Muslim recently went abroad, and Muslims in other nations were shocked to find out that he and most Muslims live in peace in the US, despite all the news they read saying US Muslims are constantly under attack. On a personal note, my brother (not a Muslim) has a Muslim friend, and my brother even went so far as to build a prayer shed for him where he can go to pray, while visiting my brother's house.

As for how to figure out which areas are dangerous, a Google Street View might help. Do you see abandoned buildings, graffiti, and the type of businesses you find in slums, like liquor stores, pawn shops, payday loan (high interest/short term) businesses ? Also stay away from any area with signs saying "LIVE NUDE GIRLS" (or "DEAD NUDE GIRLS", for that matter). StuRat (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if the OP was truly interested in the answers to the question or if they just wanted to make a statement about the "racist" West, Charlie Hebdo, etc. Their latest post came only a few days after the Paris (Bataclan, etc.) Islamist killings in November in Paris. Similarly shortly after the Paris (Charlie Hebdo and HyperCacher) Islamist killings in January a user calling themself "Orang Perancis Adalah Perkauman" (Malay for "French people are racist") posted this. That user was blocked probably because of the offensive nature of their username. In the January post they claimed to be non-Muslim while here they claim to be Malay, hence probably Muslim, but given the apparent similarity of purpose, I wonder if they're not the same person. Contact Basemetal here 15:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to imagine an IP with a grand total of 2 edits doing anything in bad faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think these contributions are in bad faith. They sound just like they come from a Singaporean who feels they need to study in the West but is anxious about coming to a country that would have a somewhat higher crime rate generally, and where they might feel out of place and vulnerable to racism. I think the only way through for the OP is to talk to Singaporeans who have studied in the West and come back safely in one piece. Maybe through their college or a students' union. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the proper place to discuss repeated posting of the same complex loaded questions of the form "racism in Australia", "police brutality in the US" and "bigotry in Europe" belong on the talk page, or perhaps as another request for an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bowei_Huang_2/Archive. At this point maybe we should just let the matter rest. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a book by Mary J Holmes. The title is Rosamond. Do you have any information on this book that would help me to determine it's value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.153.91 (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely to depend where you live, but if you log into eBay and search for the book, you can display completed listings to see how much it has sold for there. I'm not posting a link, because I think this only works if you're currently logged in.--Phil Holmes (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For interest, presumably Mary Jane Holmes? However, that article doesn't list all her titles and doesn't mention Rosamund. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Mary Jane Holmes article doesn't mention Rosamund, but DOES mention Rosamond, which is the book the OP was enquiring about. DuncanHill (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AbeBooks is another site which should give you some idea how much the book is worth. It seems to have been published in a number of editions over the years, so you'd need to check against when your copy was published and by whom, and also the condition of the book. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of font has been used in political banners in Italy since the 60's/'70s, especially by far right protesters. Is there anyone who knows something more about the history of this particular script?--Carnby (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not an expert in fonts, when I saw the image, I was immediately reminded of the pre-World War II Italian Futurist movement in art, which was closely associated with Mussolini's fascist movement. Fortunato Depero, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and Giacomo Balla were among the designers and artists of this school. The Futurist font is reminiscent though not identical. P22 Il Futurismo is a contemporary version of a Depero design. Sorry that I can't identify the specific font, but I am confident that it is in this broad family of fonts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Carnby. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint! I was able to find a version of the font which is called Ultras liberi ("Free supporters"): the name points out to soccer fans (it is a well known fact that most soccer fans in Italy are far right parties' supporters). Here's a little more (in Italian).--Carnby (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carnby, one font website categorizes it as "Futurist - Retro". Here's an article in Italian in Vice that discusses the origins of the font. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I visited the article on atheism and could not find an answer to the question below.

1. I am absolutely certain that there is no god 2. I do not know from my education or learning that this is so 3. I come to this position logically, though I cannot be certain that my logic is correct.

Nevertheless, I have no doubt at all that there is no god of any kind.

The definition of "strong" atheism seems to imply that one has learned or been convinced that there is no god. Neither is the case for me.

So what kind of atheist am I? 74.211.8.160 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from our article Atheism, "Writers disagree on how best to define and classify atheism", so there isn't a "correct" label for your position, and your personal choice of label is the one others should respect. That being said, which of these statements is closer to your personal view?

1. "I positively assert that God does not exist."
2. "There are no grounds for asserting that God exists, therefore it is irrational to do so."

If it's 1, others would agree if you described yourself as a "strong atheist". If 2, "weak atheist" might be a better term. Our article also makes the distinction between "explicit" and "implicit" atheism, but your statements above are, I think, inconsistent with implicit atheism. Incidentally, Logic might also be a useful article; if you can express your position as a deduction from a set of axioms, you can, at least, check that your logic is valid. Whether your axioms are true is another matter. Tevildo (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Words are tools made by men to shape and communicate their thoughts. It is, ironically, an almost theological mindset that worries about terms as if they have some import beyond that of one's own usage. If necessary, one could say one is a convinced, certain, confirmed, reasoned or determined atheist, or an atheist by conviction. Which term is best will depend on the context.

Presumably you don't intend to go around volunteering the fact of your atheism to people, or to nail it on the front door of your local church? So if the subject comes up, it will most likely be because someone asks, in which case the plain term atheist is fine, and you can explain further if asked. If a missionary comes knocking on your door, "I am a confirmed atheist" should be fine.

But one is not going to score points with God by ticking off the "proper" term for atheist, since He already sees exactly what you feel in your heart. So don't worry about it too much. In the meantime there are various online thesauruses, you can search for one of the words used above along with "synonym" at google and find some good terms. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately the OP already knows there is no God, so they don't have to worry at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has said that, but his worry that it be worded properly brings to mind the homoousian versus homoiousian schisms, and the (especially Karaite) Jewish, Islamic, and Evangelical concerns with textual infallibility. μηδείς (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point number 3 seems to contradict point number 1. If you're not certain your logic is correct, how can you be certain your conclusion is correct? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult one. The OP says that (s)he is absolutely certain that there is no god, but also that (s)he has not been convinced that there is no god. I would say that (s)he is an agnostic. So why not attend a church service or two, learn a bit about Christianity and rethink your position? 79.78.126.19 (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or a synagogue...or a mosque...or any other place of worship? Or none at all. Why should they rethink their position? Would you? Adam Bishop (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I do not know from my education or learning that this is so...I cannot be certain that my logic is correct. Nevertheless, I have no doubt..." Sounds like faith to me.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 10:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I come to this position logically, though I cannot be certain that my logic is correct" sounds purely scientific thinking to me. Where does your logic come from anyway? Isn't it the result of your entire history of learning since you were born? Akseli9 (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you leave out the last part? The part where the OP said "I have no doubt" and "I am absolutely certain" ... - Lindert (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, absolute certainty is not scientific. Mingmingla (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being "absolutely certain", while still hedging one's bets about the basis of that certainty, sounds like doubt to me. Doubt leads to questioning ... and here we are ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the OP posed the debate-inducing question and then disappeared. This type of atheist is known as a "drive-by" atheist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Bugs. Saying that you are certain and have come to a position by logic, while admitting you may have made a flaw in your logic, is simply admitting the possibility of error. It's the opposite of childishness, wilfull ignorance, delusion, or zealotry. The fact that the OP says he was not convinced seems to imply he meant he was not convinced by others. But I am not sure there's any point in further dancing with angels unless the OP wants to come back and clarify questions that have been brought up. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to know the following please:

1. Is 'music' making and 'selling' is an Ideolotary/worship issue?
2. Is creating 'animation' and 'selling' is an Ideolotary/worship issue?

Note: I know that being in a television without promoting God is. A clarification for the two Bulletins Numbered list will suffice aviodant.

Space Ghost (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Idolatry, but that question can't be answered without knowing which religious viewpoint to take. Religious music and Religious art might be useful, as well. Tevildo (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer will depend on the dogma of your particular sect. But the word is 'idolatry', and has nothing to do with 'ideology'. Personally I do not think either of the activities you describe could plausibly be confused with worshipping inanimate objects, but opinions vary. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how does the year 666 figure into this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of the Beast if anyone needs the correct link. Tevildo (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sowi

Thanks fellas. I'll read through. Regards. -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was about the Number of the Beast, not a year, but I still can't connect that with the question about music/animation making and selling.

And what does "being in a television" mean?

What's a Bulletin in this context?

What does "aviodant" mean?

Maybe the OP can restate their question in something approaching English as she is spoke. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I had to think quickly to write this post. In other words, I was not thinking properly before writing this post. Sorry. -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the apologies; try explaining. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay:

1. I read ideal worship is bad so I thought its ideolatory because I read somewhere in an article the word “idolatry”. I wasn’t sure which word it was because the ‘red line under a word’ appears whenever I try to write something meaningful in WP.
2. I got the word avoidant from google translate. I thought the word suffice alone is rude because the villan from the Matrix movie uses it…I guess using the word avoidant is along was wrong…

Guys, to be honest, I tried to act smart with my English words in this post. Please excuse me, most of you know that I have English problem, so please don’t mind… You guys are the only people I speak to, and this is the only place I can try to write big words I’ve learnt… Please help me to get better if you can by pointing out the mistakes, so that I know my carelessness. I try to ensure whatever I write is clear enough; all comes from my heart/mind.

Space Ghost (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OR, but I had more than one Muslim tell me on the Internet that music was "haram" Asmrulz (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procol Harum? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Manhattan, are there any highrise buildings that are mixed-zoned as partially commercial and partially residential (for example, perhaps the bottom floors are commercial, and the upper ones residential), or are Manhattan highrise buildings necessarily entirely zoned as only one type from bottom floor to top floor? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 02:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I googled the subject "new york high rises with stores and apartments" and this is one item that turned up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For greater clarity as to what the answer is: the word "stores" does not appear on that page, but 8 of the listings mention "retail" space, mostly just one or two floors, but in one case as much as 300,000 square feet. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you think those skyscrapers might be single-use by necessity? The ground floor is most valuable for retailers as people couldn't walk right in to an upper floor and their window ads would need people to look up to be noticed and huge letters to be read. Store(s) in the bottom is almost the norm in Manhattan. Even the tallest and most landmark-y high-rises can do this. Like the Empire State Building, Chrysler Building and One Times Square (where the New Years ball falls at the focal point of Times Square). All have storefronts on the sidewalk. Obligatory reference that's not my memory: [5] Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Why did you think those skyscrapers might be single-use by necessity?" Actually, all three of your examples show exactly why I was asking: the Empire State Building, Chrysler Building, and One Times Square are all purely non-residential. I don't know of any famous Manhattan skyscrapers that are mixed commercial/residential. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 17:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Central Park Tower has a seven-story department store on the bottom, a hotel in the middle, and residences above.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Google skills aren't good enough to find references for this: I believe that during WWII a German unit donned American uniforms in order to sneak in behind enemy lines. There they intended to remove the American uniforms and fight in their own which they wore underneath. They were discovered and had to fight while still wearing American uniforms. They were tried and acquitted due to military necessity and that wearing enemy uniforms to avoid detection as a ruse of war is permitted (as long as you don't fight in them). I'm not talking about Operation Greif which is the closest I've found so far, and what I can find on Wikipedia about Otto Skorzeny's trial and acquittal doesn't really fit with what I remember. Sjö (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This tactic was the stock-in-trade of the Brandenburg Regiment, the German special forces unit, who regularly donned civilian clothes or enemy uniforms for missions. Further details here. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't be thinking of the movie The Eagle Has Landed, would you? They were discovered and fought, though they wore Polish uniforms and weren't tried, much less acquitted. (There's also Cross of Iron, but that was on the Eastern Front.) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it must be Skorzeny. A law of war handbook mentions that in December 1944, some of his units did battle in US uniforms. However, I can't find anything about that in the sources in the Wikipedia articles. Perhaps it was just a misunderstanding by the author of the handbook. Sjö (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sjö, you may find some answers in International Law on Use of Enemy Uniforms As a Stratagem and the Acquittal in the Skorzeny Case by Maximilian Koessler. Sorry, I haven't had time to read it myself. Alansplodge (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was a good source. I skimmed it and it looks really well researched and sourced. From what I gathered it's unclear whether the Germans actually fought in US uniforms, and unfortunately the verdict didn't give any reasons for acquitting Skorzeny. Sjö (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed many infoboxes being populated with template:Infobox military person for non-military notables, especially actors. See for instance Telly Savalas and Karl Malden. The template description is vague about when to use it. Most are being macro-added by an IP, with some ruining the TOC formatting, as for James Earl Jones. --Light show (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a question for the Reference Desk, but I'm not really sure where the best place for it might be; probably the Help Desk is a better starting point. That being said, WP:AIV is the place to request a block, but the IP hasn't been warned yet, and it might be a good idea to do so before making it official. It's OK for you, or anyone else, to revert the template additions in the meantime - see WP:BRD - and the individual talk pages are the place to discuss whether or not the addition is appropriate. Tevildo (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AIV is decidedly the wrong venue for dealing with this. This kind of behavior is absolutely, totally, and unambiguously NOT vandalism. Please do not contribute to clogging that overworked board with yet another bad report. Vandalism is not a synonym for "editing I do not agree with". This person may need to stop, but not because they are vandalizing. --Jayron32 01:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is undoubtedly Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cylinders in the hands of the Pharaohs. What is this? --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All three sculptures in your group have them, and many others that are not showing pharaohs, e.g.here or here. Are you certain this is not something having to do with sculptural technique? Is this restricted to the old kingdom? Contact Basemetal here 21:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The web is awash with new-age drivel calling these "the Wands of Horus" which have reputed mystical powers. However the truth seems to be that nobody knows. You can download an article from the Metropolitan Museum of Art website called "An Elusive Shape within the Fisted Hands of Egyptian Statues" by Henry G Fischer, Curator in Egyptology, which says that the traditional views were that they either represented ceremonial staves that could not easily be represented in stone or that they stood for the empty space within an open fist; however the suggestion advanced by the article is that is that they represent rolls of cloth, rather like a handkerchief. Alansplodge (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does look like they're holding the stylized corners of cloth they're wearing on their backs, particularly in the case of of the left hand of Menkaure in the middle. If you look at what's between the figures' torso and arms, it appears closer to the viewer than the background wall, suggesting something they're wearing (or maybe I'm completely off, and it's just for stability, no broken arms unlike poor Venus de Milo, apologies for not providing any references whatsoever). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "cloth" theory explains a total lack of archaeological evidence for this type of thing. But it does not look like cloth in the picture to the right. And why should pharaohs for several thousand years be so attached to some pieces of linen? Anyway, the subject warrants a separate article in Wikipedia. I could not find the barest mention of the subject on this website. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In the download linked above, it shows a sort of round-ended stick extending a short way out of the fist and pretty much the same at the front as the at the back. Fischer, the Egyptologist who wrote it, supports his theory with hieroglyphs - it's a bit too complicated for me to précis - you'll have to read it for yourself. Alansplodge (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do know a person who carries a smallish roll of toilet paper in their handbag for unexpected but urgent performances in a paperless cubical office. These generally have the size of an upright sarcophagus. Egyptologists may consider this hypothesis. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghirlandajo: In the case of The Bowman and The Spearman, the weapons were left out on purpose. Maybe this was the case for the Egyptian statues as well. Dismas|^(talk) 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some states in the U.S. require abortions to be performed in specialized Abortion clinics, instead of hospitals (as is the case I think for most of the countries in the developed world where abortion is legal), which makes a mockery of medical confidentiality and privacy and subjects medical staff and patients to bullying and even physical violence. My question is: In what states is this not the case? Contact Basemetal here 20:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that certain types of abortions, such as those needed to save the life of the mother, could be done in hospitals under a doctor's care. That's relatively rare, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This provides some general insight, though it doesn't specifically answer the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Could it be perhaps that the OP is not familiar with the fact that most hospitals in the US are privately run facilities, and that they might not want the issue of elective abortions to complicate their mission?

In countries with socialized medicine, of course the government may as a matter of economy and policy mandate that state owned hospitals perform elective abortions. Is the premise that states in the US should also require hospitalization for elective abortions? Given most such procedures are outpatient, is there some non-ideological reason that private entities should be forced to hospitalize a woman against need? My experience does not match the premise of there being any mockery of anyone's rights, any more than the case that HIV testing is often done at a known gay men's health clinic. Are there statistics that show abortions in America are more dangerous than those in other countries due to their being performed in facilities specifically designed to handle them? We've been given a bait and switch here, an equivocation on elective procedures (which are normally schedule for outpatient clinics when possible) and medically necessary abortions done in inpatient-specialized facilities. μηδείς (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use this page for engaging in exchange of personal political opinions.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please keep in mind that hospital's mission is health. Please keep in mind that by "health", a civilized, developped country is supposed to mean general health of the entire country/society, not only particular health of the only specific individuals who can afford medicine as a business instead of medicine as a general health system. Akseli9 (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] A country that's truly "civilized" shouldn't even need to do abortions, except as a medical necessity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Indeed a civilized, developped country does everything to promote contraception in order to avoid abortion as much as possible. However, because Perfection doesn't exist, a civilized, developped country which promotes health for all and a high standard of health to be content and proud of, keeps ready to any imperfection that might occur and stands firmly and confidently ready to cope with any problems and imperfections when they occur. Akseli9 (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] How does killing an embryo for no medical reason improve the overall health of the society? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] The killing itself is a heartbreaking shock and a real trauma that will last the entire life of a woman's psychology. It is a sad and terrible choice that should be avoided as much as possible (by choosing rather contraception) but that should still be allowed as an exceptional last resource, for overall health of the society is about not growing unwanted children, and about women's freedom and responsibility in this matter of wanted/unwanted children. Akseli9 (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Who says? --Trovatore (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify:

1. I didn't mean to imply that medically the quality of the procedure is lower in abortion clinics. The only issue I was concerned with is the fact that the existence of specialized abortion clinics turns them into targets. And my question was: Where in the U.S. is this not the case? It seems Medeis's answer is "nowhere" but I'm not sure.
2. The problems with medical confidentiality I was referring to is that if a patient walks into an abortion clinic everyone knows what they've come there for. If they had the procedure in a hospital (either on an inpatient or outpatient basis) only they and the medical staff would know.
3. There seems to be some confusion as to what universal health care (called "socialized medicine" in the U.S.) implies. It does not imply that all hospitals are public. In many countries with universal health care many if not most hospitals belong to universities' medical schools, charities, churches, municipalities, health insurance "cooperative" organizations, etc. or simply a private individual or group of individuals, or a corporate entity either for profit or non profit. Of course they have to be licensed and government issues guidelines, but I'm sure that's also true in the U.S. So the issue is probably not guidelines vs no guidelines, but what kind of guidelines.
4. Performing a procedure in a hospital does not necessarily imply hospitalization. Outpatient procedures can be and are also performed in hospitals, so I'm confused about that whole bit.
5. I'm not sure there is a necessary link between universal health care and the non existence of abortion clinics, since in Canada, a country with universal health care there are nevertheless abortion clinics. Someone more familiar with the Canadian situation could maybe explain that oddity.
6. Finally "socialized medicine" is a phrase used, as far as I can tell, mostly in the U.S. In most other places it is called universal health care. Most people outside the U.S. would think that calling universal health care "socialized medicine" makes as much sense as calling universal primary education "socialized primary education".

Contact Basemetal here 16:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) That assumes that an "abortion clinic" exclusively performs abortions, which is not usually the case. Women may also visit such a clinic for information, contraception or (pregnancy) tests.

5) I don't know about the Canadian situation, but I question whether it really is that unusual. There are abortion clinics separate from hospitals in the UK and here in the Netherlands too, regardless of universal health care. - Lindert (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some explanation of 5), the Canadian oddity - a 1988 landmark:

R v Morgentaler was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.

Henry Morgentaler had been providing abortions in his private clinics, and fighting court battles, for many years. The 1988 decision was much wider than had been expected; it meant that women no longer had to persuade doctors that they "deserved" an abortion. Here are some "key readings" brought together on the 25th anniversary website. The CBC also provides a timeline. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's some discussion about the widespread use of such clinics here [6]. That source also discusses something else that's worth remembering namely that some states in the US controversially require abortion clinics to be ambulatory surgical centres, and that doctors have admitting privileges at local hospitals, standards which are hard to meet and generally accepted to significantly limit the availability of abortions in those states. Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any known cultures that haven't discovered the correlation between sex and childbirth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The dancing werewolf (talk • contribs)

There are certainly cultures that don't have the indigenous knowledge of the specific nature of spermatazoa and eggs. The usual idea is that the man's seed gives form to the woman's blood. One cannot prove a negative, but I have never come acrost an example of total ignorance of the necessity of the male's role, and the relationship in some form of menstruation with the alternative of pregnancy. I do remember being told that the story of the Virgin Birth was an obvious forgery by some rather insistent anti-Christians, because the Jews at the time of Christ did not understand conception. That claim's just risible historical ignorance. μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very interesting topic in anthropology - interesting in the sense that, like cannibalism, we're very keen on finding people who do it/believe it. Bronisław Malinowski, one of the key figures in early 'professional' anthropology spent a great deal of time on the Trobriand Islands and ended up writing three books about it, including the charmingly titled The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia where he described the Melanesians' belief that males are not involved in the creation of children, who are instead created by/filled with baloma. Did they really believe that? Malinowski was obviously convinced and opined that it was due to the open sexuality the islanders practiced (they supposedly started having sex as young children and were pretty free and easy about the topic). They still claim that they do but it is not all evident that they're ignorant of basic biology.

When talking about "savages", it's sometimes easy to fall back on the trope that they're all simple, ignorant, people. Malinowski did. Yet it's fairly clear that their actual belief in baloma is a lot like a Catholic's in transubstantiation: a dogma you have to espouse belief in, but are not at all interested in examining critically because you know it's just a dogma. In the 70s and 80s, a lot of the early anthropology field work began to be examined more critically, particularly with the novel view that the people being studied were not all simpletons - and a lot of the early work was found to be tall tales, credulous belief in the truth of whatever you were told, and similar. Malinowski's discussions of Melanesian sex fell into those categories. 99.235.223.170 (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Armin Faber, he was repatriated in 1944 due to (faked) epilepsy or "ill health". I find that rather hard to believe. Two questions: (1) Can anybody confirm or debunk this? (2) Were not-obviously disabled POWs repatriated during the war? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some good detail about this kind of escape is in The Colditz Myth: British and Commonwealth Prisoners of War in Nazi Germany by S. P. MacKenzie (pp. 340-342). Annoyingly, page 341 is missing from the Google Books preview, but it does highlight the cases of Richard Pape who was repatriated after faking acute nephritis and Paddy Byrne, along with several others that he instructed, who were sent home from Colditz by pretending to be mentally ill. Alansplodge (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No confirmation as such, but The Focke-Wulf 190: a famous German fighter by Heinz J. Nowarra (1965) has "(...) as a prisoner of war he successfully deceived the British authorities into believing that he was an epileptic. He was repatriated, as a result, in 1944, and flew again in action as a fighter-pilot until the end of the war, and was still alive in 1965". ---Sluzzelin talk 11:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... this detailed article, Unintentional Gift (reproduced from the June 1986 edition of FlyPast with kind permission from the publishers), says; "Faber was shipped off to Canada and after two escape attempts he was repatriated just before the end of the war due to ill health." Alansplodge (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, possibly he was repatriated per The Focke-Wulf 190, but Unintentional Gift sounds wildly implausible. Why would the Allies have bothered when the end of the war was in sight (and for mere ill health), and why would the Germans have gone to the trouble of taking him back when they had more pressing concerns and not much of an air force left? Anyway, thanks all. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the motivation was that the Allies wanted their sick prisoners-of-war back and didn't want the Germans to claim that it was a one-way street. Repatriations were facilitated by the Red Cross if I recall correctly, so there may not have been an option to decline a repatriation without defying the ICRC. Alansplodge (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't underestimate actual compassion. Even in the middle of a war, with the most real of realpolitik, officials don't become completely heartless (look at Al-Megrahi – the Scottish Government released him even though they knew it would be a propaganda coup for Gaddafi and cause a diplomatic crisis with the US, because the guy had advanced prostate and bone cancer, and only had a few months left to live). Smurrayinchester 13:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture at right, of David Jewett Waller, has been bugging me for a while. In the book where I found it, it's captioned "David J. Waller, age 18". Now, given that Waller was born in 1815, this would put the date of the photo at 1833 (or possibly 1834). But that would be a full six years before the first photograph of a person was taken! Can anyone help me pin down the actual date this was taken? Or is this by some mistake a photo of his son (in which case it would date to about 1864)? Or is this just a really accurate drawing that I'm idiotically mistaking for a photograph? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an 1860s-era photo (not a drawing) and an age of 48 would be a lot more likely than 18. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the style of dress is more in line with the 1860s than than the 1830s. I suspect that the age stated in the source is a typo. That said... while we can call the accuracy of the source into question, we should not (ourselves) take a guess as to his actual age in the photo. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting the book's author would be worth a try. Either he made an error himself, or the source of the picture contains the error. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the book include a credit for the photo? If it's not on the same page, there might be a list of photo credits at the front or back of the book. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! I was just curious about how many ships the Nazis had in the a three week period after the fall of France that could support troops. I had heard somewhere that that three week period was when the Royal Navy was not able to put forth enough ships to stop an invasion, and I was curious to see how many troops could arrive in England using what ships they had. Or if all of that was... counterfactual.

Thanks!

Aqua817 (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but I rather doubt the Royal Navy was unable to defend against an invasion at any point. (There's also the little matter of the Royal Air Force.) AFAIK, the fighting in France didn't cause anything even remotely approaching crippling naval losses. If they had, they certainly wouldn't have been made up in three weeks. Also, you can't just throw together an amphibious assault on the spur of the moment. The Germans didn't have much, if anything, in the way of naval assault transports. They had to spend a lot longer(?) than a few weeks just gathering together inadequate civilian barges from all over the place in preparation for Operation Sea Lion. That doesn't even address the logistics problems. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Sea Lion states:

Even if the Royal Navy had been neutralised, the chances of a successful amphibious invasion across the Channel were remote. The Germans had no specialised landing craft, and would have had to rely primarily on river barges to lift troops and supplies for the landing. This would have limited the quantity of artillery and tanks that could be transported and restricted operations to times of good weather. The barges were not designed for use in open sea and, even in almost perfect conditions, they would have been slow and vulnerable to attack. There were also not enough barges to transport the first invasion wave nor the following waves with their equipment.

Clarityfiend (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ROYAL NAVY SHIPS, JUNE 1940: NORE COMMAND shows that the RN had at Immingham three Town-class cruisers, among the most modern and powerful ships of their type afloat, together with two anti-aircraft cruisers and two older light cruisers, plus a great mass of minesweepers. At Harwich there were 4 destroyer flotillas with about 30 destroyers in all, although a number of those were undergoing repairs after the various evacuations. Also dozens of sloops, anti-submarine trawlers, minesweepers and patrol boats. At Chatham and Sheerness there was another modern cruiser and an older light cruiser with more destroyers and smaller vessels. At Dover there was another destroyer flotilla. At PORTSMOUTH COMMAND there was a battleship, two destroyer flotillas and a submarine flotilla. At WESTERN APPROACHES COMMAND in Devonport there was an aircraft carrier, more cruisers and three destroyer flotillas. ALL of these forces were within 12 hours' steaming of the invasion beaches and the Kriegsmarine had no battleships or cruisers in commission after the Norway Campaign and precious few destroyers. And in case you think that the RN could be stopped by air power alone, consider that in the Dunkirk Evacuation, they had operated about 50 destroyers over almost a week under constant air attack, for the loss of six of them. Alansplodge (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

♫ "Three monkeys up a stick..."

I suspect that you meant if France's fleet was joined with the German fleet they would have had enough. In theory this may be true, however, the French fleet never fell into German hands, for two reasons. The first is that, despite the surrender, captains aboard French ships were not about to hand them over to their enemy. They would scuttle them before that happened. The second was that the British Navy would sink them before they allowed them to be turned over. Unfortunately, there was an incident where the French didn't scuttle them quickly enough and the British were afraid the Germans might get some ships, so they were, in fact, sunk by the British Navy (Attack on Mers-el-Kébir). There was a later incident where German forces tried to board a French ship in port, and it was scuttled. StuRat (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• On the "French fleet never fell into German hands", that's not strictly true. German ally Vichy France did have a fleet which did engage with Allied forces during WWII. One I can remember off hand was the engagement between the USS Massachusetts (BB-59) and the French battleship Jean Bart (1940) during Operation Torch. Much of operation torch involved naval engagements between allied ships and Vichy French ships. --Jayron32 13:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, let me alter my statement: "The small portion of the French fleet which fell into German hands was insufficient to give Germany enough ships, along with it's own, to achieve naval superiority over Allied naval forces". StuRat (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The French did not scuttle their own ships, quickly or not, at Mers-el-Kébir; in fact, the battle took place, inter alia because they refused to do so. The British Navy is commonly known as the Royal Navy. There was a - largely - successful scuttling of the French fleet later in the war at Toulon (Scuttling of the French fleet in Toulon). There was never any chance during the war that a combined German and French fleet would 'achieve naval superiority over Allied naval forces'. 5.80.70.207 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The French Navy in Operation Torch weren't acting as allies of Germany, they were defending French territory under the orders of the French government, which was neutral by treaty. The Allies were hoping that the French colonial authorities would defy their government and not oppose the landing, but the necessary political manoeuvrings were badly botched. Eventually, Admiral Darlan was persuaded to go over to the Allied cause and espouse the Free French movement rather than the Vichy regime, which to be fair, was actually the constitutional government of France at that time. Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and the current constitutional government of China actually resides in Taipei. In circumstances such as those legalistic constitutional issues become somewhat moot. If you were a French general at the time I'm sure you would have based your decision as to who to go with on who you thought was going to win, not on complicated legal arguments. At most, if you didn't feel much of a gambler, you might have gone with Vichy by default but only because you might have thought it was the safest way to cover your ass whatever the hell happened afterwards, as in case the Allies won you could always explain that blah blah blah (your career though was likely to be over) whereas if the Germans won and you had gone with de Gaulle you'd be in real trouble. The legal discussion though is great fun to watch and still animates French hearts as this colorful discussion on the French WP can testify. Contact Basemetal here 18:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: Which French do you mean? Do you mean Vichy France or do you mean Free France? There were two French states at the time, the collaborationist government of Vichy France aligned with the Axis, and the DeGaulle-led Free France, aligned with the Allies. If you're saying that Vichy France was NOT aligned with the Axis powers, you're going to have to rewrite, like, every history book ever written. --Jayron32 19:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Alan will have a much more comprehensive answer, but, no, Vichy France was not one of the Axis powers - it was not a signatory to the Tripartite Pact, it was officially neutral under the Armistice of 22 June 1940, and, although German troops were allowed freedom of action throughout mainland France, Pétain never led any French troops against the Allies. Tevildo (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'm sure all of the Vichy French troops who fought in the Battle of Dakar defending against the Allied invasion thereof would have been quite surprised to learn that. Pétain never personally led any French troops into battle, but no head of state did for quite a long time before WWII. --Jayron32 21:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Defending" being the operative word. Vichy troops also defended their territory against Axis forces during the Japanese invasion of French Indochina. Does this make them aligned with the Allies? Tevildo (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Commons has three images (really three variants of one image) in Commons:Category:Fish Wharf, Boston, and has hundreds of (mostly poorly categorized) images whose descriptions make mention of "Boston Fish Pier". Before I make a new category for the latter: does someone who knows Boston history know, are the "Fish Wharf" and the "Fish Pier" distinct structures, or is the former just an old name for the latter? Or are the three that refer to the "Fish Wharf" just badly named, possibly coming from a wrong usage in a common source? - Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pier labeled the Boston Fish Pier. A wharf is typically a collection of piers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question, but hard to answer. The key question is, when were those three pictures (that picture) taken? The BPL doesn't narrow it down to more than "1850 - 1929 (approximate)"[7].

The current Boston Fish Pier, the one that everyone knows (and that I suspect all the rest of those uncategorized pictures are of) was built in 1914[8]. And it appears to have always been called the "Boston Fish Pier".

That old picture looks really old; it could easily be 19th century, meaning it's merely of some old wharf in Boston where fish were being unloaded, not the central Fish Pier built in 1914.

On the other hand, we can't read too much into the "Pier" vs. "Wharf" distinction: we're calling the old picture "Wharf" only because that's what one person originally penciled on the back of one copy of it (and has been dutifully propagated by librarians ever since).

It would be good if we could identify the building in the background of the old image, but there's really no detail. The only distinguishing feature is the cupola, which I don't recognize, which the current fish pier buildings don't have, and which this 1927 engraving of the fish pier doesn't show, either. (But the building and cupola in the picture could also be on an unrelated neighboring pier.)

I suspect we'll never know. Unless someone can positively put a date of 1914 or newer on the old picture(s), I think I would be inclined to create a new Commons:Category:Fish Pier, Boston containing everything that definitely pertains to the current fish pier, and then add the older Commons:Category:Fish Wharf, Boston to the Pier category with a note that the connection is tenuous. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Metropolitan France claims, without citation, that French Algeria was part of Metropolitan France prior to independence. However the latter article claims that French Algeria had a status comparable to some regions that are now Overseas regions. Could someone provide a clear reference for this? Hack (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Former departments of France in Algeria, and other articles about French Algeria. Part of French Algeria (the Mediterranean Coast) was organized into Departments with equal representation in the French legislature as any other French Department. The interior part of Algeria was not organized into departments. See also fr:Département français d'Algérie, the article at French Wikipedia, which covers some of this as well. --Jayron32 13:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not sure about a "clear" reference, as the whole thing seems to be fiendishly complicated, as although there was early representation in the French National Assembly for some Algerian departments, there was none for others and regulations enfranchised Jews but not Muslims and so forth. The best I could find is: "The Constitution of 1958 recognized that all people born in Algeria were French citizens (Article 75) and announced the end of all territorial distinctions - either in law or regulations - between the now fifteen departments of Algeria and the Sahara and the ninety metropolitan departments." Lorcin, Patricia M E, Algeria & France, 1800-2000: Identity, Memory, Nostalgia, Syracuse University Press, ISBN 0-8156-3074-3 (p. 151). Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To rephrase my original question, was French Algeria part of Metropolitan France or did it have an equivalent status? Hack (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on how you define Metropolitan France. Under many definitions, Metropolitan France is JUST L'hexagone, that is Mainland European France (and often Corsica). However, under the law, there was no distinction, legally, between Algeria and L'hexagone, so those territories were fully equivalent to any part of it. Metropolitan France is a somewhat imprecise term. Metropolitan France is most commonly used in the way that the "Contiguous United States" is used; that is it excludes Alaska and Hawaii, even though legally, there is no distinction between those to states and the "Lower 48". Think of Algeria during that time period as being like Alaska and Hawaii. It was not European France, but during the third and fourth Republics, there was no legal distinction between European and African departments. --Jayron32 16:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On August 8, 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. Has any nation formally declared war after August 8, 1945?--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP article Declaration of war might be worth looking at. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article has a section Declared wars since 1945 with a column saying declaration of war or existence of a state of war but looking at the various articles, there certainly was the commencement of hostilities in each instance, but so far I have been unable to find a formal declaration of war. The United States formally declared war on Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania in June, 1942, and that is last time by the U.S., with less formal authorizations since then.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only instance I can find is the Arab countries declaring war on Israel at the start of the Six Day War (1967) (see [9] and [10]) - Lindert (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specialist help may be available at WikiProject_Military history -- Paulscrawl (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities gives ultimatums equal standing with declarations of war. George W. Bush issued an ultimatum regarding Iraq in 2003. Gabbe (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Sagan famously said that "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Who, if anyone, laughed at the Wright brothers? There were plenty of respectable people working on heavier-than-air flight at the time, and there seems to have been a general expectation that such a thing would eventually be possible given suitable engines and materials. So did they in fact laugh at the Wright brothers? If so, who were they, and what was the context? Or is this just a stock element in inaccurate stories told to children, like churchmen telling Columbus the world was flat? --Amble (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, were they really laughing at the Gershwin brothers? --Amble (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, possibly Lord Kelvin. Despite being an excellent physicist and an engineer, he made pronouncements that weren't so hot. Response to Major B. F. S. Baden Powell's request to join the Aeronautical Society, December 8, 1896: "I was greatly interested in your work with kites; but I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of." (However, he never laughed at Bozo the Clown.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a large collection of quotations making predictions about aviation. Many of them are favorable, but quite a few are not. Just looking at the ones from the Wright brothers' era, we have:

• Thomas Edison, quoted in New York World, 17 November 1895
• Worby Beaumont, engineer, when asked if man will fly in the next century, 12 January 1900.
• Rear-Admiral George Melville, Engineer-in-Chief USN, 'North American Review,' December 1901
• 'Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly,' published in the New York Times, 9 October 1903
• Simon Newcomb, in The Independent: A Weekly Magazine, 22 October 1903
• Simon Newcomb, professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Side-lights on Astronomy and Kindred Fields of Popular Science, 1906
• Engineering Editor, The Times, 1906
• Lord Haldane, Minister of War, Britain, 1907

I have not attempted to verify the genuineness of any of these.