Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

March 25

Tax breaks and the Equal Protection Clause?

Large corporations get tax breaks for locating their factories in a certain state, e.g. Tesla[1]. Why isn't this a violation of the Equal Protection Clause? Wouldn't the tax code be required to treat all corporate entities equally?

To clarify, I know that it isn't a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. I just don't know the specific legal argument behind it and want to learn more about it, i.e. the mechanism of how individual companies can have special exemptions in the tax code. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The workaround is that the law doesn't say JohnSmithCo. will get a tax break. It says that any company manufacturing X and employing Y number of people in an impoverished county shall receive a tax deferral of... It strangely happens that the only company that meets these criteria is JohnSmithCo Inc. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Doesn't that mean the exemption can be "double-dipped"? Company Z can read the news, learn about the new law, then go to the same county and employ Y number of people too. Has this kind of "double-dipping" ever happened? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reading on this general topic, which you may find interesting.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ECS LIVA Z, you asked about a basically corrupt process. Under such circumstances, the definitions and the economics will be such that no other company can compete. Lots of small-town politicking regards zoning, limited plots of land, and exclusive deals for people with the right contacts. I won't give the specifics, but a town in which my relatives live made a deal with a specific company exclusive rights allowing them to develop a plot of land below cost, and now there is a lawsuit between the town and the developer which is making further demands on the municipality. No other party can take advantage of this situation.

But in other cases, towns build industrial parks to lure in whomever can meet the requirements to get a lease. The state of NJ has identified certain towns or areas as impoverished Urban Enterprise Zone and allows them to charge a lower sales tax than the next town over. For a time, my choice of pharmacy depended on the fact that the town in which my doctor was located was "depressed", while my hometown, the next one over was not. So I waited for drugs to be filled (at the cost of over a thousand dollars a month) in the other town, 15 minutes away, rather than at the store just down the street. (Sales taxes on drugs have since been ended, but this was a while back.) μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, tax breaks for just one company always seemed patently unfair, and I've wondered why their local competitors don't all sue the state for giving preferential treatment to their competitor. One company getting preferential treatment also begs the question of who they bribed to get that. StuRat (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adversarial/collaborative sectors

Why are some sectors more adversarial/collaborative than others? What determines this? 82.132.235.134 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sectors? Bus stop (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is an easily observable fact that some Wikipedia topics (IBM System/360, The IT Crowd) attract a bunch of cooperative editors who get along fine, while other topics (Donald Trump, Age of the Earth) attract a bunch of people with pitchforks and torches ready to burn down each other's villages. Why the difference? And why, in general, are the ones that are battlegrounds more-visited? This Youtube video [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc ] presents one theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon—the Wiki-centric focus in that response seems unjustified. The question does not imply a focus on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the OP didn't give us any details whatsoever so we're left with asking for details and/or making guesses. My guess would have been business sectors, but as our article implies, that's just a term to refer to some portion of the economy or some group of companies. It may refer to industries, business types, ownership types, etc. Our article mentions the Three-sector theory, promptly redefines the term completely, notes the lack of citation, and then moves onto another topic. The term is meaningless without context. Matt Deres (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is known as Internet trolling. Bus stop (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also assume that the meaning was business sectors. Some possible reasons:

1) Foreign competition may cause local companies to collaborate or perish. This competition is more likely in some areas than others. In health care, for example, there's not as much fear of foreign competition.

2) Some projects are simply too big for any one company to take on, at least in a timely manner. Some space programs, for example.

3) The government will sometimes mandate cooperation between companies, especially during wars. One special case is where the government prohibits majority foreign ownership. In this case, a foreign company needs to find a local company and invest in them. The reverse can also happen, where the government prohibits cooperation, especially in the media sector, where the concern is that a lack of independent voices will reduce the freedom of the press.

4) Some businesses naturally complement each other. For example, for a breakfast- and lunch-only restaurant chain, and a dinner-only restaurant chain, sharing the same facilities could dramatically reduce costs. StuRat (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German vs English

Germans tend to combine words. For example "air force" (two words) becomes "luftwaffe" (1 word). Why? And does this mean that there are more words in German dictionary (in general). 92.19.181.95 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That happens in English too. Are you aware that "baseball" was originally spelled "base ball"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Compound (linguistics), however the Germans are particularly fond of these: Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz means "law for the delegation of monitoring beef labelling".

'In theory, a German word can be infinitely long. Unlike in English, an extra concept can simply be added to the existing word indefinitely. Such extended words are sometimes known as Bandwurmwörter - "tapeworm words". In an essay on the Germany language, Mark Twain observed: "Some German words are so long that they have a perspective."' [3]

By the way, you might find some more competent answers over at the Wikipedia:Language reference desk. Alansplodge (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So is a word that means "a 3 month old skinny puppy that scratches its left ear with its hind leg but then stops?" grammatically correct? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Synthetic language Wymspen (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Synthetic language" doesn't really fit this too well; that term is more commonly used with respect of the combination of grammatical morphemes in a single word with lexical morphemes. As far as compounds are concerned, it's important to keep in mind that German and English are not, in fact, fundamentally different in this respect: English is just as ready to form nominal compounds as German is, and they can grow just as complex (and I seriously doubt they are significantly less frequent) – they are just not regularly spelled without a space as they are in German. But that's a purely orthographical convention, not really a structural difference between the two languages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term wanted here is polysynthetic languages, in which the arguments (subject, object, etc.) of a verb and/or adverbial components are incorporated into it. μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Duden is the de facto official dictionary of the German language. The longest German word that has been published is Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft made of 79 characters. However compounds consisting of more than three or four nouns are usually found in humorous contexts. (English also has some long words.). Blooteuth (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The longest I've seen in an everyday context is Fahrtreppenbenutzungshinweise (on a placard beside an escalator). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A placard is a signature. Many users of the escalator after reading aloud would probably change the noun into a sentence, or even drop the word "Fahrtreppen". --Askedonty (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries don't attempt to make entries for everything written without a space, but may include many things with a space. It generally depends how big the dictionary is and whether the authors view it as an established term which has a life of its own and may not be 100% understood by somebody who only knows the parts. For example, our sister project Wiktionary has an entry for wikt:boarding school. In Danish it is the unspaced "kostskole" and also in my Danish dictionary. But Danish can make lots of arbitrary compound words, for example combining animals and body parts to make unspaced words like Danish versions of dogtail or giraffeneck. Listing such combinations in dictionaries and say "A giraffeneck is a giraffe's neck" would be a ridicolous waste of space. I'm sure there are lots of both English and German dictionaries of varying sizes. It probable doesn't make much sense to ask which language "in general" has the largest dictionaries. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out an advantage of the compounds in German: They make it instantly clear that those words belong together. Especially in a language with little inflection, such as English, this can well lead to confusion. Take as an example the sentence:

Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.

All of the words in the sentence except "friction" and "to" are ambiguous and can belong to several word classes. I was very hard for me to understand the sentence. The subject seems to be friction. The friction locks something. What does it lock - a cause? The cause that a throttle, for some reason, levers anything to a stick, whatever this is supposed to mean? If the noun groups friction locks and throttle levers were identified in any way, reading the sentence would be much easier. --KnightMove (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English permits the insertion of a hyphen to improve clarity: Friction-locks cause throttle-levers to stick., though the original would be clear to those familiar with the subject, or in an article about friction locks. Dbfirs 11:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm native to Dutch, and we see the same sort of compounding here. This way anyone can form new words while speaking or writing. Although correct, these are often one-time words. Other compounds, like verjaardagstaart ("birthday cake"), have made it into the dictionary.

We see this compounding in most germanic languages (German, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic and perhaps more), it looks to me like English is the exception.

In Dutch we see a tendency to avoid compounding (by splitting words up and/or rephrasing sentences). Not sure about other languages.

Note that the English language has a milder form of compounding too (we would translate the Dutch verjaardagstaart into "birthday cake" and not "birth day cake"). Other examples of compounding in English: football, workman, anyone, and website (not too sure about the last one). More on this in the wikipedia article English compound.

Also note that most German examples in this thread are extreme, unreadable and unusable. They can (and should) easily be avoided in writing. Jahoe (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At first I parsed that as verjaardag-staart "year-day-queue". μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:) I like that one. Here's the word split up into syllables: ver-jaar-dags-taart. Staart would more likely translate to "tail" than "queue". Jahoe (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

English is my native language, and I've studied German for 6 years. Occasionally I'll come acrost a Dutch text, and only realize it's not German when I get to a word I don't know, or see a pronoun. I do the same with Portuguese, being fluent in Spanish. Unfortunately the ability to read basic or familiar Dutch or Portuguese does not translate into being able to understand them as spoken. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my Collins German Dictionary, the German-English section is longer than the English-German section. But that's a page count, not a word count, so it doesn't answer your question about number of words. The writers of this page think that it's likely that English has the largest vocabulary of any language, though they admit it's hard to be certain. Herbivore (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar happens in Latin with the naming of species. The names can be as long as you wish - for example in 1927 the Polish entomologist Benedykt Dybowski named a species of weevil Gammaracanthuskytodermogammarus loricatobaicolensis.81.151.128.189 (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriousness of undesired touching

Is touching someone on the buttocks too different from touching the shoulder? Anatomically, they seem pretty much as the same type of muscle.

If a feet fetishist touches someone's feet, is that sexual harassment?

How does the US law deal with such cases. Does the law explicitly defines how bad is putting a hand here or there? --Dikipewia (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the culture of the person being touched. Let go back to basics. This ref is a bit long winded but it should get the point across [4]. What it doesn't mention (because it is about chimpanzees) is that human females often make the first move to touching. But human males don't make a song and dance about it when they think they have been touched inappropriately. Even though they might experience it as an unwelcome contact. --Aspro (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a general article about Sexual harassment and specific articles about evolutions of sexual harassment laws in the US workplace and in US education. Unwanted touching is more inappropriate near an Erogenous zone of the body such as the Sacrum (bone behind the culturally sensitive buttock area) than on the Shoulder. Blooteuth (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question asks "is touching someone on the buttocks too different from "touching the shoulder" but of course it has not been established by any stretch of the imagination that "touching the shoulder" is acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point.--Aspro (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you prefer taking a pounding on the buttocks or a pounding on the shoulder? Llaanngg (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a series of body maps that attempt to illustrate the norms regarding touching. Broadly speaking, males are slightly more easy-going when it comes to contact, but it is highly context dependent and variable. Football players slapping each other's bums after a touchdown get a very different reaction when they try it in the shower afterwards (YMMV, of course). Matt Deres (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dikipewia -- every so often, there are stories in the news of men trying to do things to women's feet under tables in college libraries, and some of those individuals have definitely been arrested. On the other hand, in the late 19th century, some people considered it an extravagant gesture of gallantry for a man to drink champagne from a woman's shoe (few people did so, but those who did were very open about it at the time). AnonMoos (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From a legal standpoint, Sexual harassment is essentially sexual behaviour which is unwelcome, where the perp knows (or ought to know) that the recipient is finding it unwelcome. It need not involve any touching. Sexual interest (e.g. love letters, or the like) can be enough to qualify. If the person on the receiving end genuinely doesn't mind it, or enjoys it, it's not harassment. But in practice, if you're the person doing the behaviour, I suggest being VERY mindful of how the recipient is likely to be feeling. Particularly if they are subordinate to you, and thus unlikely to voice their discontent.

"Indecent assault" law in my particular jurisdiction does not specify any body parts as such. It's defined as "Assault which includes an element of indecency", or words to that effect. A form of "aggravated assault", if you like. What is or isn't considered "indecent" would be subject to the Reasonable Person test, and, in a jury trial, would be a question for the jury. The jury would be told to attempt to apply "community standards" as they perceive them, not their own personal views. Other jurisdictions, I gather, take different approaches. Some do specify certain body parts, I believe. I wouldn't personally be familiar with them. Eliyohub (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need to touch another human being who is not related to you? Unless it is part of your job, doctor, fireman, surgeon, sportsman, soldier, policeman. There is no reason for you to (intentionally) touch another human being. If you do need to feel the touch of another human being and you have no one related to you to give you the human touch, then you should legally hire a professional to do so. 148.182.26.69 (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a ridiculous thing to say - and completely unsupported by references. Humans require personal contact in order to develop and function normally. Haphephobia is the clinical name for the disorder used to describe people who share that point of view. Matt Deres (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humans do need to interact - but touching requires permission. That's true whether it's a touch on the shoulder or anywhere else. Generally, unwanted touching is a violation of personal space, even when it doesn't necessarily have a sexual context. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. If someone is stepping off the kerb into the path of an approaching car you might well grab their arm to restrain them. 86.169.56.176 (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That might be termed extraordinary circumstances. Bus stop (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said "generally". In a life-or-death situation, necessity can override ordinary cultural norms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1992–94 Crimean crisis

National Guard of Ukraine has a link to 1992–94 Crimean crisis, but that's just a redirect to the Crimea article. What's the 1992–94 Crimean crisis? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ECS LIVA Z: The page history of the redirect shows a former article [5] but the discussion at Talk:1992–94 Crimean crisis had no support for the alleged crisis. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've gone and removed the link from the National Guard of Ukraine article. What about the redirect? I'm not sure what's the policy here. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD is the way to go. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News in the United States

Where do average Americans get their news? I was reading Media of the United States and it didn't quite answer my question. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any such thing as an "average American" in this context. It varies greatly depending on age, demographics, level of education and so on. Here is an analysis from a respected research center. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DuckDuckGo has search results for Where do average Americans get their news.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] I question the validity of the concept "average American" (or any other nationality) in this context. In political and other cultural milieux, people tend somewhat towards polarised positions on whatever axes are being considered (though a minority may adopt middling positions too). The average of an extreme conservative and an extreme liberal may be middle-of-the-road, but that doesn't mean that "on average" they read a m-o-t-r newspaper. Similar conceptual errors arise when considering questions such as the "average (mean/modal/median?) amount of tax people pay, which may not be an figure that many actual individuals actually pay.

My nitpicking aside :-), the quantified range of news sources employed is indeed an interesting question: to it I would add – where do non-Americans (like myself) get their news about America? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.80.28 (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These polls ([6], [7]) from the Pew Research Center are enlightening. Increasingly, the answer is "Facebook". --47.138.161.183 (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism.org is helpful. Duckduckgo is blocked in China. Okay, what I guess I am really after is: how many Americans get their news from big, corporate media compared to smaller, more independent sources, like say, DemocracyNow!. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the first ten search results from my version of the DuckDuckGo search which I mentioned above.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/the-modern-news-consumer/ and http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/ look good. Thanks for those I'll give them a good read later on. Many thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first website I check upon waking is Drudge, which aggregates the sensational headlines with a quick turn-around and a simple format that loads quickly without a lot of clutter. I then check the aggregators RealClearScience and RealClearPolitics at lunch, and Accuweather at least once daily, or before I leave home or work if the weather is dubious.

I'll hear the news updates when driving, and sometimes listen to the traffic/weather/news-every-10-minutes station when driving if concerned about breaking news. I stopped buying the NYT in the 90's due to their biased agenda.

The straw that broke the camel's back was a human-interest story about how hard it was to be a lesbian scientist (who was either an ethnic minority or disabled, I forget which) as the lead story of the science section of the Tues. edition of the times. They had gone from objectivity to patronizing in one fell swoop.

I stopped buying any newspapers at all just after 9/11. I have had a longterm policy of avoiding the local TV news, since it is all about murders, fires and accidents. I stopped watching any TV news during the Iraq War, it was all opinion and speculation, no objective factual analysis or investigation.

Finally, I get some interesting news I might otherwise miss (often foreign or niche news) from ITN here at wikipedia. The bottom line is that in the 80's I got all my news from TV and the papers, and now I get none of it there, yet my elderly parents still get theirs from those sources and the radio. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Nightcrawler for a nifty and on-point analysis of the focus American news channels. Also, see Fox News which is where the President of the United States gets his information on foreign homeland security policies, e.g. Sweden. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nightcrawler 's subject matter hardly a new topic; I find Paddy Chayefsky & Sydney Lumet's treatment of the American news media in Network to be timeless in this regard; it still hits nerves even 40 years on. There's also Buck Henry and Gus Van Sant's dark satire To Die For, which is actually based partly on a true story. --Jayron 32 14:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you all! Very helpful indeed! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 26

Great Depression/World War II differences

what was the difference between the Great Depression and the Second World War? 86.157.244.193 (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Great Depression and World War II. MarnetteD|Talk 19:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly: a depression is a period of economic trouble and poverty, a war is a period in which countries fight each other with armies and weapons. Yep, quite some difference. The great depression was a very severe depression, causing poverty in many parts of the world, lasting from 1929 to the beginning of the second world war, which was a very severe war, lasting from 1939 to 1945, because many countries took part, 60 to 100 million people were killed and large parts of the world were left in ruins. Your textbook has more. ;) Jahoe (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most interesting questions about this section is that although WWII technically began in 1939, for the purpose of eras of U.S. history WWII is considered to have begun in 1941. Any other era whose starting date depends on how it's looked at?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

China might see WWII starting in 1937 with the Second Sino-Japanese War (not an answer you your Q, but another date range of interest for WW2). --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the Chinese government has just this year declared that the "War of Resistance Against Japanese" is now 14 years instead of 8 years - presumably to help legitimise the Communist guerilla war against the government of the time. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia guy, when I was at university, "medieval" history was designated as starting from the crowning of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor, unless looking at Britain, in which case start dates were really fuzzy and mostly a century or even two later, some even considering 1066 as the 'start'.

I also seem to recall that the end of medieval and start of early modern were cunningly designed so that both excluded the Wars of the Roses - deemed too complicated for undergraduates.

Presumably, historiography regards all of this as nonsense, but hey ho. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I was at school (in England, 1980/90s), we were taught that "medieval" ran from 1066 to the ascension of Henry VII, so it definitely included the Wars of the Roses. (This still seems to be a relatively common understanding, judging by general-level history programs, although I think the more academic notion that the early middle ages (post Roman until 1066) are medieval is becoming more popularly acknowledged). This definition I think does make sense in a British (or more accurately English) context, because both event marked major changes in the way society was ordered. But they are pretty irrelevant to the rest of Europe, and the concept of "medieval" itself isn't particularly meaningful outside of Europe, the former Roman Empire, and anywhere closely involves with those. Iapetus (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider: eras such as the "stone age", "bronze age", "iron age", and prehistory generally are defined by the presence of certain technologies, and began or ended in at different times in different places depending on when that technology was adopted there. For example, the Iron Age began in Britain about 800BC, but Greece and the Middle East and India had been Iron Age since about 1200BC. Similarly, geological eras/periods/etc are defined by geological changes, which may occur earlier in some locations than others. Iapetus (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a depression people kill themselves. In a war they kill others. I think that is about the biggest difference. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The television family drama series The Waltons which focused on a Virginia mountain family in the 1930s-1940s, was set during the Great Depression and World War II. 31.49.30.19 (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of exonym Indian for Oceanian

Are there any discussion in sources regarding James Cook's (and presumably other Europeans) use of the term Indian to refer to the indigenous people of Oceania and Australia? About how prevalent it was and how long it was used for.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is East Indies... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is -- in the 18th century, there wasn't necessarily any clear or well-defined distinction between the "East Indies" and the "South Seas", and the habit of calling inhabitants of the East Indies as "Indians" was not yet deprecated... AnonMoos (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was, but the Wikipedia article you linked itself does not state that claim and does not include anything beyond Papua New Guinea . Maybe it should be added (if that is actually in the sources).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is just OK in quality, and semi-inconsistent in one or two places, but if the matter were to be discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, it should probably be in that article. The linguistic similarities between Oceanic languages were fairly obvious to anyone who was paying attention, so I really don't know why a term used to describe northern coastal New Guineans wouldn't be extended to Melanesians, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I can find is that our disambiguation page Indian says that "Indian" was used for Aboriginal Australians until the 19th century. Loraof (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary shows the term used thus ("An indigenous inhabitant of Australia, New Zealand, or the Pacific Islands. Now hist. and rare.") from 1769 to 1872. That is, that is the range of dates of their collected examples. The first example is from Captain Cook's diary for Oct 9 1769; he uses "the Indians" to mean the Maori people. They also have Joseph Banks on the same voyage using it in 1770 for indigenous Australians. In 1790, William Bligh used the term in his account of the mutiny near Tahiti; and there is another Australian reference dated 1830. However note, that the last example, dated 1872, explicitly says the term was already deprecated by then: "The ‘aborigines’, as they are now styled... Captain Cook would in his older time have called ‘Indians’." 174.88.10.107 (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 September 29#Use of 'Indian' to refer not only to natives of the Americas, but other indigenes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 27

U.S. Federal Law and State-level diplomatic immunity

In Medellín v. Texas the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is not "self-executing". Congress may have the power to pass laws implementing the obligations of the Convention. But the mere ratification of the Convention does not make it binding on the states. This would seem to throw doubt on the entire Vienna Convention in U.S. law, not just the particular clause in question in that case (consular notification when a foreign citizen is arrested).

My question, given this, is: Which Federal Statute, if any, obliges State (and county/city) level authorities to respect Diplomatic Immunity (a Vienna Convention requirement)? Or is there no such statute?

Second question: If such a Statute exists, under which of the enumerated powers of Congress was it passed? Presumably the Treaty Clause? Or a different power? I presume Congress has power over foreign affairs, but is that "treaty clause", or something else? Eliyohub (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the entire 51 page document, but this may be a place for you to start your research. --Jayron 32 00:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eliyohub: There are multiple Vienna Conventions: the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (which provides for diplomatic immunity), and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties are among the more notable. While the consular one is not self-executing, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations one almost cetainly is.

The backdrop is the Supremacy Clause, which binds state courts to respect treaties made under the authority of the United States: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The U.S. Supreme Court has never directly addressed the issue you raised, but it did address a similar issue in Nielsen v. Johnson, 279 U.S. 47 (1929). That case dealt with the State of Iowa imposing an inheritance tax on a Danish citizen who died in Iowa, leaving his estate to a Danish citizen. An 1826 treaty between the United States and Denmark provided explicitly for tax immunity. The Supreme Court decided that Iowa could not impose the tax because it would violate the treaty: "And as the treaty-making power is independent of and superior to the legislative power of the states, the meaning of treaty provisions so construed is not restricted by any necessity of avoiding possible conflict with state legislation and when so ascertained must prevail over inconsistent state enactments."

The diplomatic immunity issue has been directly addressed by lower federal courts. In Brzak v. United Nations (2010), which was of course post-Medellín, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations was self-executing and applied in American courts without implementing legislation. The full text of that decision is here. Likewise, in United States v. Enger (1978), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations was self-executing. Judge Lacey wrote: "Its detailed provisions, and the absence of language requiring implementing legislation, lead me to hold that it is a self-executing treaty. ... Thus, upon entry into force, it at once became operative as domestic law of the United States." The full text of the decision is here. Neutrality^talk 03:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You

When people are referring to YOU, are they talking about your brain or your body? It seems that a person who has lost a part of himself by amputation or surgery is still regarded as a complete person. Maybe only the brain is important? Or maybe they are referring to your consciousness? But what about a person who has had a major brain injury, damages his prefrontal cortex, and completely changes his personality or has no recollections of the past? In this case, is this person the same person as before or a different person even though the body is the same? Or maybe the brain is behaving abnormally and "telling" the consciousness to commit suicide, but when the person holds his breath for a really long time, the brain forces the person to breathe. So, somehow, the brain is resistant to suicide, but "you" (whoever you are) want to commit suicide. Then, who are you if the brain or the organs that make up you are not you? Has anybody observed this before? Is there a word to describe this phenomenon? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your question addresses two perspectives—that of the self and that of another person. As regards another person, I think another person is unlikely to pay sufficient attention to you to regard your separate components as distinct. But from the perspective of oneself, perception of multiple "persons" is a reasonable possibility. At one moment we may perceive ourselves as occupying a significant position at odds with a significant position occupied at a different time. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50.4.236.254 -- You seem to be asking your question from a perspective of dualism which others may not share... AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"You" is really nothing more than the grammatical pronoun to be used when speaking to another person about himself or herself. It makes no judgement about that othjer person, but simply identifies him or her as the one being addressed. Discussions about an individuals self-identity are really about the "me" - try Psychology of self as a starting point. Wymspen (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sufferers from schizophrenia may have several personalities which are discrete. From the point of view of the persona they are assuming the others are "you". 86.169.56.176 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's Dissociative identity disorder you're talking about. Not the same condition as schizophrenia, although they're often confused in the public mind. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article self which will give you some leads on these questions, and a more detailed one on consciousness. I think these will help you know more about the questions you are interested in. Just on the "you", though. If I say "you" to a person who is in the room, I am saying it to someone who I know is capable of listening. They also have a body but I am addressing myself to the hearing and understanding part (although that is a dualist way of talking). I can also say "you" to someone on the telephone or the Internet, a newborn, a sleeping person, a cat, a car, or a computer. Some of these entities may communicate back. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Peter & Co.

Hello, as explained on the talk page, I saw the need to make appropriate changes in the introductory section as to the anachronistic use of the title Pope. Consequently, I would like to ask for your advice for how to deal systematically with the respective articles about the successors in the office of Bishop of Rome, since these articles also use the title of Pope as if it were the most natural thing in the world... Hoping for your understanding--Hubon (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In another subject-matter area, what was known at the time as the "AFL-NFL World Championship Game" is now titled Super Bowl I...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the NFL itself was originally called the American Professional Football Association. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

???--Hubon (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hubon -- I don't see how Baseball Bugs' comment is too relevant, but mine is -- it's another act of "retroactive institutionalization". If Wikipedia refused to recognize the name "Super Bowl I" and insisted on calling it only the "AFL-NFL World Championship Game of 1967", then we'd be taking a position that today's NFL has no current connection with it or custody over that event to be able to retroactively rename it. Similarly, if we refused to call St. Peter a pope, then Wikipedia would be taking a strongly-expressed position that the Roman Catholic church has no meaningful connection or continuity with him -- which sounds like a very definite point of view to me... AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is all also explained at the article Pope. Under Roman Catholic doctrine, the Pope is the temporal and spiritual head of the followers of Christ, which derives from St. Peter being tapped as Christ's chosen successor to lead his church after he was gone. Since a) Peter was, by tradition and scriptural interpretation Christ's successor as leader of Christ's followers and b) The Pope is the title given by the Roman Catholic Church to the leader of Christ's followers, it follows that Peter was the first Pope. It's a simple syllogism. Now, that doesn't mean that Peter called himself pope, or indeed anyone did, the formalization of the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Christian church took centuries to occur, and is not recognized by much of Christianity through the various schisms and protestant revolutions and the like. See History of the papacy, Primacy of Peter, Papal primacy for more background reading. --Jayron 32 14:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: For reasons of transparency, I would kindly ask anyone willing to join in this discussion to do that on Talk:Saint Peter. Thank your for your cooperation.--Hubon (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Pass?

I have seen the film "Hall Pass", it is about a pair of marriages that come up with a strange deal: the wife gives the husband a "hall pass", a week where he is allowed to do whatever he wants, even have sex with other women, and it wouldn't count as cheating. Like some sort of vacation from the marriage.

Are there people in the real world doing this king of thing, or was it something completely made-up for the film? Cambalachero (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See open marriage and polyamory. --Jayron 32 16:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Large error in List of US Presidents page

I just looked something up on the List of Presidents of the United States by date and place of birth and the table is WAY out of order.

I'd fix it myself, but I'm at work on a deadline and may not remember to come back to it. I don't know if there's a provision to flag this sort of thing so someone else can fix it -- I get that y'all are volunteers -- but if so, can you let that someone know?

(If it's not clear, for example, Trump is not the 41st President. The order is totally out of whack.)

Thanks, -John — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreatyOak (talk • contribs) 18:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ranking you are seeing is that of date of birth. So Trump was born before Clinton, GW Bush and Obama. The order is correct. And there are 44 people listed because of that guy who got elected twice. It's a strange way to list things, but that's Wikipedia for you. The normal list is at List of Presidents of the United States. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, it isn't Wikipedia. The official convention for numbering Presidents was established LONG before Wikipedia ever existed. Wikipedia had nothing to do with it. See Here where it notes that the convention had existed at least as far back as Harry S Truman who complained about the convention, which only proves that the convention was well established as far back as 60 years before Wikipedia even existed. So no, Wikipedia has nothing to do with it; as you should be aware, Wikipedia does not create information, it reports it, and the information that Cleveland gets counted twice has existed for a LONG damn time, and is well established by reliable sources. Wikipedia sure as hell isn't going to change that. --Jayron 32 19:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the subject on newspapers.com (a pay site), I randomly selected "30th president" to see what would come up, and the first item the search engine found was from March 1929, a debate over whether Hoover was the 30th or 31st. It seems that it was not standardized at that time, but it was certainly on the radar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to ranking presidents by date of birth, which is a very Wikipedia thing, causing reactions such as this one. Are there any reliable sources which place Trump at number 41? They don't seem thick on the ground. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Column 1 clearly says "birth order", but it could be confusing. Maybe there should be a separate column that gives the "official" president chronological number. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The birthdate of every President is clearly cited to reliable sources. --Jayron 32 19:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's in question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how a column clearly headed "Birth order", in a table that is headed List of Presidents of the United States by date and place of birth could be interpreted as anything but the order in which the presidents were born. Now, clearly, the OP has misinterpreted it; but one misinterpretation does not constitute a badly labelled table.

That said, I think the title of the article is misleading. The primary order is order of birth. All the other columns - including place of birth - are sortable; but the title says nothing about state of birth, president's name, or term of office in the title, yet they're all readily available too. I'm considering moving it to List of Presidents of the United States by date of birth-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That table is sortable in various ways, but its title indicates that it's correct. If you want just a straight list of our 45 presidents, see List of Presidents of the United States. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, almost 22 years between Carter and Trump: the biggest gap yet, and unlikely to be filled in future. I wonder whether any prominent candidates were born between 1924 and 1946. —Tamfang (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Eldridge Cleaver was born in 1935, John G. Schmitz was born in 1930, Roger MacBride was born in 1929, Peter Camejo was born in 1939, Ed Clark was born in 1930, Walter Mondale was born in 1928, David Bergland was born in 1935, Michael Dukakis was born in 1933, Ron Paul was born in 1935, Ross Perot was born in 1930, Andre Marrou was born in 1938, Ralph Nader was born in 1934, Harry Browne was born in 1933, Howard Phillips was born in 1941, Pat Buchanan was born in 1938, John Kerry was born in 1943, John McCain was born in 1936, and Virgil Goode was born in 1946. These were the most prominent candidates I could find, though I may have overlooked someone. Dimadick (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Van Buren was the first to have been an American citizen by birth. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angata

When did Angata die? Additional sources needed to pinpoint for precise death date. This states: "The only two occasions on which Katherine was part of a large social gathering were funerals: one for a friend's child and, on January 29, 1915, the other for Angata. Angata's funeral service took place in the village church."[8] while Katherine Routledge claims she died six months after their meeting something (not specifically dated either) in 1914. Now I just need some help to know if the death occurred in December or January? I mean I can guess but I need help finding a exact source with a date or a month. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 28

Mana Expedition to Easter Island

Where are the original photographs of the Mana Expedition to Easter Island held at the present? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Katherine Routledge and William Scoresby Routledge articles, William (having survived Katherine) deposited most of the "artifacts" from this and other expeditions in the Pitt Rivers and the British Museum, and her papers to the Royal Geographical Society, which in due course acquired his as well. I'm sure contacting those three institutions directly would yield an answer. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.83.127 (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I find the answers by IP users most helpful even though other vandal IPs may be a nuisance for the admins here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if Routledge took the photographs on the expedition or did another member of the expedition take the photographs. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of professors being conservative

Was there ever a time when the majority of professors in United States were conservative? -- 07:50, 28 March 2017 Uncle dan is home

See the article Liberal bias in academia. It also really depends on what you mean by conservative. Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of my history professors quipped that when he started teaching (in the 50s) he was considered a liberal... by the 60s he was derided as being a conservative... and by the 80s he was back to being seen as liberal again. He said his views never changed... what changed were the political views of his students, and how his students reacted to his views. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Yes I can see that happening quite easily :) Dmcq (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle_dan_is_home -- I strongly doubt whether there is much useful statistical information more than a few decades old, but in the late 19th century, it seems like a lot of academics were influenced by Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner, and so would have been opposed to just about all attempts of government to affect or "reform" the economic system. According to Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought: "In the three decades after the Civil War, it was impossible to be active in any field of intellectual work without mastering Spencer. Almost every American philosophical thinker of first or second rank... had to reckon with Spencer at some time. He had a vital influence on most of the founders of American sociology..." -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I really don't know why "Social Darwinism in American Thought" is a redlink, since it's been a reasonably influential book for 70 years... AnonMoos (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you exactly why. It may well be on various people's lists of articles to write, but nobody has yet got around to writing it. Or maybe nobody has ever planned to write it because they all assume, like you, that someone else would be doing it. In the end, it comes down to YOU. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the responsibility is mine, since I don't feel particularly qualified to write an article on the book, and I only found out yesterday that there isn't an article on the book. I just thought that it's a slightly odd gap after 15 years... AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. We do have an article on a 1997 book "Social Darwinism in European and American Thought 1860-1945" with a similar title by a different author. It may be a good book, but I doubt that it's had remotely the same intellectual influence as the original Richard Hofstadter book, so there seems to be a certain recentism bias... AnonMoos (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why Lee Harvey Oswald's tax records are classified?

Resolved

If the Warren Commission, and HSCA believed he was acting alone, then under what reasoning his tax records were classified? I am trying to ask here is, what explanation did these committees provide to make these records classified? —usernamekiran (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Tax return (United States), that information is confidential. More specifically, were they discussed anywhere in the Warren Report or House Select Committee report? And besides that, how do you know there were any? He only got back in 1962. Did he file one for 1962? He wouldn't have filed for 1963, being dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the OP get his/her information that his tax records are classified? --Jayron 32 15:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran -- there's a difference between being "classified" in the sense of a national security secrecy classification, and merely being personal and confidential information (like all unreleased income tax returns, or census forms less than 72 years old). Is there any indication that his tax returns are "classified" in the strict meaning of this word? AnonMoos (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The OP is assuming facts not in evidence. The OP also appears to be a conspiracy theorist, so that may be why he's asking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this information has been released: [9]. As to the rest, the OP may have been influenced by this: [10] 81.151.128.189 (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

erm, he did file tax assessment in 1962. But these tax records have been withheld.
@Baseball Bugs: I've studied JFK assassination extensively, and I still do. But I'm not a conspiracy theorist. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "tax assessment"? That sounds like property tax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What others seem to be saying is that it isn't a case of the US government making a special effort to "withhold" Oswald's returns.... everyone's tax returns are considered confidential for a certain amount of time, and are thus unavailable for research. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask, as a practical matter, who would have the power to obtain or authorise the release of a dead person's confidential records? The Next of kin? The executor of the estate? Regardless of the chances of them saying "yes", if the OP wanted to ask, whom would Oswald's records belong to, such that s/he could request them from the IRS and give a copy to the OP, if they were so minded? Eliyohub (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

26 U.S. Code § 6103: is relevant here. Quoting relevant passages:
(a) [no one] shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee or otherwise or under the provisions of this section (does not include exceptions for people releasing information to placate conspiracy theories)

(c) The Secretary may...disclose the return of any taxpayer...to such person or persons as the taxpayer may designate in a request for or consent to such disclosure.

(e)(1) The return of a person shall, upon written request, be open to inspection by or disclosure to: that individual, the spouse of that individual [under certain conditions] and the child of that individual (or such child’s legal representative) [under certain conditions]
The rest of the document consists of specific procedures for disclosing the information to various agencies for specific purposes. It does not appear to have any expiration for general confidentiality; that is unlike census records, which become publicly available after 72 years, tax records never become public. This is standard procedure, and is not being done specifically for Oswald. The only people who may release the information are the President themselves, and under specified circumstances "the Secretary" (which is vague in this section, but I presume is the United States Secretary of the Treasury) may release the information to the filers designee (presumably through power of attorney), a spouse, or a child. There is no provision under, say, the Freedom of Information Act (United States) for someone not so related to the filer to request and expect a tax return. --Jayron 32 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is some provision for bypassing the confidentiality. There are a few tax records included in the Warren Commission. There are other instances where someone's tax records were disclosed (even though not to "public") to investigating angencirs, and in some instances the tax records were made public. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but I noted exactly that. There's a LONG list of disclosure procedures to various agencies and for various reasons; but there are no provisions for disclosure to the public as a matter of course. --Jayron 32 18:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laws for police powers in the US

Afternoon (for me anyway!),

In the UK, a large proportion of police powers stem from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (as well as some subsequent legislation like the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, and a few others including an upcoming Policing and Crime Act 2017.

Is there an equivalent of PACE for law enforcement in the United States? A body of legislation which contains the majority of police powers in one act/bill/whatever you call it there? If so, if there a copy of it online, if there is an American version of legislation.gov.uk.

Regards,

2A02:C7D:7B04:BE00:958D:5473:D2E5:F255 (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, there are 50 states, each with their own police forces which are locally regulated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that must cause issues, you would imagine. Is there any notable example of one comprehensive piece of legislation for a particular force, that from which - say - the NYPD derives its powers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:7B04:BE00:958D:5473:D2E5:F255 (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could read Law enforcement in the United States. The NYPD is locally controlled. The Fed may make their services available to local police forces to aid investigations, and also to hear civil rights complaints and the like, which are matters of federal law. But otherwise, each state and city will have its own laws about how the police departments operate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick survey of the articles on the NYPD, the Chicago PD, the LAPD and the FBI leads me to the conclusion that they were mostly created by executive action, rather than by an Act of the relevant legislature. For example, the FBI was created by the Attorney General while Congress was in recess.. However, the NYPD was created by the Municipal Police Act in 1845. Rojomoke (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a DOJ article that describes more fully what federal restrictions exist on local police departments.[11] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a body that would codify good practice? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best practices are generally codified by accreditation agencies, such as Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies or lobbying groups such as the National Criminal Justice Association. --Jayron 32 15:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is this place

It is in relation to a reference in Werner Weber who worked here in 1951. Cant find it. It is some kind of German advanced school. Cant find the Dr Brechtefeld anywhere. I've looked all over the shop. Weber was a heavy duty mathematician and cryptographer. End of his carer I guess, but can't locate it.

Institut Dr. Brechtefeld" in Hamburg scope_creep (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The address for that school is given as Holzdamm 36, Hamburg. That later appears as the address of a different school, which now appears to have moved round the corner. The building now appears to be either offices or residential. By the way, the link should be Werner Weber (mathematician) - the one you picked is a Swiss canoeist. Wymspen (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing damages in defamation case - pre-lawsuit situation? Or post-lawsuit?

(Obligatory "not legal advice" notice: I do not consider this a "legal advice" question, as it does not relate to what is or isn't legal, in either a criminal or civil sense - merely how damages are calculated. Nor can I see it influencing any reader's actions, either in or out of a courtroom).

My question relates mostly to jurisdictions outside the United States, as the requirement to prove Actual Malice is a massive obstacle to defamation lawsuits in the U.S., which does not exist anywhere else in the world, to my limited knowledge. However, U.S. precedent or case law on this question would be of interest to me too.

It has often been pointed out that when someone sues for defamation, they often attract significant attention to the very material they are suing over. The so-called Streisand effect is a specific example, but the issue is broader. Take this common situation:

A relatively anonymous individual sets up a relatively obscure blog or facebook page. The page attacks a prominent individual with defamatory material. The page attracts few readers, and thus, limited damage is done to the victim's reputation.

The prominent victim then sends the blogger a Cease and desist letter, which the blogger refuses to comply with.

The victim then sues. Given the victim is high-profile, the lawsuit gets significant attention in the mainstream media and elsewhere. Readers curious to "see for themselves" what the fuss is about, now flock to this previously obscure blog / facebook page. The blog's readership swells massively - often by an order of magnitude. The page or blog can now easily have fifty times as many readers as it did previously. Readers which it almost certainly would never have attracted, had the victim not sued.

If a Judge finds that the material is indeed defamatory, on which basis would they go about calculating damages:

On the pre-lawsuit situation, where the defamatory material had a limited audience, and thus inflicted limited damage on the person's reputation?

Or on the post-lawsuit situation, where, as a result of the lawsuit itself, and the associated publicity, the defamatory material has now been seen by a massively larger audience, and thus the damage to the victim's reputation is far greater?

@John M Baker: and @Newyorkbrad:, as our resident lawyers, do you have any thoughts on this? Anyone else have any legislation, case law, or precedent to quote on this question? Eliyohub (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my area, but I don't really see an argument for excluding post-filing damages. Defamation law is included to cover even future damages, if non-speculative. In your example, the blogger was on notice of the defamatory nature of the material, but continued to disseminate it to a wide audience. The defendant cannot now be heard to complain that a smaller audience was intended. In addition, the defamation lawsuit, if successful, will in theory give the plaintiff a complete remedy (assuming the defendant is not judgment-proof), in the form of corrective information and damages. This is really different from the Streisand effect, where the plaintiff does not want any disclosure at all and the plaintiff's efforts to seek a remedy are self-negating. John M Baker (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French presidential election 2017 quebec and francafrique

What are the policies of each candidates on the Quebec sovereignty issues and Francafrique issues? Donmust90 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, suggest you read the French wikipedia article. Beneath each campaign logo is a small text link "Positions" which will take you to summaries of what is known of the published positions of each candidate. At least Cheminade, Dupont-Aignan, Fillon and Le Pen have mentioned Africa. Le Pen's article has a reference to the lukewarm reception she received in Quebec. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effectiveness of suicide prevention hotlines

I know suicide prevention hotlines are over the place, but a long time ago, one of my instructors said that suicides are actually very rare. If suicides are rare among the total population, then how can one estimate the effectiveness of suicide prevention strategies, let alone the effectiveness of specific hotlines? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide prevention hotlines are commercial companies. Their effectiveness is measured in dollars. Jahoe (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are not for-profit companies though. A lot of them, such as National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, are non-profits funded or entirely run by governmental organizations. They are not expected to provide an obvious return on investment. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) In fact, many crisis hotline services are nonprofits funded by donations or government grants, at least occasionally operated directly by governments. Citations are needed for the claim that "their effectiveness is measured in dollars". — Lomn 20:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing the effectiveness of preventative measures is very difficult. Generally, social scientists will attempt to find natural experiments that model the effect in question. For instance, suppose that Colorado and Wyoming had similar suicide rates, controlled for various factors, and that Colorado (but not Wyoming) implemented and promoted a widespread anti-suicide hotline. Scientists could examine the change in suicide rates in Colorado as opposed to the change in rates in Wyoming to estimate the efficacy of the new hotline. — Lomn 20:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer your question, no one really knows. The most effective way to prevent suicide is to restrict access to the means of suicide. This means keeping guns and potentially lethal drugs away from at-risk persons, and setting up fencing or suicide nets around lethal jumping points. "Awareness programs" in schools have a smaller but measurable effect. Crisis hotlines, however, are very hard to study. You can't control who calls, it can be challenging to do followup, and any sort of controlled study of suicide hotlines where you turned them off for certain parts of the country, or at certain times, would be unethical. The effect size is also believed to be rather small, so it's hard to assign causation to any change in suicide rates after a new hotline is launched. The clearest thing that can be said is, the rate of calls to hotlines does go up with awareness programs [12]. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole psychiatric field dedicated to the study of suicide - suicidology - and how to prevent it - suicide prevention. There are some ways of testing the effectiveness of an intervention. You can measure the effect on the suicide rate after you put a sign with instructions and a telephone directly connected to a crisis hotline, for example. This has been done on the Golden Gate Bridge and Niagara Falls State Park. You could also ask for a feedback from the callers about how they feel after the call. But assessing pain, any pain, including psychological pain is based on self-reports and therefore pretty shaky. This PsychCentral article might provide more links about how suicide hotlines are evaluated. Hofhof (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to determine a death is actually a suicide?

I know the coroner does the job of determining the death, but how to tell if the person has killed himself through some kind of unusual procedure? Maybe a person is extremely depressed and disappointed with his life, and with no close friends or close living relatives, he decides to kill himself slowly by eating junk food until he becomes morbidly obese and succumbs to diabetes or heart disease. Or, he may run away from society and attempt to live off wild plants until nutritional deficiencies take his life. So, would the physical reason (morbid obesity) be more important or the mental reason? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You left out cigarettes, but same idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have a (poor) article at Self-destructive behavior. You might use that term as the starting point for a search of PubMed for literature on the subject. Broadly, suicide requires intent. A good medical examiner or coroner will only declare intent insofar as it is obvious from the evidence. The one place I can think of this coming up is lawsuits over alleged life insurance scams, wherein the policy had prohibited payout in the event of suicide. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found this interesting court case, in which the California Supreme Court ruled that a death-by-self-destructive-act is not to be treated as such legally if the victim was "unable to understand the physical nature and consequences of his act", but it can be treated as a suicide even if the victim "was unable to control his conduct and that the act therefore was the result of an irresistible impulse". There are a number of other legal opinions in this domain, but in every case it appears to be suicide by some immediate method. There are plenty of people asking whether shortening one's lifespan by self-destructive behavior is suicide, but this does not appear to have arisen as a legal issue as far as I can tell. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The key question would be how or if it's possible to tell if self-destructive behavior is actually suicidal behavior. Johnny Carson was a lifelong smoker, and he once told Ed McMahon, "These things are killing me." Which they were, and he died from emphysema. But that doesn't mean he had a lifelong death wish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are six Death Wish movies and Wikipedia has six causes of death for Charles Bronson. All perfectly natural. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:11, March 29, 2017 (UTC)

As they say: smoking is suicide by installments. For your life insurance company your official cause of death would be cancer. Your health insurer might have a clause about this to bail out from a cancer treatment though. Hofhof (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except it isn't. Suicide is about intent. If my goal is to end my life right now, that's called "suicide". If my goal is to get a drug into my body because I like how it makes me feel, then it isn't suicide by any definition. "May increase the chance of death by cancer many years down the road" is not "suicide" as well. Smoking is a nasty habit ^{[original research?]} and foul and disgusting ^{[original research?]} but calling it "suicide" is propaganda that stretches the meaning of words beyond reason. --Jayron 32 14:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overdosing on heroin is apparently homicide in a patch of Pennsylvania now, though this guy disagrees with the coroner. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:11, March 29, 2017 (UTC)

Individual instances of stupidity do not change the general meaning of words or concepts. --Jayron 32 15:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" it isn't suicide by any definition": actually it is. Obviously, it isn't suicide according to the denotative meaning, and it won't appear as cause of death in law, medicine, or statistics. The word, however, has other ancillary meanings: "The destruction or ruin of one's own interests: It is professional suicide to involve oneself in illegal practices" or mine above "smoking is suicide by installments."- Hofhof (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're all dying of something. Under your definition "suicide by installments" is "life". When you use a word for emotional impact rather than for precise communication, that's propaganda. --Jayron 32 18:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and I'm OK with that. More exactly it's anti-tobacco propaganda.Hofhof (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even more exactly, it's anti-smoking. And if you think this issue is something new, the song "Smoke! Smoke! Smoke! (That Cigarette)" just had it's 70th anniversary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair in the other direction, smoking (and other tobacco use) is pretty fucking unhealthy by a wide consensus. It doesn't need to be called "suicide" as a means of scare tactics. Propaganda for the right ends is still propaganda. Spades should be called spades. --Jayron 32 23:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't legally qualify as suicide, especially as it's actually an addiction that is hard to conquer. Thinking also of Roger Miller, who died at 56 from the effects of his lifelong cigarette habit. He even wrote a song about it, "A Man Can't Quit". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 29

Is TV and film depiction of racial gangs in prison accurate?

Are prisons in America are divided along racial lines, white, black and latino? And does virtually everybody in prison join one of those, depending on their race? And is the white gang always white supremacist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.187.75 (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that prison life on TV is a lot more interesting than actual prison life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In North America, maybe. San Antonio Prison looks pretty sweet. So does Tocorón. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, March 29, 2017 (UTC)

There are many distinct prisons in America, and many separate depictions of them in art. But generally speaking, prison gangs in the United States do tend to divide (and be depicted as dividing) by race, and each gang typically thinks it's the best one. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, March 29, 2017 (UTC)

If you believe a guy selling a book on ways to survive without joining a gang, there are ways to survive without joining a gang. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, March 29, 2017 (UTC)

Most dramatic incidents which appear in TV shows (whether about prisons or any other aspect of human life) are things which have occurred in reality. The big difference is that in reality the occasional dramatic incidents will be separated by long periods of uninteresting normality, which would not make very good TV programmes. Wymspen (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a really long list of fictional tropes about it on TV Tropes - [13]. You can compare it to real testimonies in Prison Talk, which is a prisoner support forum, mostly for relatives of prisoners. Basically fiction is about drama and action. Real prison life is boredom and dealing with the legal system. Hofhof (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in my limited experience, the dangerous ones are not necessarily the openly violent or aggressive prisoners. Gang leaders can appear to be very quiet and well behaved. Yet everyone in the prison knows who really calls the shots behind the scenes.

For a football analogy (for you Englishmen out there), the most dangerous hooligans are often the ones who dress casually - not those who openly parade their team colours. Eliyohub (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A TV reality programme was based on this. You can watch at [14], the programme guide is at [15] and the review is at [16]. 86.169.56.176 (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit and the Irish border

From my reading of the online press (examples: [17], [18]) and the article 50 withdrawal letter from Theresa May (cf. bullet point v.), I see concerns that the "hard border" between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland may come back after the UK leaves the EU.

I fail to understand how this could happen since, as far as I can tell, none wants that to happen nor has proposed reasons to reinstate the border. What am I missing? I made a fair effort to escape my media bubble but I litterally could not find anyone calling for such a border. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an argument that one of the reasons for the Brexit vote is concern over the lack of control over EU immigration into the UK. If there were no hard border with Eire, EU citizens could exercise their right to travel to Eire, cross the no-border into Northern Ireland and then, should they wish, pass directly into mainland Great Britain. So no border with Eire means no control on EU immigration to the UK.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They would have to hide somehow. There might be a consequent uptick in the number of Muhammad O'Reillys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is that they will not have to hide. They will simply take a plane from e.g. Warsaw to Dublin, a bus to Belfast, and a plane to London. Good luck to them, I say. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another concern is to do with the European Union Customs Union. If Britain, as seems likely, leaves the customs union then tariffs would apply to cross-border trade. Not to police the Northern Ireland border would lead to an open door into Europe via the UK, and into the UK via Ireland, with consequent loss of revenues, and loss of control over standards of imported goods. DuncanHill (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, both arguments look at least plausible, but I am going to tag you with ^{[citation needed]}. Do you have a link for a politician / activist group making either argument? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OP, User:Phil Holmes has articulated the main reason why it is felt that a hard(er) border might be one solution if the UK is to obtain control over migration from the EU. Other solutions include imposing border checks on movements from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK - which already exists in some form (Operation Gull - see the report cited below). You asked for citations, I suggest reading the coverage in the House of Lords report on Brexit and UK-Ireland relations, which is both fairly current and somewhat balanced. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll probably return to the 1980s situation, where there was a fairly well inspected internal border between NI and the UK mainland. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any questions of what will happen after Brexit will always be answered with "We don't know yet", as nothing was planned. Fgf10 (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do know that a border will be needed somewhere if the Republic of Ireland is in the EU and England is not, and the most likely place is on the border with Northern Ireland. But as Fgf10 says anything could happen, for instance if Scotland voted for independence then a tie up with the Republic so both communities in Northern Ireland could feel safe leaving as well would be on the cards and the border would be the Scottish border. Still a border though and still a pile of bother.. Dmcq (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behold WP:RD/G, which says The reference desk is not a place to debate controversial subjects.

As there is no rational reason for Brexit, it would be a mistake to assume that there are rational solutions to its problems. There will be unintended consequences, often damaging ones. Just today the Welsh (who voted for Brexit, in one infamous Radio 4 vox pop very clearly to keep brown people out - despite Wales being one of the whitest parts of the country) heard calls that the planned M4 relief road might now need to charge tolls.[19] Much of Wales previous road improvement has been EU funded. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please... no. Were I British I would surely be on the same board politically, as would 90+% of Wikipedians, but that was not an answer to my question. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Job Titles

Who makes job titles? I don't get why there are "Sales Associate I" and "Sales Associate II", why "boss" is never a job title while "supervisor" or "manager" is, and why people make distinctions between "Senior Research Scientist" and "Research Scientist". What if you are self-employed? Do you get to make up your own job title, like "Big Boss"? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the government, other times company bureaucrats. I doubt in most places there are any legal qualifications required. A "Senior Research Scientist" probably makes more money and has more perks than a mere "Research Scientist". If you're your own boss, you can be the "Intergalactic Job Titler Extraordinaire". However, it may have an impact on your resume/job prospects, as this Wall Street Journal article notes. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I once knew someone who owned a company which had a total of four employees including himself. His business card said "president". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See International Standard Classification of Occupations. Organizations are not bound to abide by it, but the system was established to provide standardization. YMMV with regard to whether or not any particular organization follows it, and how closely it does. A related concept to job title is pay grade, and many organizations tie certain job titles to certain pay grades. --Jayron 32 23:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of people who proudly tell everyone they meet that they are founder and CEO of a company, without mentioning said company has one employee and makes no money. To answer the question, yeah, you can call yourself almost anything, although certain titles have legal protection, such as physician, lawyer, etc. Basically deception-by-title is sometimes prohibited. Your title can correlate to some rights, though. Case in point, for a long time in the US, managers were not legally entitled to overtime pay, unlike those they managed. I can't find a source right now, but I recall a certain retailer attempting to exempt its employees from overtime rules by just promoting everyone, but the courts or regulators saw through the ruse. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stories vs Reality

In stories, it seems that good and evil are usually clearly defined. There is the protagonist, someone you're supposed to relate to or root for, and there is the antagonist, the bad guy, the guy you want gone. But in real life, these things don't seem to be so clearly defined. Tribe A may attack Tribe B for the little patch of fertile soil. If Tribe A wins, it claims everything. If Tribe B wins, it claims everything. Tribe A wins in the battle for having superior technology and kills the people in Tribe B and enslaves the surviving people who surrender. Now, who are you supposed to root for? The losing Tribe B who is dead or the winning Tribe A who kills and enslaves survivors of Tribe B? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who says you have to root for anybody? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bugs, I'm afraid that we, at the reference desk, cannot provide you with sources that tell you how you are supposed to read and interpret literature for yourself. The individual consumer of art is left to find their own meaning, and no one else can really do that for you. --Jayron 32 23:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If by stories you mean fiction, there is not much uniformity in depiction either. :

The protagonist is the main character, the centre of the story. He/she is not necessarily a heroic or remotely positive character. And even some "heroes" seem to perform less than heroic acts, depending on their motivation. For some examples:
- Scarlett O'Hara is the protagonist of the novel Gone with the Wind (1936). Part way through the novel, the wealthy heiress finds herself mostly bankrupt and having to feed and protect her surviving family. In order to do so, she marries two different husbands for their money, increasingly uses and manipulates people, and alienates former allies. By the end of the novel, she buries her only true friend, is estranged from the only husband who truly loved her, and finds herself alone.
- Hercule Poirot is the protagonist of the novel Murder on the Orient Express (1934). He investigates the violent murder of "Samuel Ratchett" (a man using an alias) who was knifed to death in his bed. He finds that 13 different people collaborated in the murder, because Ratchett was a child murderer who they blamed for ruining their lives. They all wanted revenge. Poirot sympathizes with them, lets them get away with murder, and covers their tracks to ensure that they will not get arrested.
- Michael Rogers is the protagonist of the novel Endless Night (1967). An apparently likable man, he marries a wealthy woman for love. When his wife dies suddenly, he is the main suspect and seems to be surrounded by mysterious deaths. Plot twists in the final chapters reveal that Rogers killed his own wife, his mistress, and several other people. The man is a serial killer of questionable sanity.
- Edmond Dantès is the protagonist of the novel The Count of Monte Cristo (1844). An initially kind and naive man who gets caught in a conspiracy, he is betrayed by people he trusts and becomes a political prisoner. After escaping prison and amassing a fortune, he sets out to ruin the lives of the people who betrayed him. In the process he manipulates innocent people and the families of his enemies, and pushes people into bankruptcy, despair, insanity, and suicide. He wants revenge and the ends justify the means.
- Sherlock Holmes is the protagonist of the short story A Case of Identity (1891). He is hired by a woman to locate her missing fiancé Hosmer Angel. He soon discovers that there is no Hosmer Angel, and that it was an identity used by the woman's wicked stepfather to seduce and manipulate her. Holmes chooses to not tell the woman the truth about her fiancé/stepfather and she wastes away her life waiting for "Angel"'s return.
The antagonist represents the opposition to the protagonist, an enemy or rival. He/she/it does not have to be villainous or malicious. They may have similar or identical motives to the protagonist, or to be acting for heroic reasons. For some examples:
- Javert is the primary antagonist of the novel Les Misérables (1862). He is a law enforcement agent and eventually a police inspector who makes it his life's goal to arrest escaped convict Jean Valjean. Javert feels that he is serving the law and devotes himself to guarding a society which looks down on him. He becomes a self-righteous fanatic who knows no boundaries. By the end of his story arc, Javert learns that Valjean is both a criminal and a kind person, that the law which he has served is not infallible and may be unjust, and that he himself is not irreproachable. He can not live with the revelation and commits suicide. Dimadick (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 30

Great Clearances

Am reading "The Great Mortality" (John Kelly) and he refers to the Great Clearances, I quote: "As the population went up, the forests came down. During the Great Clearances of the 12th and 13th centuries, Europeans burst out of the enormous woodlands that had held them prisoner since the Dark Ages..." I looked for Great Clearances on wikipedia, but there's just a Chinese coastal evacuation, singular Great Clearance and no disambiguation. Do the European medieval forest clearances go under a different name, where can I find them? --ZygonLieutenant (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terms such as Old-growth forest and Ancient woodland are broadly used to describe ancient forests, though I don't think the articles at Wikipedia lead you to where you wish to go. Medieval technology is an article that briefly mentions the clearing of forests commensurate with the growth of agriculture due to such technologies as the plough and the horse collar. Medieval demography also has a single mention of widespread clearing of forests associated with the High Middle Ages. I can't seem to find any formal name given to the general clearing of forests in Medieval times, however. The phrase "great clearences" also makes a single appearance in the lead of the article High Middle Ages. --Jayron 32 00:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly mentioned in History of the forest in Central Europe, subsection "Forest development in the Middle Ages": "Two intensive periods of forest clearing can be distinguished. The first lasted from about 500 to about 800 and the second from about 1100 to about 1300, the beginning of the crisis of the 14th century." No citation, alas.

Apparently Charles Higounet called them "les grands défrichements" ("the great clearings of the 11th to 13th century") (Deforesting the Earth: From Prehistory to Global Crisis, An Abridgment, Michael Williams, University of Chicago Press, 2010, for reference). Another keyword for searching might be "pre-industrial deforestation", for example. ---Sluzzelin talk

Also briefly mentioned in Deforestation#Pre-industrial_history, with a quote from Norman Cantor. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following document fr) associates the notion mainly with France considering the medieval period (En Allemagne, En France, En Angleterre.). But Bruge (Belgium) as well as other places can also be found associated with the notion when searching the web, following the term in French as indicated by Sluzzelin. --Askedonty (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unwanted/unintended/unplanned pregnancies

First, do researchers make distinctions between unwanted and unintended and unplanned pregnancies? Second, are affluent families immune to unplanned/unintended/unwanted pregnancies even without proper sex education? The high school I went to had several students, about 90% of the student body of about 2000 students, from affluent families, living in spacious houses in American suburbia. No one became pregnant throughout my high school life . . . except one girl who had to change schools because of it and her friends probably circulated flyers to get the girl back. I'm aware that some high schools have so many teen mothers that a day care center is provided for the children. I don't think the sex education at my high school was any better, because I had zero practical knowledge on contraception in high school. So, I assumed everyone probably was sexually abstinent and thus no babies. Are teenagers from affluent families less likely to have sex than their poorer counterparts? Has anybody done a study on the sexual behavior between rich students and poor students? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totalitarianism and communism

How are these two political movements the same? Why are they mentioned together? Rmaster1200 (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]