Revision as of 06:17, 5 November 2015

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

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.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages: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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 31

Republicanism in Canada

How popular is the republican movement in Canada? The Republicanism in Canada article doesn't really give much up in terms of numbers or percentages. Hack (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Back to the question; our article, Debate on the monarchy in Canada, has lots of fairly recent statistics - perhaps the two articles should be better linked. Alansplodge (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I know this is an anecdotal, unreferenced answer, but...everyone already treats our political system as a republic anyway, thanks to watching too much American TV. The recent election, as with all elections for at least the past 20 years, have been treated as if we're electing a president. I think we know it doesn't "really" work that way, but could a typical person explain what's really happening? I doubt it. The Queen does not enter anyone's mind on a regular basis. Who could even name the current governor-general? Movements for reform are manifested in different ways (like, changing the first-past-the-post system, or creating an elected Senate) but there is no republican movement. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

About whether a typical person could explain it — really? It doesn't seem that complicated. Probably less involved formally than the way Americans elect a president which, my previous comments notwithstanding, I have to admit I'm not sure a typical American could explain either.

Though I admit there is one aspect of it that never did quite make sense to me, which is how minority governments stay in power. I think Harper kept a minority going for almost the full mandate, his first time? --Trovatore (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Does the Queen's portrait still appear on Canadian currency? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you probably don't think much about Alexander Hamilton everytime you handle a $10 bill. I don't have any strong feelings about caribou whenever I give someone a quarter either :) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I actually do, but I get your point. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And she doesn't appear on every denomination of paper currency; I think only the $20. I suspect republicanism in Canada doesn't get much love because a) Ending the Canadian monarchy would require a considerable new settlement among Ottawa and the provinces, which given past history is unlikely, and not worth doing until b) a widespread view that it would be a good idea, which it hasn't yet. Combine that with a political system where it is harder than it is in Australia for a new party to break into the national parliament, and no galvanizing event such as Whitlam's Dismissal to bring the monarchy into question.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would require a renegotiation of Canadian federalism. From a glance at the article, it sounds like some of the proposals boil down to replacing the sovereign with a GG appointed by Parliament, a purely symbolic change, and everyone goes about their business as before. Since the GG himself is almost purely symbolic I think it's amusing that they call the GG the "de facto head of state", when the truth is that de facto he has no functions worth bothering about I wouldn't think this version of republicanism would be all that traumatic. But for the same reason it doesn't seem all that worth doing. --Trovatore (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Who does ceremonial things like going to funerals of foreign heads of state, welcoming foreign diplomats, and going to disaster scenes to say how sorry Ottawa is about the disaster? Is all of that the PM's job? Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Do those things actually need to be done? I'm not entirely convinced that they need to be done. --Trovatore (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I misunderstood your question. In the current setup, they obviously have to be done, so I thought you meant someone else did them; I didn't realise that you were saying that those were functions unworth bothering about. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, who appoints the lieutenant governors? Is Quebec going to want someone outside doing that? A lot of things are done in the name of the Queen. Criminal cases are brought in the name of the Queen, that changes to what? There will have to be some constitutional change, and every time that happens, either Quebec is a problem or everyone wants cash from Ottawa. Is there a big enough consensus to get this done? The Constitution Act requires an amendment that affects the Crown to be approved unanimously (all ten provinces). Short of Charles insulting maple syrup, and he's perfectly capable of that, I don't see how things get from A to B.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Lieutenant governors have no functions worth bothering about either, so I don't know why it matters who appoints them (or why one needs them at all), but I suppose it could either be the GG or the provincial parliament. Quebec should be reasonably happy with the latter, I suppose? Or are you saying that that in itself would be a "new settlement"?

Criminal prosecutions could be brought in the name of "the people", the way it's done south of the border, or in the name of the GG, or the nation, or something. Why does it matter? --Trovatore (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"Short of Charles insulting maple syrup, and he's perfectly capable of that," I really must protest. Insulting Maple Syrup would be his Dad's job. Charles is much more likely to talk to it, and nicely too. So there. DBaK (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's often assumed that as I'm an intelligent, educated Australian, I therefore must be a republican. Actually I'm a staunch "I don't give a damn either way, as long as we still have publicly funded universal health care"-ist. There may well be people in Canada who think this way too.

To be honest, I think living in a monarchy where the head of state is on the other side of the world is a bit of a hoot: it's like having a BBC sit-com as a key part of the constitution.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Anecdotally and seriously out of date, but during a visit to Toronto in the late 1970s, several Canadians were keen to tell me that the monarchy in Canada was secure because a) it makes Canada distinct from the USA and b) it really annoys the Francophones. Alansplodge (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Most Americans with a modicum of education, when asked, "Who will be king when the queen dies?" will say, "Charles", not "America has no monarch." μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that USians still call the Queen of that foreign country they went to great pains to separate themselves from with not a little bloodshed, "the Queen", as if all that unpleasantness had never occurred and she were still the American head of state. I mean, the Queen of Denmark has to be spelt out, but not the Queen of the UK etc. Why is this so? -- Jack of Oz 19:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Still a strong cultural connection. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately there seems to be a residue of longing for royalty in America. It's not an explicit thing. Very few Americans would actually support formally accepting Elizabeth as our head of state. But it's there. I think certain presidents evoke it and use it to their advantage — Kennedy was one, Obama is another. --Trovatore (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe a resurgence with the passage of time healing wounds. For a good portion of the 19th century, we didn't have much use for the British. Relations got better in the 20th century. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So did TV and movies. I've never counted, but the British monarchy easily gets the lion share of that in North America, relative to the Danish throne or any other. That sort of prominence also made the Pope "the" Pope, despite the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Name the current one without looking? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, November 3, 2015 (UTC)

When we took world history in 9th grade, it had two halves: Classical (The Fertile Crescent, Greece, and Rome) and pre-Revolutionary history. In the second half of the year we studied from William the Conqueror to George III, with especial attention to the Magna Carta, and to domestic English politics from the Tudors to Queen Anne. The first three Georges were left to the beginning of the first of the two required years of American History.

Seniors had the option of British History, which was very popular, but which I couldn't take due to scheduling conflicts. In that class one was required to know the name and reign and salient details of every monarch from Alfred the Great through Elizabeth II. The only anti-monarchical sentiment I have ever encountered was from either Irish immigrants or their children. My ex's father insisted that the Beatles were behind Kennedy's assassination, but that's a conspiracy theory for another day. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they were behind it. By about six weeks. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Bobby killed Paul, so John killed Bobby. Then Ethel killed John, so George killed Junior. Teddy killed George (and allegedly Linda), so Ringo did what Ringo had to do. This, of course, prompted Schwarzenegger to go back in time and kill the first John. It's all explained perfectly coherently in Terminator Genisys and "Revolution 9" (if you play them backwards, concurrently, with Genesis 15 and Revelation 9 in mind). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:24, November 4, 2015 (UTC)

In a late-60s fake newscast, George Carlin reported, "The Beatles latest record, when played backwards at slow speed, says, 'Dummy! You're playing it backwards at slow speed!'" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

November 1

Trick-or-treat: what if you don't give any candy?

What happens in the US if a group of children knock at your door and you don't give candy. The reason is indifferent: either because you don't want to, or, you just don't like children.--Denidi (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the manner in which you do it, and the willingness of the spurned kids to seek revenge. If you leave your porch light off and don't answer the door, that's one thing. If you leave the light on and/or open the door and act like Scrooge, that's asking for trouble. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Types of traditional "tricks" include having toilet paper rolls tossed over your trees, eggs thrown at your house, or rude things written in soap on your windows. StuRat (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

So, could someone not give any candy because he's thinking on the children's welfare? That is, this someone thinks the kids are too fat, could have more fun playing a trick, and they should also learn that they won't get candy from everyone.--Denidi (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, just leave the porch light out and the kids skip your house. Also note that many neighborhoods don't do trick-or-treat anymore, because it's too unsafe. Those kids either go to a safer neighborhood or do some type of community indoor activity. You could also give out somewhat healthier treats, like granola bars (some are far better than others). StuRat (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

My normally nosey neighbor had four cones at the bottom of his driveway. I put across the little chain that can be strung between the lampposts though I left the chain unattached (I don't want some idiot to drive into it) with the little reflective tile propped up on the ground. I had one car come up the driveway and knock on the door. I just ignored it. I'm fine with Halloween, but for various reasons I don't care to deal with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Decades ago we carried a bar of soap, and if you did not answer the door, we'd put a soap X on your window. Occasionally you would see eggings or TP'ing, (not to be confused with T'Pring.) Most mischief for mischief's sake happened on mischief night, and we were not allowed out, although when I got older I could stand in the driveway with the garden hose to hose down would-be miscreants. This year we had no mischieffing, and about 60 trick-or-treaters. In the 70's, there would be about 200-300 kids, but the demographics of my New Jersey hometown have changed to a markedly older population with smaller families. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

To answer another question that might be coming up, candy isn't an absolute necessity. When I was a kid, I would occasionally get some coins (usually not much, not more than 50¢), a toothbrush, or a small toy (maybe a ring that looked like a spider or something like that). This year, a friend of mine gave out Beanie Babies since she has so many of them that she doesn't want. Dismas| 20:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Giving kids toothbrushes is even more likely to get your house egged than not giving them anything. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

We got about three times as many trick-or-treaters this year as last. So after the candy bars ran out, I gave away Hershey's Kisses (which are meant as a household snack), then to giving out diet granola bars with a quarter coin as consolation, then to giving out 50c/head, then, out of desperation, to inviting the tykes in for glasses of red wine. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Half a century ago, I lived in a neighborhood where one fellow gave out John Birch Society pamphlets to the kiddies instead of candy. I think he was the least popular guy in the neighborhood. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

And then there is the case of Norman Clyde. Though there were many things admirable about him, he was guilty of extreme Halloween overreaction back in 1928. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

American Samoa website

Does anyone know where I can find an/the official website of the government of American Samoa? The american samoa article provides a link to http://www.americansamoa.gov, as does their profile on USA.gov, but that page is consistently returning an "Account Suspended" page. I don't suppose that the territory would let their website die without getting a new one, so it would help if someone could find it. I ran a Google search without finding anything official other than the USA.gov page, although I've discovered that other government-run websites (e.g. Department of Human and Social Services and the Elections Office) are still working without apparent hiccups. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, that is the official page. You can also see it referenced on the as.gov domain websites such as http://doc.as.gov/links-2/ . There doesn't see to be any formal structure to the domains. .gov is a USA hosted domain as American Samoa is a US territory, but really they should use .gov.as for all governmental departments. It seems that (much like the main website) no-one cares too much about it. 'Account suspended' doesn't mean that the domain has expired, it usually means that the hosting package has exceeded its allocated bandwidth or breached one of the T&Cs (sometimes after being compromised and sending out spam). Nanonic (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation and for correcting my misunderstanding in the last sentence. I figured that it had been suspended because they didn't pay to be allowed to continue using the domain, so it lapsed. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

US$ in Canada

Here in the USA, Canadian quarters and smaller-denominated coins occasionally appear in change (even showing up amid rolls of coins from the bank), and most people accept them without question: some vending machines reject them, but I can't immediately remember any other situation where a single Canadian coin would be rejected because it was Canadian. Except for the $1 and $2 coins, which I've never seen in use here, it helps that they're the same sizes, colors, and denominations as US coins. Is the parallel situation true, i.e. can one occasionally see US coins circulating in Canada as if they were Canadian coins? Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the exchange rate almost always makes US coins worth more than Canadian coins, there's no reason why Canadian businesses wouldn't accept US coins at face value, at the very least. Indeed, many businesses near the border (which is a large portion of Canada, population-wise) offer a favorable exchange rate to encourage US visitors. StuRat (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I've traveled to 10 provinces and 1 territory, and it's usually been cents (pennies) north of the border, but that has ended with rounding. Sometimes nickels (nickles) as they are fairly close in composition, or were, before Canada went to plated steel and started pulling the old issues out. I've seen vending machines close to ports of entry (on the Canada side) where US coins work in vending machines, especially the ones by the Niagara River. When the Canadian dollar was down to sixty cents or so, I remember working those machines at my hotel in Fort Erie to get all the US coins I could out of them (if the refund slot returns to you the coins at the bottom of the stack, not the coins you put in).

Except when the metal value causes hoarding, people in general have never been greatly concerned with their base metal coins, as long as they are confident they can have them accepted by the next taker. In the UK, you'll run across, now and then, coins from Jersey, Guernsey, Gibraltar, or the Isle of Man (and in rare instances the Falkland Islands or St Helena). They are not legal tender. They are the same weight and composition as British coins. No one cares.

But don't take base metal coins to a foreign exchange dealer and expect anything but to be turned away. We're talking about casual transactions here.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wehwalt, what do you mean by "rounding"? Is this a reference to Penny (Canadian coin)#Abolition perhaps? Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What's it got in it's pockets? Several Canadian coins of various denominations, and one American quarter. I probably got it at the grocery store, but I don't really know. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You refer to yourself as "it" ? StuRat (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's because of his "twisted body and mind". Deor (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

However, that should be "its" and "pocketses". The Grammar Police never rest. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

When this one finds a coin with an American president's face on it, it makes the "historical imagery" bell ding. Then the "twisted people might find this metal precious" bell. Then finally the "Let us seal it in a dimebag, till the right moment" buzzer completes the transaction. Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, November 2, 2015 (UTC)

Um yeah. You're not driving, are you?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. But I'm not the only one. The other side gets just as bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, November 2, 2015 (UTC)

Federalism, Canada and USA

Are the Provinces of Canada more or less autonomous (if that's the right word) than the states of the USA? --rossb (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

See here, including the related questions shown on the right hand side. Rojomoke (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Gerald, an Old Etonian in China in the '30s

Another person from Peter Fleming's One's Company. Gerald is an Old Etonian, had "an extremely distinguished academic career, both at Eton and Cambridge", been to Mexico, reputed to have lived in a cave in Wales for a time, been a Reuter's correspondent with the Chinese armies, and was "a young man of saturnine appearance", and "His cheerfulness was as infinite as his curiosity... more completely impervious to the effects of discomfort, boredom, and delay than anyone I have ever met". DuncanHill (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

How does the Federalist system in the US distribute power among states?

Do states with more or less the same population, for example, NY and Florida with around 19 million inhabitants each, or Illinois and Pennsylvania with something more than 12 millions, have equal power? Does a bigger state have 2x power as two other states half so big each? --Scicurious (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This was the subject of the Great Compromise, whereby one house of the national legislature was based on population and the other has equal representation.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. So what this means is that states with equal populations should have equal representation in Congress. More populous states have more votes in the House of Representatives, but not more in the Senate. So, on a per person basis, each person has roughly the same representation in the House, while those in less populous states have proportionately more representation in the Senate. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Low population states actually have a greater representation per person than high population states. This is a facet to the Great Compromise, to somewhat curb a few big states from hogging the Congress. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

See Connecticut Plan. --Jayron32 23:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There are also clauses that equalize power among the states. Thirteen of the fifty states, with a fraction of the total population, can block a constitutional amendment sent to the states by Congress. No state can have another formed from its territory or lose its equal representation in the Senate without its consent. If the presidential election is thrown into the House of Representatives, the vote is by states, with the one representative from Wyoming having one vote by himself, and the fifty-odd from California casting that vote by a majority ballot--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2

Loose railroad track

Do railroaders have any special terminology (standard or slang; I don't care which) for track that's just sitting "loose" as in this image? The whole scene was rather bizarre to me, as I didn't know that track would hold together like this when it's not in place; it looks like an upsized edition of prefabricated toy-train track, not real stuff with separate ties/sleepers, rails, spikes, etc. Scene is south-central Ohio, USA. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The ties hold the rails in place. As to what's going on this picture, I'm not sure. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The term used in the track (rail transport) article seems to be a track "segment".--Shantavira| 09:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What's in the photo appears to be a prefabricated switch. It probably minimizes the interruption of service on the track if the switch is built ahead of time and dropped into place, instead of being built on an active track. See sections 4-48 and 4-49 here. Deor (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Rhyme/reason for US health insurance distinctions

Why are dental and vision often (if not always, as I've always seen) packaged separately from health insurance in the US? Peter Michner (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Historically, US employers offered health, vision, and dental insurance. Health insurance was considered more essential, so some companies might only offer that, while others might add in vision and/or dental coverage. So, simpler to manage if each is a different plan. StuRat (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

By "historically", you must mean after ~1950, right? Because you probably read Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#History before you posted, and just forgot to cite it, right? SemanticMantis (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I meant recent history, not health insurance in the 1700s. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Some info at Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#Supplemental_coverage. Dental and Vision are both considered "supplemental". These articles go in to a bit of the history. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a distinction to be made between "normal" vision care (like exams and glasses) vs. "exceptional" vision care (such as eye surgery). The latter would typically be covered under the main health plan. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• The same distinction is made in a lot of countries - In the UK, NHS dentistry costs the patient and is only spottily available, and eye care is universally private (although the NHS will fund it for groups such as children, pensioners, and glaucoma sufferers); in Germany, your Statutory Health Insurance will pay for your dentist (for basic procedures) but not your glasses. A key difference between these and other areas of medicine is that they are nearly universal (a large chunk of the population wears glasses, and almost everyone has a filling or two) and fairly affordable for most people – insurance is most useful when it's paying out for relatively rare events that are beyond what the average person can afford. Smurrayinchester 13:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's beneficial for some to not have to pay for vision coverage if they don't need it. So, it can be split off and benefit many people. I, for instance, do not wear glasses and have fine vision. Have all my life. So, why pay for vision checks that I wouldn't be getting? Dismas| 15:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Who is that woman that is being mentioned by Sam Harris here?

In a debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig at the University of Notre Dame a few years back (2011?), Sam Harris mentions (here, or if the timestamp doesn't work try this) an academic who he says was of the opinion it was not objectively wrong of the Taliban to force women to wear the burqa (and so, it would seem to be implied since that's how that rule is enforced, to cut off their noses if they didn't), or that one could not say that it would be objectively wrong for a hypothetical culture to gouge out the eyes of every third newborn if it was for a religious reason, but that it would be ethically entirely wrong to use brain imagery to discover for example that a terrorist was lying. Can anyone tell who that woman is? Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 20:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a transcript of the debate, which took place in April 2011. Harris reports that the academic had recently been appointed to the President's Council on Bioethics. The obvious candidate is thus Rebecca Dresser, on whom we don't have an article, but who has written various papers (here, for example) on the use of MRI scans in legal proceedings. However, this is not a positive identification. Tevildo (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer and thank you for providing the link for the transcript. In the transcript the place where Harris mentions that conversation is in his Opening Speech, paragraphs 4 to 7. Contact Basemetal here 21:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

November 3

Der Sturmer & Der Giftpilz

Hi, does anybody know if it's possible to acquire a translated version of the May 1934 issue of Der Sturmer, with the headline 'Jewish world plan to destroy gentile humanity', it features accusations of blood libel. Also any secondary literature on the article would be useful. With regard to Der Giftpilz all that would be required is secondary literature as I've already sourced a translated version. This is part of a university project on Nazi depictions of the Jewish religion in the persecutory phase of the Holocaust if anybody's interested. Thanks in advance --Andrew 00:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC

Hello, Mrandrewnohome. You should know that Der Stürmer was a weekly newspaper, so there would have been four or five issues published in May, 1934. There is an online database of the cartoons that appeared on the cover, but I am not aware that the full text of their vile articles is available online. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You are probably referring to the May, 1934 special issue described on this website. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a purported translation from a neo-Nazi website. I cannot vouch for its authenticity. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• This user is a previously indeffed concern troll who "asks" about antisemitic topics in order to propagate them. See his talk page, and see this web page about Der Sturmer which says its author was "a victim of the horrible Talmudic Blood Rite known as the Nuremberg trials". μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that highly relevant information to the question which asked for scholarly material --Andrew 00:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The article blood libel provides a link to pages from Der Sturmer here () by a professor at Calvin College. More examples of Nazi propaganda are available at the top level page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The "Old Boundary Pine Tree" and the border of Massachusetts and New Hampshire

So, I came across this map in Misplaced Pages while perusing some articles, and I have a general interest in the local geography (I was born and grew up basically in this area, and have long and deep family connections to it). The map, near where the NH and MA borders change from the straight line to the curved line, on the line between Pelham, New Hampshire and Dracut, Massachusetts, notes a landmark known as the "Old Boundary Pine Tree". Now, this point is historically a significant point, as its location became a landmark in defining the border of the two states. As noted in Northern boundary of Massachusetts, the border between NH and Mass was settled to be a line 3 miles north of the course of the Merrimack River, to a point 3 miles due north of Pawtucket Falls, and from that point a line ran generally westward to where the boundary with New York had already been established. The corner where the two lines meet (the 3-mile curved line and the straight line) seems to be indicated by this map as being marked by something called "The Old Boundary Pine Tree", which I found intriguing, as its presence on the map would indicate what should have been, at one time, a somewhat significant land mark. Trees were often used under the system of Metes and bounds (the common surveying system in place at the time these boundaries would have been laid out) as landmarks to define boundaries. Such boundaries were often periodically audited and reviewed during a New England custom known as Perambulating the Bounds. Doing some google searches, I did find this book which notes such a perambulation, around the town of Dracut, and notes several such pine trees, as well as one noted as the "boundary pine monument on the State Line", which is likely this pine tree, but could be a different one, as a pine tree also marked the northeastern corner of the town where it meets Methuen, Massachusetts, which would also be located on the state border. Some cursory google searches turns up little else, and I'm having a hard time finding details on this monument. If anyone finds something I cannot, that'd be great. It might make the start of an interesting Misplaced Pages article, or at least some information to beef up a few others. --Jayron32 04:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Boundaries, Areas, Geographic Centers and Altitudes of the United States and the Several States, the Boundary Pine Monument stands at 42°41′50.25″N 71°19′22.02″W / 42.6972917°N 71.3227833°W / 42.6972917; -71.3227833 3 miles due north of Pawtucket Falls – then in a pasture, now in a dense forest. That doesn't precisely line up with the map provided, which shows the pine tree a bit too far east of the falls. Smurrayinchester 12:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And here's a page about it as a geocache, with lots of nice pictures. I suspect this probably actually is the "old boundary pine", and it marks the point where instead of running due east/west, the Massachusetts border instead starts following the Merrimack River (the map maker possibly drew it in the wrong place under the false belief that the corner in the border is this point). According to the monument, there were originally stones piled around the boundary tree, which is what made it a landmark. Smurrayinchester 12:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks! --Jayron32 18:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Smurrayinchester: Actually, looking into it, the map is almost exactly correct, that sharp angle is not, nor is it supposed to be, the location of the old boundary pine. Since the Merrimack continues almost due east for several hundred yards past the Pawtucket Falls, the border does not make a pronounced angle at the monument, nor should it. The border's first deep angle is some distance to the east of the boundary pine, not at it. The old map checks out. --Jayron32 19:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Major/minor key cultural universal?

In modern music, major keys are happy while minor keys are sad or ominous. How universal is this? The only hint either way in our article major and minor is that it says "In Western music, a minor chord, in comparison, "sounds darker than a major chord"." Obviously most non-Western musical traditions don't use the same scales and conventions, but if nothing else, exposure to Western pop music is more or less universal these days. Smurrayinchester 11:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not universal even in western music, and much less so in other music traditions, even if they use a octaves with 812 semitones. I've recently encountered this in at least two contexts, one of which I recall: The excellent The Naked Scientists podcast, with transcript here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be an octave with 12 semitones, I assume you meant.--Phil Holmes (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Your assumption is valid ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

November 4

Who is more Protestant in Switzerland, the French or Germans?

Calvin and Geneva were the center of the Swiss Reformation. And looking at the map of denominational divisions can comparing it to language demographics, it seems like the Western French part of Switzerland is the most strongly Protestant, while the central German part is more Catholic. It would be ironic, considering France and Germany, if Switzerland were a nation of French Protestants and German Catholics. But sometimes maps can be misleading. I googled but couldn't find linguistic-religious breakdowns.

Of the French or German speaking populations, which contains a higher percentage of Protestants? --Gary123 (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The Federal Statistical Office has as an Excel file listed here (titled "Ständige Wohnbevölkerung ab 15 Jahren nach Sprachregion und Religions- und Konfessionszugehörigkeit", can't link directly, or, rather, don't know how) giving the following figures:

1,664,730 Roman Catholics (34.6%) v 1,469,399 Evangelical Reformed (30.54%) (v 286,181 other Christian demoninations (5.95%) in the German-speaking regions

673,804 Roman Catholics (41.95%) v 272,438 Evangelical Reformed (16.96%) (v 88,356 other Christian denominations (5.50%)) in the French-speaking regions.

These figures are from 2013, and they apply to residents (not necessarily Swiss citizens) who are at least 15 years old (excluding people living in "collective households", diplomats, international functionaries, as well as their families).

I limited the reply to the categories you asked about. Further language regions are: "Italian-speaking" and "Romansh-speaking"; further religious categories are: "Jewish", "Muslim", "other religious groups", "unaffiliated with any religion" (the third-largest group), and "unknown". ---Sluzzelin talk 08:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As for interpretation, there are a lot of factors at play (immigration during the last 50+ years from more Roman Catholic than Protestant countries, such as Italy and Portugal, intermigration within Switzerland, and let's not forget that especially Zwingli in Zurich, but also Oecolampadius in Basel etc were also important for the Reformation in Switzerland, not just Calvin in Geneva. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Reformation in the German speaking cantons (Zwingli, etc) actually started before the French part. The Reformed movement actually went from the German part of Switzerland to the French part, but in a roundabout way: from the German speaking Swiss cantons, then to Southern Germany, then to Alsace (Strasbourg), then to France and then back to French speaking Switzerland (Geneva, Lausanne and Neuchatel) brought by Frenchmen Jean Calvin and Guillaume Farel. The two branches ("Zwingli and friends" vs "Calvin and friends") came together in 1549 (Consensus Tigurinus) despite theological differences. It is a misconception to see the Reformed church as originally French in contrast to the German Lutheran church. In actual fact both movements ultimately originated in German speaking lands. Maybe this misconception is caused by the use of the term "Calvinism" to designate the Reformed church. It may be justified theologically but not historically. If there's an original French contribution to the reform it would be the much earlier (12th c.) Waldensians of Lyon (not far from Switzerland actually). The Waldensians eventually merged with the Reformed church but the question whether the Waldensians can really be considered a proto-Protestant movement has been debated back and forth. Contact Basemetal here 12:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Another pre-reformation religious movement from France was the Cathars/Albigensians, though it was largely suppressed centuries before the reformation, and had little effect on it. --Jayron32 16:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Tracking down an Australian entity

Before I move this image to commons: File:Atrocity Propaganda used against the Germans in WWI.jpg I'd like to try and establish who the Smith mentioned in the bottom right is, Any Australian contributors have any thoughts? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This is Mr Smith's obituary from the 24 May 1912 edition of the Sydney Morning Herald, which states that his printing firm was founded "about 40 years ago" and was, at his death, "one of the largest printing houses in the State". Tevildo (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Syrian civil war isolated strongholds

What's going on in the two isolated Syrian government held strongholds in the east? I don't imagine the Syrian air force being powerful enough to resupply them with air drops, so how are these cities still holding on? What do they do about ammo, food, and water when they're besieged on all sides? 731Butai (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

See Deir ez-Zor offensive (December 2014) which has some background. It appears the last major push against the area was a year ago, and it was successfully repelled by the government troops. --Jayron32 15:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

One of those is in a Kurdish held area. I don't believe the Assad government and Kurds are fighting each other much at this time, as both would prefer to fight ISIS. (Of course, once ISIS is gone, things may quickly change.)

As for the other, ISIS may have higher priorities than retaking that city, especially now that Russian air support would likely kick in if they tried to take it. StuRat (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Syrian refugees

The demographics of some European countries appear to be changing remarkably due to an influx of refugees from a number of countries. In particular, I am interested in refugees from Syria who are migrating to Germany and Sweden. A German woman commented to me that she would not be surprised if Germany became an Islamic majority country in a few decades. That seems unlikely, but does Misplaced Pages or do reliable sources have information about what particular faction of Islam (Sunni, Shia, mixture of the two, other) and how liberal/tolerant they are (desire to assimilate, tolerance of other beliefs and customs) or how traditional/extremist their views and practices might be (honor killings, repression of women, requirement they wear headscars or burkas, desire to impose Sharia law, intolerance of their religions, antisemitism, opposition to the state of Israel). How does their birthrate compare to those of say Germany and Sweden where many have said they are going? Edison (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to put A German woman commented to me that she would not be surprised if Germany became an Islamic majority country in a few decades and other PEGIDA nonsense in perspective, if the entire population of Syria moved to Germany they would constitute less than 25% of the population of Germany, and around 3% of the population of the EU. Don't believe everything the extreme right tell you. ‑ iridescent 18:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

What is their birthrate compared to that of present Germany, and what is their degree of religious fervor compared to that of non-Islamic Germans?That could have a bearing on the religious makeup of Germany et al several generations down the road. The article Refugees of the Syrian Civil War says nothing about the questions I asked regarding what they are like. Most news stories just show their numbers, routes, and degrees of desperation, along with specific desires to live and work in a select few countries. Has the UN, a scientific polling organization, or some other reliable source interviewed or characterized them? Edison (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Syria used to be a secular, at least de-jure socialist state. According to Religion in Syria, it tracks religion of the population by birth, and by that criterion, about 90% are Muslim, with 5 out of 6 Sunni, the rest various versions of Shia, and about 10% Christians. I would assume that Christians and Shiites are more likely to flee the IS, but all denominations to be likely to flee the civil war condition. Refugees are likely to be more educated and well-off than the average population (they need to be able to pay for the trip), and that typically goes with more liberal views on religion. Here is a German language article on the topic, but with no more hard numbers than I found on Misplaced Pages. Birth rates in Syria are not particularly informative for future birth rates of Syrian refugees in Germany, but Demographics of Syria says 2.35 birth/1000 (estimated in 2012, but sourced to the CIA World Factbook, which actually has 22.17/1000 for 2015 - we may have a slipped decimal point in our article), with a shrinking population. By comparison, Germany has a birth rate of 8.42 births/1000 (in 2014). If (and that is a big if) the refugees maintain their birth rate and (another big if) all refugee children are Muslim, there will be less than 500000 Muslim children in the next 20 years, or somewhat over a million in 50 years. There are 80 million Germans, 96.x% of which are currently not even nominally Muslim... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding birthrates, consider the demographic economic paradox. Birthrates in less developed countries are much higher than in developed countries. However, once people have become integrated into the society of the country they have immigrated to, their birthrates match that of the target country. That is, while the birthrate of the Syrian refugees is much higher than Germany, so long as Germany integrates those people fully into their society, Their birthrate will match that of the rest of the Germans. That is, several generations out, the descendants of the Syrian refugees who are still living in Germany will have birthrates indistinguishable from the other Germans. So, no, Germany will not become a majority Muslim state, even though the Muslim countries that the refugees are coming from have higher birthrates than does Germany. Because by the time the next generation happens, their birthrates will match that of the rest of the society they are now a part of. The only way that doesn't happen is if the target country isolates, shuns, or segregates the refugees/emigrees so they do not integrate into society. So, oddly enough, as the data reliably shows, the apocalypse the ultra-right nationalists predict will only happen if the refugees are treated like the ultra-right nationalists want them to be treated. If you give people shelter and support, and let them get jobs and support themselves, they become part of your society, and start to mirror the demographics of the rest of your society. --Jayron32 20:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A decade or more ago, I read an article in Time or Newsweek asserting that the secular climate of Europe was in a state of change, as Islam could well become the majority religion in places like France and Germany within 50-100 years. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Some statistics about German Muslim immigration here from the US based Gatestone Institute, which has been accused of being anti-Muslim, so treat with caution. Alansplodge (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That article is written by Soeren Kern; we don't have an article on him, but reading his website or Googling Soeren Kern should give a pretty good idea of how seriously his ramblings should be taken. ‑ iridescent 20:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• As for the secularist socialism mentioned above, see Baath, especially Ba'athism. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Syrians tended not to be very fundamentalist before the civil war, and those who flee now would tend to be even less so, as the fundamentalists would prefer to stay and either join or fight ISIS. One issue that has come up, though, is that some Syrian men are bringing with them wives who are below the age of consent (in the nation where they are seeking refuge). StuRat (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• for that, as it reeks of UKIP/PEGIDA scaremongering. The age of marriage in Syria is 18, and there's not a single country in Europe with an age of consent higher than that (the age of consent in Germany and Sweden, the two main targets for Syrian migration, is 14 and 15 respectively). ‑ iridescent 23:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• , , , , . As for what was legal in Syria, note that isolated areas often ignore national laws, even without the added anarchy of a civil war. Once that happens, all bets are off. StuRat (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• says of Syria "In a 2005 survey of 1,891 people, about 9% of urban men and 16% of rural men had more than one wife.] Do polygamous migrants have to divorce all but one wife in Europe, or do they pick one as the "public" wife and present others as guests or cousins? And I've never heard of "pegida." Edison (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Pegida is a German anti-Muslim organization. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Edison, we can't read files on your personal computer. Regarding the state of Polygamy in Europe, I didn't find much on Misplaced Pages, but did find Conflict_of_marriage_laws#Polygamy which discusses the situation in the UK, which is sort of Europeish, and is taking on refugees from the current situation. Legal_status_of_polygamy#Europe has a bit more, but is probably not comprehensive enough to make any general statements continent-wide for all of Europe. --Jayron32 01:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

November 5

Relationship between Porsche and Volkswagen

I was reading Volkswagen#Relationship_with_Porsche_and_the_Volkswagen_Law and Porsche#Relationship_with_Volkswagen and trying to understand the relationship between these two companies. Porsche owns a majority stake of Volkswagen and in exchanged Volkswagen management run Porsche. Isn't this extremely similar to a merger? What's the difference between all this complex manoeuvring and a regular merger? 731Butai (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk