Humanities desk
< April 17	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 18

Bishop [firstname] in the CofE

Over the last few years I have noticed a trend for Church of England bishops to be called "Bishop [firstname]" instead of "Bishop [surname]". When did this start, why do they do this, and does it have some kind of official sanction? DuncanHill (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the official protocol for addressing Church of England clergy. The only guidance it seems to give for answering your question is, quoting that page, "In offering the advice below, we do not intend to imply that other practices are necessarily to be discouraged (for example, the use of Father as in 'Father Smith'). A good deal depends on circumstances, and, where a personal preference is known, it is usually good practice to follow it." That is, if the "The Right Reverend the Bishop of Norwich" wants you to call him "Bishop Skippy", and he's expressed such publicly, you're allowed to call him "Bishop Skippy". --Jayron 32 12:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever meet a bishop who wants to be called "Bishop Skippy" I'll throw him down the well and not tell Sonny! DuncanHill (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better Skippy than Jif or Peter Pan. But this reminds me of an Alan King monologue about his uncle's funeral, conducted by a "Rabbi Chuck". Then there was a character played by Flip Wilson called "Reverent Leroy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good gracious, what pitfalls abound. Ecclesiastical address doesn't even mention CofE. The official line on Addressing the clergy says nothing about the "Bishop John and Jane" phenomenon. Debrett's doesn't help. Crockford's Clerical Directory is only slightly better. An informal guide discusses the realities of talking to Anglicans, but doesn't raise the issue of increasing first names. I wish I could find a clearer resource. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bath and Wells at the Coronation

The Bishop of Bath and Wells has the right (along with the Bishop of Durham), to walk alongside the monarch as he or she enters and leaves Westminster Abbey, and to stand alongside her throughout. Why does he have this right? I can understand Dunelm having this right, given the history of the Prince Bishops, but why Bath? DuncanHill (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, [1], the two bishops are supposed to represent the "North and South of England", a traditional (if somewhat fuzzy) division which has existed for some time, possibly back to the Anglo Saxon Kings of England, when Edgar the Peaceful was crowned at Bath, giving the honor to the Bishop of Bath to escort him. Wikipedia's article on Edgar even notes that Edgar's coronation was used as the model coronation for all future kings and queens. --Jayron 32 12:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly a "fuzzy division". England and Wales are divided into two provinces or archdioceses, Canterbury and York, reflecting the north - south divide created by the evangelisation of the south by Augustine from Rome and the evangelisation of the north by Columba from Ireland. 92.13.136.102 (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. --Jayron 32 14:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Church in Wales is not part of the Church of England, and so is in neither the Province of Canterbury nor the Province of York. DuncanHill (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that's a fairly recent development. Until 1920 the Welsh dioceses were in the province of Canterbury. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The apostle of the north of England is St Aidan - not St Columba. Columba came from Ireland to Iona and worked to convert Scotland. He later sent Aidan to the kingdom of Northumbria. Wymspen (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Sir Roy Strong's book Coronation (p. 40), he specifically states that this custom started with Edgar's coronation in 973, and although William I abandoned it, it was reintroduced later. Of course, this predates the conquest of Wales by Edward I by several centuries. Alansplodge (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did rather wonder if it was some kind of commemoration of Edgar's coronation. Wales is a red herring, so don't worry about that. DuncanHill (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more reading from Strong p.85 quoting from the Liber Regalis of the 1390s (the model text for all subsequent coronations): "The king is to be preceded by the prelates and monks and himself led by the hand by the bishops of Durham and Bath in accordance with ancient custom". Alansplodge (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The honest pharmacist who became minister of health

My Google-fu has deserted me. There was a woman from (West?) Africa (Nigeria??), who trained and worked as a pharmacist. She got ill, and with the comprehensive health insurance that came with the job, was given substantial money up front, to go abroad for specialised treatment. Upon examination in the foreign hospital, the doctors diagnosed a relatively minor problem, requiring minimal intervention. She returned home, delighted with her new lease of life, intending to return all the money she had not needed to spend. No one had ever attempted such a thing before, and no mechanism existed, but she persisted until she had reimbursed the government. Some time later, the president needed a medical person he could rely on, to sort out some intractable problems at the ministry of health. He asked around and heard of the honest pharmacist. He gave her increasingly responsible tasks until she became head of the ministry. What was her name? (And, if you hadn't heard of her before, what clues above led you to a successful search?) Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are referring to Dora Akunyili, the head of Nigeria's Food and Drug Administration and Control. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have an article Dora Akunyili, it's not great, but its a start. --Jayron 32 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Term of Parliament under current law

So, I was reading through a few Wikipedia articles, specifically Next United Kingdom general election (which is about the soon-to-be-called snap election) and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 which seems to have set the regular date for the next election at the first Thursday in May, 2020 (based on being 5 years from the May 7, 2015 election prior). I can't seem to find the answer to the simple question; assuming that May gets the 2/3rds vote in Commons necessary to call this snap election, does that reset the "5 year" clock, or is the clock tied to the scheduled general elections? That is, assuming this goes forward, does that mean that the next election is still scheduled the first Thursday in May, 2020 or will it be 5 years from this snap election (the first Thursday in May, 2022). If anyone can provide an external source to read about this, it may help improve the Wikipedia article on the subject, since it only seems to note that there are provisions for snap elections, but not how such elections affect the regularly scheduled elections. Thanks in advance. --Jayron 32 18:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes a link to the actual law, which is only a few pages long. In paragraph 1(3) the 5 years is specified in relation to "the previous parliamentary general election", so yes, the clock is reset.

Almost! The Act still requires the next election to be the first Thursday in May, so if this election happens on June 8th 2017, the next one will be May 5th 2022. Wymspen (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am slightly amused by this turn of events. Here in Canada Stephen Harper's government introduced a roughly similar law in 2007 calling for elections every 4 years in order to "prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage". The next selection would have been in 2010, only in 2008, Harper decided a snap election would provide short-term political advantage, and was able to get one. That produced a minority government, which fell in 2011, forcing another election. So, in 10 years we've had only one election on the "regular" 4-year date, namely in 2015. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that simple explanation. --Jayron 32 19:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Term of Parliament under current law, take two

Historically, how have snap elections (barring those triggered by votes of no confidence, loss of supply, and other "problems") been called in the UK? Obviously the PM advises the Monarch to call an election to be held on such-and-such a date, but is this done on his own accord (maybe after getting agreement from other members of the government), or has it typically required an act of Parliament? Also, since government decisions routinely get passed by Commons, how is the two-thirds mandate of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 enforced? Couldn't a bare majority of MPs just pass an amendatory act, i.e. "Notwithstanding the provisions of an Act to make provision about the dissolution of Parliament and the determination of polling days for parliamentary general elections; and for connected purposes, an election of members of the House of Commons shall be held on date X"? It's not as if there's a written constitution by which Parliament must act; they have parliamentary sovereignty, after all. Or would this be seen as a violation of some convention and thus be likely to attract public unhappiness toward the party in power?
Under the 2011 act, what prevents an election from being called early? Obviously you can't exactly bind the Monarch, but that hardly matters since she doesn't go out and use her reserve powers because she feels like it. But the act doesn't outright prohibit the PM from advising the Monarch to call an early election.

Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historically no act has been needed to dissolve Parliament, the PM advises the monarch to do so, and subject to the Lascelles Principles the monarch follows that advice. See Dissolution of the Parliament of the United_Kingdom

No, a simple majority of MPs is not enough to amend an Act of Parliament, it must pass through a series of stages in both Houses. See Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom#Stages of a bill.

The Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom is limited by Statute Law and by a number of legal decisions. DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2011 Act itself prevents dissolution except as provided for in the Act. The Crown no longer has the power to dissolve Parliament except under the terms of the Act. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as for "Obviously you can't exactly bind the Monarch" please read Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights 1688. DuncanHill (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't clearly express my intentions. Can't Parliament amend the 2011 act as they would amend other acts, e.g. the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 or the Public Bodies Act 2011? I don't see why they couldn't just get pass an ordinary-type act getting rid of the two-thirds requirement and then immediately pass another ordinary act calling for an election on such-and-such a date. And the law really prohibits the Monarch from doing something? I was unaware that the Monarch, so rigidly bound as she is by custom and popular opinion (imagine the reaction if she tried to rule by decree...), was legally bound by anything. [after edit conflict and reading Bill of Rights 1689 article] I had been unaware of the nature of the Bill of Rights; I figured that it was a statement of "it's wrong for the law to do X, Y, and Z", i.e. a commitment that Parliament wouldn't agree to enact laws doing those things, backed (not in text by in practice) with the memory that Parliament had gotten rid of two of the last three kings because they actively disagreed. Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Parliament could amend the 2011 Act, it would do so by passing an Act to amend it, following the procedures in the article I linked above. This would take considerably longer than simply passing a motion for an early election under the terms of the Act. DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, understood. I was imagining a situation in which the opposition opposed a new election and was strong enough to prevent a two-thirds vote in favor of the yes-have-an-election resolution (but, since they're the opposition, they couldn't prevent the passage of a bill requiring a simple majority), and in which at least a majority of Lords agreed with the government's plan, so passage of an act was the only possible route. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, on the "majority of MPs", the member of parliament article informs me that this term is restricted to members of the lower house. I had mistakenly believed that the Lords also count as MPs, since the house of which they're members is part of Parliament. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, if the motion under the 2011 Act failed, the government could then seek to amend or repeal the Act, this would take time and given the government's slim majority could be difficult. The Parliament Acts significantly limit the power of the House of Lords to block legislation, but they can delay it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The UK Parliament is constrained solely by prudence. Parliamentary sovereignty is the important principle, sometimes derisively called Elective dictatorship, which is the notion that Parliament is constrained by nothing except its own sense of doing the right thing. If they wanted, they could pass any legislation to do anything, including abolishing elections altogether. They don't, because that would be fantastically stupid, but they could and nothing is constraining them except their sense of not doing fantastically stupid things. --Jayron 32 23:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Lords would still, I think, have a veto over a decision to postpone (as was done during the two world wars) an election or do away with them altogether. It's one of the exceptions under the Parliament Act. There was some discussion about the limits of Parliamentary Sovereignty in R (Jackson) v AG just over a decade ago: some of the Law Lords (as they were then still called) opined that the Lords would still have a veto over any further reduction in their powers or over their abolition (presumably they would have to be threatened into voting their own powers away, as in 1911). Some of them even started making sniffing noises about how they might regard certain kinds of Act as unconstitutional, although we haven't quite had a Marbury v. Madison moment yet. And as a matter of practicality, planning to extend its own life indefinitely was one of the reasons Cromwell threw out the Rump ... Paulturtle (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Parliament is the Cromwell now. A lot has changed, constitutionally speaking, in 450 years. --Jayron 32 01:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how passage of an act could ever be the only possible route, except perhaps with a very, very slim majority (far less than 2/3). If there is a majority ruling party or coalition, they could simply advise their MPs to vote no confidence in their own government and against any confidence motions (such as with a new government). Even if the opposition votes in opposition to the no confidence motion, and in support of any future confidence motions, provided the majority MPs agree to follow this track, a new election will be appointed (I'm not sure whether this will be after the 14 days or what). Whether it would be better for a government to do this, or to amend the fixed term act, in terms of what the voting public will think, I make no comment. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Actually, this is exactly what German chancellors (Kohl 1982, Schröder 2005) have been doing when they wanted snap elections, since the Bundestag is not allowed to dissolve itself by any majority. But both cases have been considered constitutionally dubious (since they pervert the rationale of a vote of no confidence), and might thus have been stopped by the Constitutional Court - could this also be a problem in the UK?--Roentgenium111 (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A "sham" No Confidence vote like that would be another way of doing it. (Contrary to popular myth, there is no requirement for a government to resign because it does not have the confidence of the House of Commons. A government could not function for long without a majority, because since 1688 the Crown cannot legislate, or raise taxes, or keep a standing army, without going through Parliament - but it is merely convention that a Prime Minister who has just lost an election spares the Monarch embarrassment by resigning.) By and large, our courts have declined to get involved in passing judgement on what goes on in Parliament, provided the correct procedures (which are themselves set by Parliament) have been followed. I wouldn't put it past them to make rumbling noises in the future.Paulturtle (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A no confidence vote does force a general election under the 2011 Act, the wording is quite clear. I find it hard to see any circumstances in which a British government would want to arrange a sham no confidence vote it would go down like the proverbial lead balloon with he electorate. "Vote for us - we have no confidence in ourselves" is perhaps not the most inspiring of slogans. DuncanHill (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would indeed force an election provided there isn't a "yes" confidence vote or whatever the term is within the time window; Parliament cannot dismiss the government so it effectively dismisses itself in the hope that the government's position would become untenable if it tries to cling on after the election (under the Lascelles Principles the Queen - or rather the Cabinet Secretary, the Head of the Civil Service and the Queen's Private Secretary, clearing their throats in unison in her name - would have refused a second election to a PM who had just lost one and had failed to cobble a coalition together). The possibility of a sham no confidence vote has certainly been canvassed. I suppose it would depend on the circumstances - a new Prime Minister who wants a mandate of his or her own might be seen to be acting perfectly reasonably if the Opposition refuse to play ball.Paulturtle (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project management office

Do PMO managers generally have less responsibility than actual delivery project managers? Moved recently to learn more about governance etc but feels like it's less responsibility as you don't actually deliver projects and seems more like a business support function. Is this across the board? 2A02:C7D:B8FC:9000:FD0B:BE2A:4210:79F2 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking a lot of VERY specific questions to a VERY general audience here. You've been doing this for weeks on subtle variations of this exact topic, and you're unlikely to get really high-quality advice specific to your needs here, BECAUSE they are so specific. What you really need to do is talk to someone doing the actual job you seek, or get career advice from a career counselor or something like that. Many universities and community colleges offer training programs in project management, if you seek to speak with someone in those programs they can give you advice. You can also perhaps get involved in job shadowing or internship to try out the job and learn what people who do that job actually do. --Jayron 32 19:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not asking for advice. I'm asking for reference and facts. 2A02:C7D:B8FC:9000:FD0B:BE2A:4210:79F2 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also career counsellors are useless. They tell you what you already know and just regurgitate what you tell them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B8FC:9000:FD0B:BE2A:4210:79F2 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't references and facts to be given to you. "Generally less responsibility", to take just one turn of phrase you used, that we're going to be able to help you with. We could probably give you salary figures, employment numbers, etc. But every one of your questions is centered around the theme "I have an engineering background, but I'm not sure I want to do what an engineer does. There are other jobs that seem related to Engineering. What are they like". If you want to know what they are like ask a person who does that job. Don't ask Randos on the internet to help you out. You're going to get low quality advice. And if you find career counsellors useless, you know who isn't useless: someone doing the job you're asking about. I'm useless, everyone else here is useless. The people doing the actual job, or perhaps the people who train others to do the job, are eminently useful for you. Find one of them and ask them. They'll tell you. We can't. We're useless. --Jayron 32 19:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a strange kind of self-admonitory tone in this post, Jayron. I don't think we should be telling questioners that "we're useless". Clearly, what you mean is that we're "useless" at answering this question, but that's not the way I'd go about responding to the OP. You've made the correct point, that this board is not the right place to ask this question. I'd leave it at that, if I were you. --Viennese Waltz 12:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP stated that career counselors were useless for the kind of advice he was seeking. Are you claiming that this board is likely to be more useful? I'm not sure that it is, but if you have better references to provide him that will lead to him not needing to ask the same question over and over, feel free. I still think that the most useful place for him to seek his information is from people actually doing the actual job itself. If you have more useful options, feel free to add them. --Jayron 32 13:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not claiming that at all. I'm simply saying that "we're useless" is not an appropriate choice of words. --Viennese Waltz 13:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really. How much have we done in this current conversation to improve the OPs chances of finding the information they seek? This conversation you and I are having seems pretty useless. Maybe worthless, valueless, of no purpose, if you want a different word we can find a thesaurus. But whatever synonym you want to use for "provides no value for the OP", this conversation we're having now has that in spades. --Jayron 32 17:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.153.130 (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You that you disagree that someone doing the job he's seeking would NOT have any useful information? How so? --Jayron 32 12:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who or what USA thing is closest to UK political parties and recent party leaders?

The US political spectrum's shifted right of the UK's so you can't just say David Cameron's like Bush or Liberal Democrat voters are like USians who chose Trump or Hillary at the last minute. I realize Britain's less religious and maybe less concerned with social conservatism (?) so maybe the economic and social political spectrums are in different locations relative to each other? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have answered your own question. The issues that divide people in each country, and the political spectrums that result, simply don't line up neatly enough to say "X in the U.S. is the equivalent of Y in the U.K." Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So is it wrong to say things like UKIP is like Trump except XYZ, Corbyn is closest to Jill Stein (or whoever) socially and Bernie Sanders (or whoever) economically, so and so is like a moderate Republican except more into XYZ? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "wrong" (there are parallels on a few issues)... but not "right" either. The XYZs where things are different are greater than the ABCs where things are similar. Blueboar (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The differences are great enough that I would be content to say "wrong". -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galleria dei Prigioni

The Awakening Slave sculpture by Michelangelo in Galleria dell'Accademia in Florence. Note metal pins on side.

In some of the “Galleria dei Prigioni” sculptures at the Accademia Gallery in Florence one can see traces (side measuring ca. 2–2.5 cm) of metal (iron?) pins. What was (is?) the function of these pins? Were these pins part of the original sculpture or added later? Etan J. Tal^(talk) 21:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to have pics. One possibility is that these were added later to prevent the sculptures from collapsing (however, note that early attempts at conservation often did more harm than good). StuRat (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the pic. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iron pins, sometimes set in lead, are used to restore broken statues per [2]. The pins in the Bearded Slave (one in this series, though not the one you pictured) repair a hip fracture, according to our article. I haven't found a specific discussion of the pins in the Awakening Slave but it is possible the reason is the same. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fine explanation. These pins seem indeed to be the same by appearance, but alas, most if not all are positioned along the chiseled OUTER surface of the sculpture, and not IN the sculpture itself. So, they actually could not connect anything done by Michelangelo himself, isn't it so? Perhaps these were added later? Why? Etan J. Tal^(talk) 18:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can having one or two children in marriage fix poverty?

One child must be a son, and the other a daughter. Another family has one daughter and one son. The children of the two families merge, and the population stays the same. A different scenario involves each family is obligated to have no more than one child. Surely, the population of society will decrease, but won't the families merge, become smaller, and richer? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must be referring to the old adage that "2 people can live as cheaply as one", extending it to 2 families. This isn't really the case:

1) Food requirements remain the same. There may be some discount by buying in larger quantities, but not much.

2) Living space requirements depend on how closely they can live. If a couple is married, they may share a room, but it probably needs to be larger than the rooms each needed alone, to hold clothes for two, a bed large enough for two, etc.

3) They probably still need as many cars, unless you implement some complex family carpooling plan.

4) They still need their own clothes. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no economist, but assuming the families have net wealth, it stands to reason that fewer descendants will likely inherit more (other than the offspring of the Bill Gateses of the world). That's sort of what will happen when the baby boomers have boomed their last. ("Wall Street Has Its Eyes on Millennials' $30 Trillion Inheritance".) Of course, in a society where the average individual's net worth rises, the definition of "poverty" may also change. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with fewer people, you have the issue of productivity: if the younger generations must support the elder (obviously true of society at large, maybe or maybe not true of an individual family), each generation will have fewer people paying all the bills, i.e. each person has a greater percentage of the collective responsibility, so Surely, the population of society will decrease, but won't the families merge, become smaller, and richer won't apply in the long run, unless additional wealth comes in via the productivity of additional people (adoption, immigration, etc.), via importation of wealth, or via increases in the productivity of the average person. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So much of this is "it depends". What country do you have in mind? China has grappled with the so-called Little Emperor Syndrome, as a result of two generations of the one-child policy. This has resulted in the "six-pocket child": all the resources and hopes for the future of two parents and four grandparents concentrated on one person. Or take India, for example, where marriage payments (both dowry and bride price) are still widespread. Leaving aside the issue of cousin marriage, which clearly has economic aspects (keeping property within an extended family), a situation in which a man from family A marries a woman from family B, and his sister marries her brother, such as the OP describes above, also creates strong bonds and the potential for significant savings. Or Somalia, a country used to living with poverty and conflict: I heard a great proverb today, in translation - "Those who want to be together are able to share one big mat together, no matter how many they are; but those who don't want to be together and don't want to share together, no house of ten rooms can ever fit them." ("Adventures in Social Mobility") Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related is the demographic economic paradox; the advantage to large families vs. small families differs depending on the local economics. As Carbon Caryatid notes it depends. There is no universal "it is always better..." here. It depends on where along the Demographic transition model a country is. What is bets in Germany is not necessarily what is best in Zambia, which is not what is best in Thailand. --Jayron 32 13:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just remembered the phrase popularised by the data visionary Hans Rosling, which I believe he credits to an unnamed student: in the "developed world", people live long lives in small families, whereas in the "developing world", people have short lives in large families. He then proceeds to demolish the stereotypes that underpin these out-dated assumptions. I highly recommend "The best stats you've ever seen". Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WWII Eastern Front

I am reading/have read several books dealing with the interplay of ideology, war, atrocity, and counterinsurgency on the Eastern Front in WWII: Ben Shepherd's "Terror in the Balkans," Omer Bartov's "Hitler's Army," Alexander Rossino's "Hitler Strikes Poland," and Geoffrey Megargee's "War of Annihilation." Are there any similar books that are worth looking at? Thanks very much, GAB^gab 23:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Front (World War II)#Further reading may be a good place to start looking for ideas. --Jayron 32 23:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: On counter-insurgency (or, more specifically Bandenbekampfung, as was the name of the German WWII rear security doctrine), please see:

Hitler’s Bandit Hunters: The SS and the Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood.

It's a grim and sometimes difficult read, but is quite enlightening. For a more general discussion on the interplay of ideology, war and autrocity, see The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality by Wolfram Wette. Specifically on the Wehrmacht's participation in the Holocaust in Belarus under the guise of "anti-partisan" warfare, this would be an excellent choice: Marching into Darkness: The Wehrmacht and the Holocaust in Belarus by Waitman Wade Beorn. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - I'll get cracking on these

. GAB^gab 20:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]