Humanities desk
< January 28	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 30 >

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

January 29

Where's Laurent Picard

Please help find Laurent Picard in the back row. I want to crop it for the article. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess is the headshot shown. Was I right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Idunno. He'd be 47 when photo was taken in 1974, and file description says he's in the back row. And, the photo w/dog (at commomns) was taken 1n 1989, and he looks younger then. maybe ... maybe not. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:5816:CC2:4ADE:73A0 (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)→ Here he is in 1974-75 → [1] from here ... seems you were right (note cleft chin, hairline, etc.) —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:5816:CC2:4ADE:73A0 (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an obit with an undated photo, the same as linked above. Looks like your guy to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!!!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good and evil

There is this ism or something that says everything is either good or evil. I think it starts with a "u" and is named after some Muslim guy from way back when. Does anyone know what it is called? Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of Manicheanism? Even if not, reading the article may lead you where you want to go. μηδείς (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought of Manicheanism at first, but didn't mention it, since it does not start with or contain a "u", and it predates Islam by a thousand years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thank you, Cullen328 and μηδείς. Okay, my memory is not great. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make that about 800 years before Islam, and the religion lasted far after the early days of Islam. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your memory seems good, but your math skills need practice. Manichaeism was established by Mani in the 3rd century AD, and Islam was established by Muhammad in the 7th century AD. Manichaeism predates Islam by only 4 centuries, not 8 centuries. Mani was a Gnostic of Jewish-Christian background, and his religion borrowed Gnosticism's emphasis on dualism and struggle between good and evil. Manichaeism "is based on a rigid dualism of good and evil, locked in eternal struggle." Groups of Christian "heretics" with similar dualistic ideas included the adherents of Bogomilism, Catharism, Marcionism, and Paulicianism. Dimadick (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dimadick. Did you write all that from memory, or did you have to look it up? In a week, I will likely remember only 25% of that and forget the other 52%. You see, my memory is bad, but my maths skills are nearly perfect. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to Cullen. I remembered when Manichaeism was established primarily because I have an interest in Late antiquity (3rd to 7th century AD) and often work on related articles. I noted that our article on dualism mentioned several dualistic versions of Christianity, several of which were (like Manichaeism) Gnostic-derived and that their adherents were persecuted as heretics during the Middle Ages. I am somewhat familiar with the Bogomils, Cathars, and Paulicians, mostly because of my interest in religious persecution within the Byzantine Empire, the Bulgarian Empire, and the Languedoc. (I could care less about their theology.) We have a relatively decent article on the Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229), a 20-year long military campaign aimed to wipe out the Cathars. Some modern historians have called this Crusade a medieval genocide, and I have read several non-fiction books and a few novels spotlighting it. There is a possibly apocryphal phrase describing how the Crusaders distinguished between actual Cathars and any other person living in the area: Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. ("Kill them all; let God sort them out.") I first read about it when I was 11-years-old, and it still forms a large part of my opinion on what kind of tolerance Christians preach about. Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very interesting area indeed. And "Kill them all; let God sort them out." is horrific! Humans! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "U" called to mind Ahura Mazda], which is the main beneficent god in Zoroastrianism, which predates and influences Manichaeism. He is known as Ohrmuzd and various other transcriptions begining with "u" or a "u" sound. That religion is older, which is why I mentioned Manichaeism first, which is closer in time to Islam. You may as well look up Melek Taus and the religion of the Gnostic Yazidis who have so recently been subject to Islamist genocide. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, μηδείς. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any practical reason to having a position of the head of state that is separate from a head of government in a parliamentary system of government?

Some people often say that constitutional monarchies are useless anachronisms and waste of money in the modern world just because their functions are largely ceremonial. How is having a ceremonial president in parliamentary republics like Germany or Italy really different in term of usefulness? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In theory at least, the ceremonial head of state still plays a role in the stability of the state. The President of Germany has a number of reserve powers, which he/she is only supposed to exercise "in case of political instability". He/she also has the right to veto laws which violate the constitution. The veto is not exercised often, but our article has a list of presidential vetos in 1951, 1961, 1969, 1970, 1976, 1991, and 2006.

The President of Italy has a number of duties denied to the Prime Minister. Only he/she may declare a state of war, or call for a referendum. Dimadick (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above reply misunderstands the OP's question. The question is whether there is any practical difference between a ceremonial president and a constitutional monarch. --Viennese Waltz 10:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is that there is no single pattern, for either constitutional monarchs or for non-executive presidents (I wouldn't call them "ceremonial" as they often do have some reserved powers). I have never seen any attempt to make a full comparison - though I suspect that (on average) the presidents have more powers than the monarchs. That doesn't preclude the possibility of comparing two specific nations, and finding that in that case the monarch is actually more powerful. Wymspen (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The big issue is that while these broad categories of government types exists, in reality there are subtle differences between every country and every other one; even picking two constitutional monarchies, or two non-executive presidential systems will show distinct constitutional differences regarding the role of the head of state; indeed the differences within each of those categories is likely to be as large or larger than the differences between them. --Jayron 32 13:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has asked two very different questions in their caption and their text.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question in the caption/title: having a ceremonial head of state, whether monarch, president or some other title, frees up the actual head of government to concentrate full time on governing rather than performing the various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties that most countries also wish to be performed. If you look at the daily activities of, for example, Queen Elizabeth II and her immediate family which are published as the Court Circular in several daily newspapers as well as on its own web page (linked from the article), you'll see that these duties are (at least) a full-time job in themselves.

The question of whether counties (that is to say, their citizens) should wish such duties to be performed is a debate not within the factual scope of the Help Desk. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.130.24 (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By way of a reference, I found Ceremonial role by far most important for the President, commenting on the position of the President of the Irish Republic. Alansplodge (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Air transport

I just started building the Outline of air transport. For it, I wrote a description for air transport, but I'm afraid it leaves something to be desired:

Air transport – transport of passengers (people) and cargo (goods) through the air, in aircraft, made possible by aviation (the design, development, production, operation and use of aircraft, especially heavier-than-air aircraft). Air transport is faster than land and maritime transport. Applications of air transport include travel and freight transport, especially helpful when material delivery is time-critical such as with various types of perishable produce. Most air transport is accomplished by the use of airplanes (or other aircraft) operated as fleets managed by air transport companies called airlines. Airlines maintain a system of scheduled flights, in which pilots operate the aircraft, taking off from and landing at aerodromes (airfields), which include one or more runways, which may or may not be supported by a full airport.

It does't seem to quite capture the essence. So my question for you is...

What is missing? The Transhumanist 11:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: please {{ping}} me if you reply. -TT

The Transhumanist. Have you looked at less conventional forms? Hot air balloon, Airship, Hybrid airship, Delivery drone (Unmanned aerial vehicle). By the way it probably should read "

Air transport is generally faster..." CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon wants to deliver cargo to the customers' doors using drones. You need to exclude drones from your article.
Sleigh (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with The Transhumanist below)Amazon aren't the only ones as the sections on Delivery drone#In healthcare, [[[Delivery drone#Smuggling]] and Delivery drone#Food indicate. As a Wikipedia:Outlines rather than an article I think that drones qualify as a listing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys. By the way, I've added this to the end of the description:

For public safety (to prevent collisions), air transport in each region is monitored and directed by an air traffic service.

I left out less conventional forms explicitly, due to bloat considerations (an issue in outline leads), but they are referred to generally (see "especially" and "or other aircraft") and will be covered in the body of the outline. The Transhumanist 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about charter helicopters and helipads? And charter seaplanes?
Sleigh (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's public transport and private transport. What form of transport are taxis?

I look forward to your answers. (Please {{ping}} me). The Transhumanist 13:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Transhumanist: I think you're over-stretching the need for a direct antonym here. There's "public transport"; but that does not mean that we have a meaningful category called "private transport"; that terminology is just not used. Public transport indicates that taxicabs are not considered public transport, though the article taxicab, by its use of the word "other" in the phrase "other public transport" indicates that they are sometimes so considered. --Jayron 32 13:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, the article private transport also excludes taxis, and refers to them as a form of public transport.

Category:Vehicles for hire, which include taxis, is in turn included in Category:Public transport by mode. So, if taxis are mode of public transport, they need to be included in the public transport article.

Somehow, the contradiction needs to be fixed. The Transhumanist 14:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article private transport contains zero indication that it is a real concept outside of Wikipedia. It looks entirely like someone saw the article "public transport" and decided on their own that the antonymic term needed an article, and so created one without regard for whether or not it was a legitimate concept. I see no evidence that it is. --Jayron 32 15:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It depends where in the world you are. "Public transport" has two meanings: transport available to the public (which taxis are) or transport potentially shared at the time of use by several members of the public (which usually also implies a fixed route, not a route of the passenger's choice). Taxis are the first - so are private hire minicabs (a big distinction in the UK) or limo hire. Here in the UK, I can only 'hail' a car on the street if it's a taxi (which requires onerous licensing). If I book in advance though, or go to a minicab office, I can have a less regulated (although still regulated) minicab. Uber have further blurred this difference.

WP seems to have taken the other definition, which excludes taxis. This is usually a North American distinction - 'taxis' are socially acceptable to most classes of people, but it's a failure in middle class life to be reduced to 'riding the bus'.

Yet in many countries, taxis are little more than very small buses. It's common to share them with other passengers, sometimes when coincidentally going in the same direction, sometimes when travelling a regular fixed route. This is common worldwide, everywhere from Belfast to South Africa. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: I moved the section on auto rickshaws from public transport to shared transport, but I'm not sure that's correct. The Transhumanist 14:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Andy on this one. In my understanding, public transport refers to all sorts of transport you don't own yourself, including taxicabs, rickshaws, livery vehicles, etc. If you're paying for a per-use ride of the vehicle and someone else is driving it, it is public transportation. --Jayron 32 15:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In newspapers.com (a pay site) I'm seeing references to the term "private transport" at least as far back as 1950. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Transhumanist:, it's a mistake to think that all forms of transport must be either public or private. As with any other division, people and things can move between different classes. A taxi is usually privately owned, and at most times it's also privately hired, and if so it's essentially a form of private transport. But it can also be publicly owned and can be used to provide public transport: for instance, a railway company can use taxis to complete its passengers' railway journeys when something goes wrong. You could say a taxi is sui generis. Moonraker (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what the crux of the confusion here is, which is the meaning of the adjective public. Does it refer to being owned by the public (i.e. the state) or does it refer to being usable by the public (i.e. available for anyone to use so long as they pay the price of use). As far as I know, public transport usually refers to the latter; actual ownership of the vehicle is not what is considered (that is, non-state companies may own and manage public transport resources). But, because there is a difference in perceieved meaning, there will be a difference in classification. Once again, as always, this is why simplistic, binary definitions aren't interesting or useful. --Jayron 32 17:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 That is mostly correct but doesn't take us far. As you say, the ownership doesn't make a real difference, although it might help to show a general character that isn't private. The essence of public transport is that it is available for public use by more than one member of the public at a time. Usually there is a fixed route and some kind of timetable. A taxi doesn't have a fixed route or a timetable, and usually it is hired privately by one person. It's a mistake to think that everything can be divided neatly into "public" and "private" (especially foolish with colleges and universities, for instance), but taxis don't have much in common with public transport except that someone pays to make a journey. That can also be true of hiring a car to drive from A to B, but I don't think anyone would suggest a rented car is public transport. Moonraker (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker and Jayron32: There are 2 word forms here: the idiom, and the literal interpretation of two concatenated words. "Public transport" the idiom means "a system of vehicles such as buses and trains that operate at regular times on fixed routes and are used by the public". But that doesn't mean a speaker of English can't put the two words together using their base definitions (that's what words are for), and so "public transport" can be used in communications to mean "modes of transportation open to the public". Now, all we need to do is find examples of both, from authoritative sources. The Transhumanist 10:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to find instances of the phrase "public transport" in reference to taxis. But I've yet to find an authoritative source saying "Taxis are a form of public transport". Finding articles or web pages that refer to taxis as public transport is original research. We need to find a source that has already done this research. The Transhumanist 11:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, though; binary thinking is not as useful as continuum thinking, and even more important is understanding why we have the concept in the first place. To understand whether or not a taxi cab is or is not public transportation, we first need to understand what public transportation is as well as what its purpose is. If the purpose of public transportation is to provide on-demand, short-distance transportation in a metro area so that locals don't need to own automobiles, then taxis are public transportation. Even informal forms of transportation such as carpool, HOV lanes, or slugging are considered as part of a government's public transit policy. A deeper understanding of why you are asking the question is needed before one can provide a meaningful answer. --Jayron 32 17:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Now what we need are citations, so we can put the reality of the situation in the article. Can you find any authoritative sources that say:

1) Public transport are mass transit systems owned and operated by the government for the public

2) Public transport is any form of transportation available for public use

3) Taxis are a form of public transport

After those or similar statements are placed in the article, with citations, the article's problem will be solved. The Transhumanist 10:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, It is not that simple and thinking in terms of the binary is it or isn't it is not useful to understanding the issues at hand. For example, for example this source from 1992 from a scholarly study finds "Any improvement in the taxi service should therefore be viewed as an important improvement in public transport provision" while this article from 2012 says "taxi service is a critical aspect of a transit system" and that we should treat "taxis as part of a wider public transport network". This page from the Government of the Netherlands treats taxi service as part of the public transit sector. However This government inquiry from Australia concludes that they are definitively NOT public transportation. So again, there are NOT universally agreed upon definitions here (as I said before) and there is not a binary option (as I said before) and that the understanding of public transit policy requires nuance and deeper thinking that "taxis are public transit" or "taxis are not public transit". If you're only allowing your brain to think in those two options, then you're doing it wrong. Again, continuum thinking makes more sense here. --Jayron 32 14:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether it is simple or not. What matters is, that whatever the situation is, gets documented in the article, with citations. If that means multiple views as in 1), 2), and 3) above all being covered, then so be it. They were not presented as either/or options, as they obviously coexist. The article should answer the following question as fully as is practical: "What is public transport?" The article currently doesn't reflect the answers you have given above, and is currently plastered with contradiction banners. The Transhumanist 16:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've just given you several reliable sources with different perspectives. Contradictions may exist in the article because contradictions exist in the real world. --Jayron 32 16:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather find a synthesis, like, "it means this, and it means this". See below. The Transhumanist 17:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Or something else?

Here's the current lead paragraph from the article Public transport:

Public transport (also known as public transportation, public transit, or mass transit) is transport of passengers by shared-transport systems available for use by the general public, as distinct from modes such as taxicab, carpooling, hired buses, ride-sharing, and transportation network companies, which are not shared by the general public without private arrangement.

Here is the lead paragraph from the same article back in June of 2002:

Public transport is the collective name for transport systems employed in densely populated areas in order to supply an alternative to automobiles. It is called public transit in the U.S.A. and Canada. Wider definitions would include scheduled airline services, ferries, taxi services etc., basically any system which is transporting members of the general public.

And from December 2002:

Public transport is the collective name for transport systems in which the passengers do not travel in their own vehicles. It is called public transit in the U.S.A. and Canada. While it is generally taken to mean rail and bus services, wider definitions would include scheduled airline services, ferries, taxi services etc., basically any system which is transporting members of the general public.

I look forward to your replies. The Transhumanist 17:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not google "definition of public transport"? --Jayron 32 17:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was the very first thing I did before coming to you guys. The dictionary definitions support the current version of the article's lead. The Transhumanist 17:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well? --Jayron 32 17:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can come up with is provide the reader with related modes that are public in a different sense:

Public transport (also known as public transportation, public transit, or mass transit) is transport of passengers by shared-transport systems available for use by the general public. Other forms of transport that provide rides to the public for a fee, but are not considered public transport in the same sense, include vehicles for hire, such as taxicabs and auto rickshaws.

That way, it doesn't contradict dictionary entries. The Transhumanist 18:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it does contradict at least three highly reliable sources I cited above which specifically call taxicabs a form of public transportation. --Jayron 32 18:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I've adjusted it to read "not generally considered". The Transhumanist 19:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except, the three sources I included say that it is. If you want to be truly accurate on this, you would do well to explicitly note that there is not an agreement one way or the other. To imply even a general consideration one way or the other is demonstratedly false. --Jayron 32 19:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: I've removed my statement on taxis from the article. We're talking about the meaning of a term, based on how it is used in language, rather than the verification of some event or other fact (like "sunsets can be red"). You're references don't verify the meaning as a common context of the term. For that, you would need to cite a lexicon or standard textbook in the field, etc. Otherwise, all you have is a neologism: the term neologism has a broader meaning that includes not only "an entirely new lexical item" but also an existing word whose meaning has been altered.^[1]^[2]^[3] Sometimes, the latter process is called semantic shifting,^[1] or semantic extension. According to WP:NEOLOGISM, "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." The Transhumanist 02:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation bores me, mostly because it is clear you aren't looking for information (i.e. to learn more about a topic yourself or expand your own understanding), but rather affirmation (evidence you can use to verify your own preconceived notions, willing to ignore all alternate perspectives if they do not confirm your current beliefs). I have no use for that sort of thing. Have a good day, this is the last you'll hear from me on the topic. You don't have to respond or ping me anymore. I'm out. --Jayron 32 12:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for information on whether or not taxicabs could be added to the public transport article as a form thereof. (I was hoping they could). This discussion led me to the finding of the needed information, which probably wouldn't have happened without your help. Thank you. (By the way, I agree with you that taxis are a form of public transport in the sense that they are available for hire to the public, and because they move a lot of people. It's a pity they can't be added to the article as such, but I will keep a lookout for secondary sources. If you come across any, please post them on the article's talk page). The Transhumanist 17:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This may just be throwing a spanner into the works, but this intrigued me. Looking up definitions (in the UK) threw up this. "a system of buses, trains, etc, running on fixed routes, on which the public may travel." The factor in that, which seems to be missing from the discussion so far, is "fixed routes" Wymspen (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spanners are welcome. Monkey wrenches too. That tidbit has been added to the lead of the article public transport. Thank you for your observation. The Transhumanist 17:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Idioms

@Jayron32: A similar problem arises with the term "shared transport". In all forms of public transport, the vehicles are shared. But does the term "shared transport" include buses, trains, and planes? If so, the two articles overlap almost entirely, and the various missing modes of transport need to be presented in the article on shared transport. Idioms appear to be a form of interface hacking, by hijacking a phrase that has a different meaning when concatenated in regular speech.

Getting back to "public transport", if you just take the meaning of the concatenated words, they could refer to cars in general, as they are a form of transport available to the public for purchase. Almost anyone can buy a car, and practically everyone uses them, so they are a form of mass transit in the context that they move a lot of people, and in some countries the majority of the public own one. But the terms "public transport" and "mass transit" as presented in dictionaries do not include privately owned vehicles, even though there are hundreds of millions of them owned by members of the public. In a similar way, those definitions do not include taxicabs either. The Transhumanist 02:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Shared transport" is sometimes used to refer to such things as Israeli sherut taxis, and Philippines jeepneys, which do not necessarily move along fixed routes according to predefined schedules... AnonMoos (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Zuckermann, Ghilʻad (2003). Language contact and lexical enrichment in Israeli Hebrew (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 3. ISBN 978-1403917232.
^ Sally Barr Ebest Writing from A to Z: the easy-to-use reference handbook 1999– p. 449 "A neologism is a newly coined word or phrase or a new usage of an existing word or phrase."
^ Lynne Bowker, Jennifer Pearson Working With Specialized Language 2002 p. 214 "Neologisms can also be formed in another way, however, by assigning a new meaning to an existing word."

labor adjuster

Betty MacDonald "became the only woman labor adjuster in the National Recovery Administration" in the 1930s, says Barbara Levy: Ladies Laughing, Gordon & Breach, Philadelphia 1997. In a short bio of the author in "Who's who in the East", 1957, I also find "labor adjuster NRA". What exactly was a "labor adjuster" in New-Deal America? What did he (she) do? --Mautpreller (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"As a representative of employers, he worked with his union counterpart in settling disputes over the wages to be paid." Source. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! "Settling disputes over the wages to be paid." However, MacDonald's job was with the NRA, so I think she might have been a representative of the state rather than a representative of employers. Your source is very interesting.--Mautpreller (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also asked the question in the German wikipedia: de:Wikipedia:Auskunft#Labor adjuster, which yielded a very interesting link: https://books.google.de/books?id=IjecnphnVZQC&pg=PA94. --Mautpreller (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's grandpa's views

Are there any sources about Donald Trump's grandpa's political or ideological views?--Hofhof (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Frederick Trump or Malcolm MacLeod? He had two grandfathers, as most of us do. --Jayron 32 22:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about Fred, but I suppose reliable sources about both would be interesting. --Hofhof (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding much ofc (Donald Trump's father went by the name Fred Trump, his grandfather by the name Frederick Trump or sometimes "Friedrich", so it's important to keep the terminology straight). The Wikipedia article notes only that he voted in elections in the U.S., but not how he voted or what his political views were. this article notes that he ran afoul of authorities in his native Bavaria for avoiding military service, but again doesn't say much about his political views. This article has more extensive discussion of Frederick's life, but does not mention his politics. I can find little, if anything, about Malcolm MacLeod except his name and dates of birth, and where he lived. See, for example, this article. He seems to have lived a quite, uneventful life on the Isle of Lewis, a remote island in Scotland with little contact with the outside world. --Jayron 32 18:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis had long ceased to be a remote island by MacLeod's time where steamboats were already calling at Lewis—as early as 1807, tours to the Western Isles of Scotland were happening and these even extended to the Northern Isles as well. Guidebooks to the area were prevalent by the 1840's. The Guide to the Western Isles was published in 1834 catering for an expanding tourist trade. During the herring fishing, Stornoway provided a haven to huge numbers of boats from all over Britain as they chased the "silver darlings" around the UK coast. (My own great great uncle, a fisherman from the Scottish east coast emigrated to Stornoway where he married a Lewis MacLeod so maybe I'm related to the Donald). See Tourism and Identity in Scotland, 1770–1914: Creating Caledonia, By Katherine Haldane Grenier, pages 65-68. --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From his business history, we can say that he was clearly not opposed to profiting from alcohol or prostitution. Also, it is assumed that he was not opposed to bribing officials. He obviously put profit first. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was also unopposed to the oldest profession. LongHairedFop (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what the IP meant by "not opposed to profiting from ... prostitution". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's possible someone may think profiting from prostitution is okay but be opposed to prostitution. That said, I'm not sure how LongHairedFop knows that Frederick Trump was "unopposed to the oldest profession" other than making assumptions by his willingness to profit from it. I'd note that it's even theoretically possible someone may be perfectly willing to profit from prostitution but still be genuinely opposed to profiting from it. Nil Einne (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a guess here, based on where Frederick Trump was voting.:

He first registered to vote in Seattle, Washington for the United States presidential election, 1892. In these elections, Washington primarily voted for Benjamin Harrison, the Republican candidate. Harrison won 41.45% of the local votes.
By 1896, Trump had settled in Monte Cristo, Washington, where he was elected Justice of the peace. Assuming he bothered to vote in the United States presidential election, 1896, chances are that he voted for William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic candidate. Washington primarily supported Bryan in these elections, and he won 56.97% of the local votes.
By 1900, Trump was no longer living in the United States, as he migrated to Canada during the Klondike Gold Rush. His main residence was in Bennett, British Columbia, where he operated the Arctic Hotel. In 1900, Trump also established a second Inn in Whitehorse, Yukon. He probably did not vote at all in the United States presidential election, 1900.
By 1904, Trump had settled in New York City, New York. Later that year, Trump attempted to resettle in the German Empire with his wife and daughter. Local authorities discovered that Trump was a draft dodger and started procedures to strip him of his German citizenship. In December, 1904, Trump was still in the German Empire, struggling with petitions to keep his citizenship. He probably did not vote at all in the United States presidential election, 1904.
By 1908, Trump had resettled in New York City, where he spend the rest of his life. Assuming he bothered to vote in the United States presidential election, 1908, chances are that he voted for William Howard Taft, the Republican candidate. New York state primarily supported Taft in the elections, and he won 53.11% of the local vote.
In 1912, Trump was still in New York City. Assuming he bothered to vote in the United States presidential election, 1912, chances are that he voted for Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic candidate. New York state primarily supported Wilson in the elections, and he won 41.27% of the local vote.
In 1916, Trump was still in New York City. Assuming he bothered to vote in United States presidential election, 1916, chances are that he voted for Charles Evans Hughes, the Republican candidate. New York state primarily supported Hughes in the elections, and he won 51.53% of the local vote. These were the last presidential elections of Trump's life.
In 1918, Trump died due to an influenza infection. Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of guesswork, and your percetages are all functionally close enough to 50% as to be meaningless; if Woodrow Wilson won 41.27% of the vote in his area, there's a 58.73% chance he didn't vote for Wilson. The question is too variable to make any extrapolations as you have done. It's complete bullshit. --Jayron 32 16:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Had similar thoughts the moment I read that reply. Especially when percentages aren't extreme. I mean even if it was 95% speaking on average there's still a 1/20 chance he'd be someone who didn't vote for whoever got that 95%. When they are close to 50% it's basically pointless. Even more when it's only the plurality. If you have more details about how the average person who fits a certain profile voted you can come to a more educated guess, but you should still recognise how easily you could be wrong. And a lot off the more info is knowledge of person's politics anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming we had further knowledge than these percentages, the chance that your guesses are correct is roughly 2.67%. 93.136.79.20 (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DNA analysis

I did a DNA test on an online geneaology site, using cotton swabs in my cheeks, and I have now received the results. I'm a bit curious about the results and wondered if anyone here can help explain some things. I am European, of English and Irish heritage and had already done some geneaology research with family records. I got back about 3-5 generations back to the 19th Century: my family is mostly (3/4) from Lancashire, with Irish from Co. Wicklow too (1/4). So now my DNA results are 95% Europe, mostly comprising of 48% Irish/Welsh/Scottish and 44% Scandinavian (the rest is Italian), plus 5% African (mostly North Africa, with 1% Nigerian). So I am curious about: 1) It says 0 % English, how is that? 2) Why is the Scandinavian so high if I have no immediate ancestors from there? 3) How far do the results of the tests that you can purchase online generally go back in time? --Ecolchester (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unhappily: Genetic Ancestry Tests Mostly Hype, Scientists Say . They can only tell you what DNA markers you have in common to a certain population. --Hofhof (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unhappily, your article saying "But such results are beyond the capabilities of current tests, scientists say. " dates from 2007 and is pretty outdated as a critique of present testing. Golly, your mitochondral DNA test from 11 years ago did not provide autosomal DNA testing? Shocking! Edison (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you have Scandinavian ancestors who moved to England? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most Lancastrians do... Danish and Norwegian “vikings” who settled in the region in the “dark ages”. Blueboar (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things to remember about the genetic tests: 1) they have a high degree of false precision when they are reported to you. Numbers less than about 10% are probably bullshit, so you can probably ignore your North African/Nigerian results. 2) Populations are highly mobile, so unless the test tells you when they are basing their locations on (consider that a genetic test for North Africa in the 400's would turn up high concentrations of Germanic peoples closely related to those from, say, Sweden, see Migration Period) 3) Insofar as they may be accurate, if your ancestry is from the North or North East of England, it is likely you have no actual Anglo-Saxon (i.e. English) roots despite your family history being in England for a millenia. That's because the primary English settlement was along the Saxon Shore, the Southeast of England. Areas around Lacashire would have been still Celtic and/or Norse in background, see Hen Ogledd, which was the part of modern England that was not actually much settled by the English. Most of the population there would have been the Cumbric peoples, a close relative of the Welsh. Lancashire was also part of the Danelaw, which was the area the English allowed the Norse people the freedom to settle in; by consequence it is highly likely your ancestors (if we're counting "English" to mean "Anglo Saxon") were not actually English. But again, if we fast-forward 200-300 years, to the Middle English period, then we would call those people "English"; it just may be that genetically, there are still distinctions where culturally there are not. Culture is not genetics, and words like "English" or "Scandanavian" are cultural, and not genetic, in nature. --Jayron 32 14:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ecolchester -- if by "English" the company basically means probable Anglo-Saxon ancestry (traditionally Angles, Saxons, and Jutes), then you could have very little of that. There were strong historical Celtic-Viking connections in some cases (starting out almost purely negatively with the plundering of monasteries and such, but in time growing beyond that). See Kingdom of Dublin etc... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For a depiction of the raiders, see Vikings (2013 TV series). The Transhumanist 05:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the article History of Lancashire for some of the political changes in the area over the centuries. Dimadick (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article; Britons still live in Anglo-Saxon tribal kingdoms, Oxford University finds (March 2015), has a DNA map of the British Isles which concurs with your test results. Alansplodge (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[palgrave-1] Zuckermann, Ghilʻad (2003). Language contact and lexical enrichment in Israeli Hebrew (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 3. ISBN 978-1403917232.

[2] Sally Barr Ebest Writing from A to Z: the easy-to-use reference handbook 1999– p. 449 "A neologism is a newly coined word or phrase or a new usage of an existing word or phrase."

[3] Lynne Bowker, Jennifer Pearson Working With Specialized Language 2002 p. 214 "Neologisms can also be formed in another way, however, by assigning a new meaning to an existing word."

[1]

[2]

[3]