According to what I understand it is common to see feminists in their demonstrations while they put a red color on their face (it can be ketchup or something like that- look here for example on minute 1:32), then my question is what is the meaning of this action? what do they means to say by this action? I never understood.93.126.95.68 (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Blood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just to provide a reference for Bugs' assertion, see this article about the exact protest in your video. --Jayron32 03:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. But still I don't understand what is the purpose to put a fake blood on the face. I believe that they wanted to pass a message by this action, such as to show the proud of the women gender by period blood or something like that, but I'm not sure, it's just assuming. In this video we can see a imitation of them by women but as a non native English speaker I don't understand the spelling on 1:32 and from there on, it's not clear and kindly maybe you can tell me the transcription for these seconds (sounds something like "I'm rowdy - not I'm president"?) 93.126.95.68 (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure we can ascribe a specific motive beyond "drawing attention to one's self and by extension, to one's cause". Start with the null hypothesis and whatever you can't find positive evidence to support, make no assumptions about one way or the other. We don't know whether the blood is supposed to symbolize menstrual blood, blood of assaulted women, blood of murdered women, blood of men they feel have wronged them, or any or none of these. So we can say "it's blood" and that's that. Nothing else needs be said unless we have direct statements by the women regarding their motives and their intended symbolism. --Jayron32 04:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeeeaaahh. Or we could Google feminist blood face and see that it's typically meant to symbolize menstrual "blood". Here's one example of why they might do that and what it's supposed to symbolize. I'm not sure what you're going for, Jayron; are you supposing feminists are so alien that we can only guess at their motives? Matt Deres (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nope, what we're going for is the consistent application of the null hypothesis to answer all questions without evidence. I don't guess at the motives of others, because that is rude. Like you did right here, where you invented something I never said, and then got outraged at your own invention. I don't do that. You do. --Jayron32 23:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

In this particular case, they also raised their right fists, and some suggest it's solidarity with the "Black Lives Matter" movement which that neo-Nazi was ridiculing (along with feminism). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

What neo-Nazi would that be, Bugs? I didn't see any neo-Nazi. I saw someone who had come to campus to talk about being open to new ideas. --Trovatore (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing new about white male supremacy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please provide proof that anyone in the room was advocating white male supremacy. --Trovatore (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

For one, the part of the crowd yelling "Trump! Trump! Trump!" The speaker hates feminism and hates the "black lives matter" movement. Nuff sed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Enough said? Really? How do you get from hating feminism and hating the "black lives matter" movement, to white male supremacy? Do you think there is no possible way to criticize those two movements other than from the standpoint that white males ought to be supreme? If so, can you demonstrate that? --Trovatore (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The criticism itself arises from the belief in white male supremacy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, I thought I was clear; I asked you to demonstrate, not just to restate. I suppose this is a slightly different claim from the one I asked you to demonstrate, since you did not say that there was no possible other criticism, just that this was Yiannopoulos's criticism (I assume that's whom we're talking about). So to clarify, please demonstrate that this is the source of the criticism. --Trovatore (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Enough ladies, let's just stich to the question, not the motives of established, good-faith editors. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if it was you, but I've removed the hat. Perhaps part of the discussion is offtopic, but Jayron's first response which was hatted was specifically about the OP's question "still I don't understand what is the purpose to put a fake blood on the face" so is both ontopic and is not relating to the motives of established good faith editors. Matt's response was likewise ontopic and in fact included a reference even if it did question the comment (but not the motives) of another editor. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

"ontopic"? Is that the latest manifestation of the "No separate prepositions Movement"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

An onto-pic is a film about how things are. An epistemo-pic is one about how we find out. --Trovatore (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Reply

Interestingly, I just heard a radio reporter mispronounce bio-pic (a biographic moving picture/movie/film) as "bi-opic". Sounds like some version of binoculars. StuRat (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Reply

Hmmm 'bi-opic'...I was going with 'myopic in both eyes'! SteveBaker (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I saw this video (3:33) and I listened to the woman that said "I don't think all men are potential predators or rapists - a significant number of the yes all women tweets implied that.". I don't understand the meaning of the emphasized part (maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker). ThePupil17 (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The hashtag #yesallwomen is used by some Twitter users to highlight sexism and harrasment that women face. The woman in the video is saying that many of the tweets using this hashtag are generalizing men, making it seem that they are all potential predators or rapists. - Lindert (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think it should have been written "a significant number of the 'yes all' women tweets", indicating those who believe that all men have the potential, if I'm parsing it correctly. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Clarityfiend: You are not parsing that correctly. The original hashtag was "not all men" which is short for "not all men are like that" (Which doesn't necessarily mean rapists, but refers to sexism, misogyny, discrimination, domestic violence, what I would like to euphemistically call poor dating etiquette et cetera). Later another hashtag was created #yesallwomen (meaning: Yes, all women experience sexism and harassment, discrimination, misogyny and poor dating etiquette et cetera). The woman in the video claims that a significant number of the #yesallwomen tweets implied that all men are rapists. This claim is (obviously) false. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

There's also obviously a crucial difference between "all men are rapists" and "all men are potential rapists". The latter statement is kind of a truism. Anyone could be a rapist if you know nothing about them. The same goes for "all women are potential rapists" - Lindert (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Lindert: You forgot to mention aliens. All aliens are potential rapists. I just read about a hundred of #yesallwomen tweets (which isn't very impressing considering they are limited to 140 characters) and none of those tweets claimed that all men are rapists. I admit that the sample size is a bit small, but still... The woman in the video makes that claim, even though it is easy to disprove, because she has an agenda. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@The Quixotic Potato:When you're trying to disprove a claim, you need to state the claim accurately. She never said that any tweets called all men rapists. Again, you're leaving out the word 'potential'. Now I don't think her actual statement was particularly meaningful or even true, but you are attacking a strawman here. - Lindert (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Lindert: True. New version: none of the ~100 #yesallwomen tweets I just read implied that all men are potential predators or rapists. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Back to the linguistic question, without regard to the questions people are answering that didn't need to be because no one asked. The way to parse the statement is "a significant number of the 'yes all women' tweets implied that" because 'yes all women' refers to a specific kind of tweet, one with the hashtag #YesAllWomen. See the Wikipedia article titled YesAllWomen if you want to know more about the hastag. --Jayron32 14:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you all. To be honest I had no idea what it is "yes all woman" till the moment that you tell me about, and this the first time that I know about that. I don't use tweeter also, it's less popular in my country, so when I listened to her sentence that I mentioned it was for me like Chinese language :) ThePupil17 (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the map of the last US presidential election, I noticed something rather strange in the south. Although the Dixie states are mostly Republican red, there's a long, almost contiguous arc of blue stretching from somewhere in east Mississippi (Chickasaw County, Mississippi, I think) across Alabama and Georgia and then up through the Carolinas. As far as I can tell, this doesn't correspond to any obvious geographic feature. A quick skim of the articles suggests that many of these are minority-majority counties, but what was it that arranged the demographics that way in the first place? Why this long string of counties? Smurrayinchester 14:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Much of that does stem from those areas being a minority-majority as you said. If you look at that map, you'll see it goes through Birmingham, AL, Atlanta, GA, Columbia, SC, all larger cities with a more urban population that tends to vote Democratic. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

There may also be a geographical aspect: the are in question more or less follows the fall line, and that is where much of the urban growth has taken place in the south. It is inland from the hot and flood prone coastal plains, but below the more difficult hill county. Black Americans have subsequently migrated to those urban areas where the job prospects have been better than in the agricultural coastal plains or in the higher mountain valleys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.178.47 (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

This article notes that it is almost entirely racial. It draws parallels between the map shown, and the racial breakdown of the counties in question: there's almost a 1-to-1 correspondance, which is true even in rural counties. --Jayron32 16:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

This line is called the Black Belt. Since white Southerners are very Republican and make up most of the non-Black population, this makes for a nice contrast where Obama can get enough votes to beat the guy who calls 47% of Americans parasites. The other Obama area in Mississippi is the Mississippi Delta and floodplain by the way, not to be confused with the Mississippi River Delta (which is in another state). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that was exactly the article that I was looking for! I figured that the blue patch along the Mississippi river was probably due to the fertility of the area (and therefore was the ghost of the plantations), but I didn't realize that there was also a geological explanation for this belt too. Smurrayinchester 08:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

You might be interested to know that half the Mississippi Delta was underwater in 1927. Since the land is remarkably flat, full of rivers, and made of silt left by floods this makes it unusually susceptible to floods. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

By comparison, notice those blue regions of the very Republican Texas, most of which are on the Mexico border, and have a high Hispanic population. (Despite currently having two major Hispanic candidates, the policies of the Republican Party, and Trump in particular, are not likely to win many Hispanic votes.) StuRat (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Except [1]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Only 8% of the Nevada Republicans were Hispanic. That poll has problems. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yea, he's bragging about getting votes from 44-45% of the 8-9% of Hispanics who are Republicans, as if it means every Hispanic loves him, when I count only about 4% for Trump (44% of 8%). If he is the nominee, come general election time, he will hear from the rest. StuRat (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

NPR had an article on this and linking it back to glacier formations depositing rich, cotton-growing soil. Glaciers → Soil → Cotton → Slavery → High % Black → Democrats. Article is here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

How do I go about finding who are the largest individual shareholders of Anheuser-Busch InBev? From searching I've found the Morningstar profile [2] but it focuses on funds and institutional shareholders. Muzzleflash (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

This article [3] from the Financial Times mentions two Belgian families who together control 28.6% of the stock: the de Spoelbergh family and the de Mevius family. The Busch family has apparently been wiped out [4] and does not control anything anymore even though their name is still part of the company name. --Xuxl (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've heard a long time ago that there is one Pentecostal church in Africa (I can't remember off the top of my head) that has like millions of congregants sitting at a service. The church not only tends to the spiritual needs, but also provides basic human services that the local government cannot or does not provide. First of all, does this church even exist? My memory is so faint, but I'm pretty sure I'm not making this up. Second of all, how and why did secular governments in the world become more involved with community services (like providing marriage licenses, education, healthcare, food for needy people) without directing them to the church? 140.254.77.249 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think you're looking for this (Pentecostal megachurches in Nigeria, with up to 200 thousand attendants -- really big, but an order of magnitude smaller than "millions"). For the second question, that's a pretty big scope. Secular state or perhaps public policy might provide some starting points, but you're basically asking for a history of government. — Lomn 21:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

We do have an article on History of government that touches on this a little bit. Social contract is also highly relevant. OP may consider moving to a theocracy if they don't like secular governmental services. According to our article, there are currently only four in the world - Holy See, Iran, ISIS, and Central_Tibetan_Administration, though the last doesn't really have full sovereignty. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@SemanticMantis: It looks like you are implying that ISIS does has sovereignty... ISIS isn't a country, and ISIS is not a government, therefore it cannot be a theocracy according to the dictionary definition (I use Merriam Webster). I removed it from the article. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Can anyone help me determine approximately the numbers of marshmallows produced worldwide each year? This would be of great interest to me --Aniolare (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Peak marshmallow is when people eat only marshmallows. 7.5 billion humans times 365 days times 2,000 calories per day @ 1 marshmallow each equals 5.5 quadrillion marshmallows. Someone will be over with a less humorous upper bound shortly. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Googling the subject "how many marshmallows are produced each year" indicates several sources claiming 90 million pounds of marshmallow is consumed by Americans every year. Projecting that to the global scale could give provide a rough likely maximum number. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks, I am concerned about the possible consequences of this "peak marshmallow" scenario and will forthwith write a concerned letter to my MP on the matter. --Aniolare (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm an American, so I think I'm allowed to put down Americans without too much controversy. That said, if you apply our consumption of a sugary snack, which in this case is basically just sugar, to the entire world's population, you will likely have a rather inflated estimate. I'm fairly certain that there are many people who have never seen a marshmallow, much less had an "average" American's supply of them in their life. Dismas|^(talk) 23:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

So you believe that "peak marshmallow" is variable by culture? In that case do Ethiopians require fewer marshmallows than Americans?--Aniolare (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest that almost every other country consumes less marshmallows per head than the United States. What you mean by Ethiopia "needing" marshmallows is slightly odd from an educated and articulate person, almost as though you are deliberately trying to maintain discussion an unanswerable question. Richard Avery (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Are there any legal ramifications in Anglosphere nations for minor social derelictions such as gently pushing a random stranger on the street, calling a police officer ugly extremely unattractive, calling a disapproving co-worker or roommate sexy, blowing kisses at random pedestrians on the street, farting loudly in a crowded elevator, relentlessly flicking the ear of one's disapproving sibling, yelling in the ear of one's frightened parent, cruelly never giving your offspring any pocketmoney or means to pay for educational necessities etc. From my research, the aforementioned situations fall under a grey area that is not covered under the law. Am I correct? Hawaan12 (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Calling a police officer ugly would be an insult (even if it is true). Some people campaigned to ditch Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which makes it illegal to use “threatening, abusive or insulting” words, but I am not sure if that ever happened. Not giving your kid means to pay for educational necessities is probably child abuse. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Those are all quite different situations. The latter ones in your list are almost certainly illegal, the earlier ones (from randomly assaulting strangers down to farting) you may get away with, depending on the seriousness of the consequences and whether the police or prosecuting authorities have a motivation to make an example of you.

Pushing a random stranger on the street is battery and/or assault, a tort, but the amount of damages you are likely to recover will depend on whether you were merely slightly inconvenienced, or fell to the ground and cracked your head.

Calling a policeman offensive names can be an offence, but there is case law at least in some states of Australia that the police are expected to be quite resilient.

"Calling a disapproving co-worker or roommate sexy" could be sexual harassment, depending on how often you do it.

"Blowing kisses at random pedestrians" on the street is likely to be okay, unless you do it so much or so often as to make it offensive, a public nuisance or obstruction to traffic.

"Farting loudly in a crowded elevator" is, I think, generally okay, again depending on the degree and possibly whether it is deliberate.

"Relentlessly flicking the ear of one's disapproving sibling" is definitely battery and probably assault and you probably will not get away with the defence that it is a reasonably expected amount of force. It might be child abuse as well, depending on the ages of the parties concerned.

"Yelling in the ear of one's frightened parent" is probably assault, and if you are their carer, there will be graver ramificiations. Some countries also have emotional abuse laws.

"Cruelly never giving your offspring any pocketmoney or means to pay for educational necessities" may be some sort of child neglect, which is usually a crime. Not --165.225.80.99 (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Pushing someone without their consent probably qualifies as assault and/or battery in most jurisdictions. Now, it's unlikely the state will choose to prosecute anyone for doing only that. We have to consider selective enforcement in any discussion of how the legal system works in practice. Some of the other things you mentioned, such as yelling in a person's ear, might incur torts such as emotional distress, which the wronged party could sue for. These are not crimes, but you asked about "legal ramifications". Also, many jurisdictions have "catchall" offenses such as disturbing the peace (see also ASBO in the UK). If law enforcement tells you to stop something in public (like your example of blowing kisses at people), and you persist, you can find yourself getting charged with one or more of them. People have long realized you can't write laws that deal with every single thing society might possibly want to prevent or discourage; this is part of the reasoning behind the common law system granting relatively broad latitude to the judiciary. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply