Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 April 9

= April 9 =

Personal Property Tax
In the US, property tax is assessed by looking at the recent transaction value of similar properties.

But what about cases where the property is unique and has been ever been brought or sold? I'm thinking of things like Boeing's 787 assembly line. It's unique because only Boeing has the technology to make it. Boeing has not sold any 787 assembly line yet because it doesn't want its trade secrets to leak out.

What happens to the property tax assessment in this case? How would the government come up with a property value? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In the US, property tax normally refers to the value of land and buildings, not the equipment inside. Presumably the equipment that makes the building an assembly line is taxed separately.  As for the value of the land and building, there should be comparables for those.  (Even if the hangar is twice the size of any other, you could just determine the value per cubic foot of a hangar in that area and apply that.)  See property tax assessment. StuRat (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Most people know that property tax applies to real property, however, some may not know that property tax also applies to personal property. Most personal property owned by individuals is exempt. For example, household goods and personal effects are not subject to property tax. However, if these items are used in a business, property tax applies. Personal property tax does not apply to business inventories, or intangible property such as copyrights and trademarks."


 * "Personal property is subject to the same levy rate as real property. The characteristic that distinguishes real and personal property is mobility. Real property includes land, structures, improvements to land, and certain equipment af﻿fixed to land or structures. Personal property includes machinery, equipment, furniture, and supplies of businesses and farmers. It also includes any improvements made to land leased from the government (leasehold improvements)."


 * If you didn't know that property tax applied to industrial equipment then perhaps this question isn't meant for you. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Many jurisdictions in America have a "personal property tax" which is applied to larger assets such as cars, and is distinguished from real estate property tax. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For example, here in Virginia I have to pay a property tax on my car. Here is a sample document (from Harrisonburg, where I do not live) discussing their taxes on personal property.  Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It used to be worse, or maybe still is in some places. I'm thinking of the line from "Fortunate Son" which talks about selfish rich people, but when the taxman comes to the door, "the house looks like a rummage sale." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Definition of "white" in UK Census
This Excel spreadsheet, from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, gives a breakdown of nationalities/races from the 2011 census as taken in Northern Ireland. How is "White" generally defined? The comments in Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom (there being no Race and ethnicity in the United Kingdom Census article as there is for the United States) seem simple, but in the Excel sheet, the "Other Ethnic Group" section includes the following items: So...how does NISRA define "white", since most of these groups would qualify by any definition I've ever heard people using? Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Irish — 273 people
 * Other Western Europe — 135 people
 * English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/ British — 67 people
 * Other Eastern Europe — 62 people
 * Baltic States — 32 people
 * Polish — 31 people
 * English — 21 people
 * Scottish — 20 people
 * Northern Irish — 13 people
 * have you added up the numbers to see if all those "other ethnic groups" are included in "white". If that doesn't add up, It could be that the NISRA intentionally does not define the term... but is simply be reporting what people wrote down on the form.  Blueboar (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that I can do that; even the Irish Traveller population (which also isn't White) gets a few subdivisions, but they don't split up White at all, so I can't say whether the twenty Scotsmen and the 32 Balts are also considered White. All I can say is that if you add up all the Other Ethnic Group lines, they make 2,353, which is the same number as what's given for the group total.  Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That table is absolutely dreadful, not anywhere near the quality that should be expected of National Statistics. It may help you to look at the question(s) it is derived from, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/the-2011-census/2011-census-questionnaire-content/2011-census-questionnaire-for-england.pdf . They seem to have coded the write-ins but haven't made that clear. Bear in mind that the Census authorities do not define "White" or any of the categories but are trying to discover people's self-definitions. People may give answers that others would think self-contradictory. The questions themselves are problematic. For example, they can tick only one of "Northern Irish" and "Irish", when common sense indicates that you can be both. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * National Statistics, and most other organisations gathering such information, use the 16 + 1 system, which has 16 predetermined categories, plus "Other" for those who don't think they fit one of the 16 and want to write in their own option. The policy is that it is completely self-determined: I used to work on similar surveys, and the rule was that you recorded what people said - even if they were obviously telling you something completely wrong. The census had three "white" categories: White British, Irish, and White - Other. Some people preferred to write in English, Scottish, Welsh or Cornish. Some Europeans preferred their own nationality rather that the "other" category. The data will include everything that was written in - but when it is used the statisticians will group categories according to the needs of their own research. Wymspen (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes but if you look at the Northern Ireland census form I linked to the categories are a bit different from England. And the spreadsheet seems to include write-ins at different levels - other White as well as Other-other. I have used the data prepared for academic access,which would be better than the spreadsheet. If this is all the OP has access to, I would be tempted to phone ONS, who should be helpful. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Leper colony on Easter Island
A leper colony on Easter Island in the early 1900s. Where was this leper colony located on the island? Presumably it would not have been at the main settlement at Hanga Roa. Also when did it ceased to function?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The Katherine Routledge article says "north of Hanga Roa." The tourism website (http://www.easterislandtourism.com/what-to-visit/caves/) mentions Te Peu and the Pu Hakanini Mako’i stone "close to the old leper colony." That suggests on the coast north of Hanga Roa. Wymspen (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Explorer and marine biologist John Loret in Easter Island: Scientific Exploration into the World’s Environmental Problems in a Microcosm (pp. 4-5) describes the leper colony as being "outside the town" (Hanga Roa) but gives the impression of it being only a short walk away. He says there were about twenty lepers there in 1955. Alansplodge (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * A bit more precise is India and the Far East: A Geography of Disease and Sanitation (p. 232) by James Stevens Simmons, Tom F. Whayne, Gaylord West Anderson (London, 1944): "There is a small leper colony located near Ahu-Te-Peu, three miles north of Hanga Roa. No medical care or service is rendered to to members of this colony". Alansplodge (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Mr KAVEBEAR, some feedback would be nice as I spent quite a while finding that for you... Alansplodge (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry for the delay. Nearly forgot I've asked this question. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Most welcome. Alansplodge (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

elected cabinet
In at least some of These United States, most of the cabinet officers – Treasurer, Lieutenant Governor, and so on – are independently elected, rather than appointed by the chief executive. Is that true of any sovereign states? —Tamfang (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I know of none, either in the British system or elsewhere in Europe. I did find an article from (I think|) Brazil, suggesting it (http://www.ozy.com/immodest-proposal/should-voters-elect-cabinet-members/41791) but that didn't actually give any example of it actually happening. In most of Europe, the president or prime minister has to pick his cabinet from the elected members of parliament - but they are not elected to the cabinet itself. Wymspen (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I emailed B. Schemmel (the maintainer of http://www.rulers.org) to ask if he could think of any examples, since he follows a lot of election results. He said nothing came to mind for recent times, "but Swiss cantons before 1848 might be counted". I have no further information. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In most US states (but not all; see Lieutenant Governor of Tennessee, for example), the lieutenant governor corresponds to the vice president or the deputy president in the presidential and semi-presidential systems that many countries (including the USA) use for their national governments. Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Request to alter the names.
Hello Wikipedia team, I am Amit Singh and I have noticed that in your site all names of sikh religion guru's are not written in full. For example The name of the first guru is Guru Nanak Dev and on Wikipedia it shown Guru Nanak and please add ' Sahib ' after their names for giving respect to them. Other names of gurus are in the same manner written. But all names are not same as the example. You can search on the other websites for corrections. 24.79.83.107 (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Read the Talk page at Guru Nanak - you will find that this has been suggested many times, and rejected. You will find even more discussion about this at the Jesus and Muhammed articles, where many believers also want to see titles and honorifics added. Given that Jesus is not allowed Christ, and Muhammed is not allowed Prophet, you are quite fortunate that the article uses the word Guru: total consistency would require a simple Nanak. Wymspen (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 24.79.83.107 -- If "Sahib" is not really part of his name, but is a pure honorific, then the use of such honorifics can be discussed in Wikipedia articles, but it's Wikipedia policy not to include them with every single occurrence of such an honored person's name in Wikipedia articles. In Islamic practice, it's conventional to follow Muhammad's name with ṣalla 'llāhu ʕalayhi wa-sallam صلى الله عليه وسلم (or alternative even longer phrases), but that practice of piety will not occur in Wikipedia articles, except in direct quotes or explanations of honorific practices. AnonMoos (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist tactics
As you probably noticed, in the Middle East and adjacent regions terrorists generally like to blow themselves up (usually either with suicide vests or car bombs), while in Western Europe they either use vehicle ramming or stabbing. Is it because it's more difficult to obtain and make explosives in Europe? --93.174.25.12 (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * With a car bomb, why would a terrorist blow himself up?  Wouldn't he just set the bomb and move away? 81.129.14.0 (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Having a driver allows attacks on well-protected targets that do not allow cars or trucks to park nearby.


 * Getting back to the original question, in war zones explosives are much easier to obtain from unexploded or stolen military ordnance. See and . --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The generalization about what "terrorists generally like" in "the Middle East" doesn't hold for recent years' activity in Israel. Far more relevant is whether the perpetrator is acting alone vs. on behalf of an organization which may supply means and logistics. See 2014 Jerusalem unrest, Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–2016) and articles in the categories at the bottom of the latter internal link. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The general speculation in the UK is that acquiring weapons or explosives takes time and contacts - making it much more likely that the activity will be detected by the security services. There is very little advance preparation involved when a vehicle is used: the recent UK incident actually involved a vehicle which had been legally rented, and a kitchen knife. Nothing there for the police to pick up on or detect. Wymspen (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Car ramming attacks usually don't kill a lot of people. The truck attack in Nice was an exception. But their "terroristic value" can be quite high. The fact that "it could happen anywhere, anytime, and there's not much way of preventing it" makes for a terrifying tactic, even if it kills few people.
 * In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it's notable that the recent spate of attacks (six months or so ago) involved random stabbings, not bombings. Bombs have been used in the past. But Palestinian militants figured out that in terms of frightening Israelis, knives can be very effective, even if deaths are few. Eliyohub (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * They don't "usually" ram cars and/or stab people, although that has happened a few times recently. But, for example, the Charlie Hebdo attack was a mass shooting, the November 2015 Paris attacks were suicide bombings, and a mass shooting, the 2016 Brussels bombings were suicide bombings, and the recent attack in St. Petersburg was apparently a suicide bombing. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * For further information, see Suicide attack (particularly with reference to Sri Lanka) and Car bomb (Irish Republican Army). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Biblical pigs
Both the Old and New Testaments have numerous references to pigs and swineherds. Since the Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork page on Wikipedia makes it clear that the prohibition on pork was observed by the whole region, not just the Jewish population, what were swineherds and pigs doing there? If you can't eat them or touch any product made from their skins, the only other use I can think of for pigs is garbage disposal, and there can't have been much demand for that. 98.6.156.2 (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Our article on Food and dining in the Roman Empire may be of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As a prohibited food, pigs and swines are often portrayed there in a negative context, as an easily recognizable allegory of filth, e.g. Pearls before swine or exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac with its herd of pigs. Brandmeistertalk  13:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The prohibition on pork use was not, as you suggest, universal in the whole region, and the citations used in Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork do not establish the opposite. For example, it is well known that the Philistines ate pork, see e.g. this article. That said, I am not aware of any clear reference in the Old Testament to domesticated pigs, care to share what passages you are talking about? . - Lindert (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-21:22), the errant and impoverished son in an unspecified "distant country" is forced to take employment as a swineherd which "would have been abhorrent to Jesus' Jewish audience, who considered swine unclean animals".
 * If you have not just had your lunch, take a look at our Pig toilet article which may suggest the connection between pigs and uncleanliness in some ancient societies. Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You may also be interested in Smithsonian magazine - People Ate Pork in the Middle East Until 1,000 B.C.—What Changed? which quotes research suggesting that chickens replaced pigs as “a household-based protein resource” because they needed less water and were easier to transport in a crisis. However, it concludes that "the pig never fully disappeared from the region. Pig husbandry continued in some woodland and marsh areas where more abundant feed options meant the animal could pig-out without challenging chickens’ survival". Alansplodge (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * AIUI, there is a viewpoint in biblical analysis (and no I can't source this, it's not my field) that "swine" doesn't necessarily mean "pigs", it's simply a broad and derogatory term for "the unclean animals kept by the despised peoples who aren't us". It might mean goats just as well, it might even mean a fine flock of sheep just that we're coveting. Over so many translations, this has focussed onto "pigs", as the obviously non-kosher animal. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, A Dictionary of the Bible: Volume IV: (Part II: Shimrath -- Zuzim) p. 633 (2004 reprint of 1898 edition) "SWINE - There is no question as to the identity of the animal intended". I couldn't find anything to support your hypothesis, but it sound plausible. Several sources point out that some Old Testament references such as Psalm 80:13 are likely to be referring to Sus scrofa, the wild boar. Alansplodge (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A description of this animal (חֲזִיר) appears in the prohibited-meats section of the Bible (Leviticus 11, which permits animals only if they chew cuds somehow and have a cleft hoof), mentioning that it has a cleft hoof but doesn't chew the cud. Note that other animals also appear, including camels (cud-chewers with an uncleft hoof) and rabbits (food re-chewers of a sort, but not a hoof), so obviously it's not talking about all species.  Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Jehovah's Witnesses have published an article about swine at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004276.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Mother Earth News has published "Raising Pigs for Pork, Plowing and More".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The OP states that the article he links ". . . makes it clear that the prohibition on pork was observed by the whole region . . . ."
 * In common with Lindert above, I'm not seeing that, merely statements that some religions in the region prohibited pig-keeping for their followers, and that one scholar speculates on theoretical grounds that pig-keeping was ecologically bad outside of wooded areas which he says "are scarce" in the region – were they then? (They cannot have been non-existent – consider Cedars of Lebanon and well-known carpenters.)
 * The further discussion seems to be predicated on the assumption that the population of the area was ethnically and religiously homogenous. I question that this is historically true: in the New Testament era the region had been Hellenized for centuries and more recently Romanized, and towns of mixed and non-Semitic populations were not uncommon – see The Decapolis: it seems unlikely that they would all have meekly acceded to the religious dietary whims of some of the conquered indigenes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I had always heard that the dietary restriction was developed to combat trichinosis, an illness that can be contracted by eating undercooked pork. However, the article at #Religious_groups says that theory has fallen out of favor--TIL.  But, iirc it's still true that you're supposed to cook pork to higher temperatures than you would beef. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump administration and Syria
Does the Trump administration plan to overthrow Assad, or did they just simply launch a missile attack against them simply to send a message that it's not ok to use chemical warfare? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 13:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * According to whom? Listening to the the UN ambassador, one will get one impression; listening to the Secretary of State, one will get the opposite. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how reliable the Huffington Post is (probably not a natural Trump ally), but today it posted: Trump Administration Is Contradicting Itself On Regime Change In Syria, basically agreeing with User:Jpgordon's comments above. Alansplodge (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Trump's style often seems to be "Keep 'em guessing." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * A missile strike on one airbase is far from an attempt to overthrow a government. And overthrowing Bashar al-Assad might well cause war with Russia, leave a power vacuum for ISIS and al-Nusra and al-Qaeda to expand, and cause a massacre of the Alawites and other Shia and minorities in Syria. StuRat (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "There's not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime," according to Nikki Haley this week, so obviously the thought has crossed their collective minds, unless they're making stuff up as they go along.  Alansplodge (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, "making stuff up as they go along" is precisely what the Trump admin is known for, whether it's a poorly thought out and unvetting travel ban, claims of 5 million fraudulent votes for Hillary, inventing the "Bowling Green massacre", claims to have won the election by the biggest margin since Reagan, claims to have had more people attend their inauguration than Obama's, etc. StuRat (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * And right on cue, Sean Spicer again didn't think through what he was saying and claimed that Hitler never used chemical warfare. Never heard of Zyklon B, apparently ? StuRat (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Why do people hate prostitutes and support the system at the same time?
Prostitutes have a bad reputation. The whore. The slut. The man whore. Yet, people support the system by paying for the service of prostitutes. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * What system? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Politicians have a far worse reputation than prostitutes (with politicians you get screwed whether you want to or not), yet people keep voting for them. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've always figured that the insulting terms used for prostitutes are the man's shame or self-loathing projected onto them. That contrasts with politicians, who are generally shameless and self-adoring. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This doesn't just apply to prostitutes, but to many "vices". The very same people who voted for Prohibition often drink alcohol themselves.  This is an interesting result of having to maintain a different public persona than private lifestyle.  Why do we feel the need to do this ?  Freud defined the id as our basic instincts, and that it was at odds with our ego, how we are perceived by others, and our superego, how we like to think of ourselves.  This conflict can lead to all types of contradictions.  It is often easier to blame an outside influence rather than one's self.  So, blaming prostitutes rather than yourself, if you go to one, is common.  This may be one source for the murders of prostitutes.  The movie Psycho shows one case of a man blaming his own sexual urges on a woman and then killing her.  There's also an aspect, in prostitution, than the prostitutes are often of a lower class than their "clients", and we tend to treat people from different classes very differently in the criminal "justice" system.


 * Also note that prostitution can be viewed as a necessary evil, with the idea that if men had no other way to get sex, they might commit rapes. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're walking on eggshells with that last point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Aye. They sell eggs in stores, too, but this little girl was still devastated. Same thing with hookers, minus the details. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The relationship between enabling prostitution to reduce rape is rather speculative. And it could be argued that prostitution is rape, at least in the majority of cases. Hofhof (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not where it starts on the side of the procuring business, and the most offensive sets of the name calling can certainly be traced back to the same. Is there anything in it to become durably sweetened, the 60 years old-plus Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others of the United Nations refering to "the gratifying of the passions"? --Askedonty (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * who hates prostitutes, though? apart from (potential) serial killers and men from "all women are whores except mommy"-type cultures, I think most people just don't think about prostitutes all that much. no sane man would want his daughter to become one, but that's not "hate." you keep uncovering all these supposed inconsistencies and hypocrisies in your questions (the one about long age, too) that, on a closer look, aren't Asmrulz (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, disrespect is probably far more common than hate. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Around me (Scandinavia area and Spain sometimes) people criminalize pimps, despise and fine johns, and pity the prostitutes. In Scandinavia they are more proactive fighting the industry. I would not assume despising prostitutes is a universal thing. In Germany or the Netherlands it's even regarded as a profession. Hofhof (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What do they think about male prostitution and lesbian prostitution and straight male prostitution with female johns? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you are Scandinavian, Spanish, German, Dutch, and Flemish at the same time? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not? Emperor Charles V was most of those as well as several more.  -- Jayron 32 15:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I do have strong ties with the first two, and casual with the third. Hofhof (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No repsondents have yet pointed to our articles on sex work and sex worker, which have some explanation of the stigma involved. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Source establishing Robert's Rules of Order as the predominant authority on parliamentary procedure in the US
Greetings, I'm currently trying to translate a passage from Supermajority about Robert's Rules of Order, the latter article states that RRO is one of the most widely-used rulebooks on parliamentary procedure in various organizations, unfortunately I'm not able to find a reliable source for this. I've tried finding something on Google but most of the results are blog posts by people running nonprofits restating the claim based on personal experience, which isn't the best source. The issue has been brought up on Talk:Robert's Rules of Order/Archives/2013 with no conclusion, does anyone have a source that supports the claim, other than word-of-mouth or personal experience? Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 18:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a link from the University of Illinois, though I don't know what their source is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

In article Robert's Rules of Order citation 61 links to footnote 4 in: Two dated but scholarly sources are: -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

History--Casablanca Conference
Route and timetable of Pres. Roosevelt's return to the USA after the Casablanca Conference ended.––––– — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbelshe (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article about Air Force One contains sourced information that During World War II, Roosevelt traveled on the Dixie Clipper, a Pan Am-crewed Boeing 314 flying boat to the 1943 Casablanca Conference in Morocco, a flight that covered 5,500 miles (8,890 km) in three legs. The return trip began at the Anfa Hotel after the conference closed on January 24, 1943 and it transported the wheelchair-bound FDR (not accompanied nor greeted by FLOTUS) back to Washington DC. Blooteuth (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to find out what the "three legs" were. Our Boeing 314 Clipper says that the inaugural commercial trans-Atlantic route was "from Southampton to Port Washington, New York with intermediate stops at Foynes, Ireland, Botwood, Newfoundland, and Shediac, New Brunswick". It also mentions a wartime supply route to the Middle East from Brazil to Liberia. The Azores would have been a useful stopping point, but didn't come under Allied control until December 1943. Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)