Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 July 27

= July 27 =

Identification of painting
There is a painting that I'm trying to locate; it depicts a young street urchin looking at a toothless old hag who (I think) is drinking soup. Does this ring any bells with anyone?


 * Please sign your posts. Use 4 tildes (~).  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, really helpful. I appreciate your input about that important procedural matter.


 * That would be the painting called ... wait ... excuse me ... I have to get a drink of water. Bus stop (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The meal by Carl Bloch? (two boys + old woman, however, and all three are eating the soup). Or possibly Velázquez's Old Woman Frying Eggs (obviously not soup)? ---Sluzzelin talk  02:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, those are very relevant suggestions, but unfortunately not what I'm looking for. The one I'm thinking of has just two characters: the boy and the old woman. The subtext (according to interpretation) is that the boy will, soon enough, grow old, and will end up in the same decrepit state as the woman. 109.145.3.61 (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Old Woman and Boy by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo? ---Sluzzelin talk  03:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Brilliant, I think that's the one. It doesn't look exactly like soup, but I think it could be a kind of mush because she has no teeth. I don't remember the dog or the still-life elements either, and the boy is a little less urchin-like than I thought I remembered, but it is so close I think it must be the right one. Thanks again. 109.145.3.61 (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This commentary says the painting "depicts an old woman trying to hide her plate of food from a poor street boy." That would seem to be consistent with the interpretation you heard of the painting. Bus stop (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How odd. When I looked at it I assumed she was "hiding" the plate from the dog, and the boy was perhaps playfully suggesting to let it have a lick. Wnt (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Does China say it'll close Macau's casinos in 2049?
If yes, when will people stop making long-payback time investments in the industry? (approximately) Like new casinos, expansions, mortgages, and new world's biggest casinos? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What decade is their price most likely to peak? (inflation-adjusted or nominal) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I can find no sources which claim that China has set a date to close Macau.   Please link to any source where you found that statement, so we can read it ourselves and therefore help you find more sources about it.  -- Jayron 32 12:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (EC) I can only assume that the OP has some weird idea that the end of the promised 50 year One country, two systems period in Macau means the end of casinos there. But while, as our article highlights, the Chinese government have never really said what they'll do afterwarda, there's no particular reason to think this will entail the closing of all casinos. The Chinese government have generally seemed happy to keep whatever is working, they're only unhappy with things they regard as a problem. Totally destroying the economy of Macau would seem likely to be more of a problem than fixing one. This doesn't of course rule out a significant shake up or a long term planned change which to some extent is already happening anyway . Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Nobody knows for certain what will happen in 2049 when 'One country, two systems' loses its protection under international law. One relevant factor is that all land is owned by the government in China (including Hong Kong and Macau, with the famous exception of St John's Cathedral, Hong Kong). Although people routinely talk about 'buying' land, they actually acquire land use rights in exchange for an upfront payment (land premium) and regular ground rent. A website citing a Wynn Resorts filing says that their lease will expire in July 2029, but is renewable. The negotiations over that renewal might provide some indication of future prospects. The mainland government often issues 70-year leases (the first of which will expire in 2050), so it might be significant that this lease is relatively short. Matt's talk 13:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. See also our article on Gambling in China. Matt's talk 14:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but that's a thin article on St. John's Cathedral (Hong Kong). Can you add anything to explain why it's a freehold? (How did this come about in HK? And why no other freehold churches?) Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't add anything to the article: plenty of secondary sources mention the exemption, but I don't know one that explains why it was created (unless you count Tai-Pan, which is definitely not an RS!). The cathedral was built by the government with a mixture of private and public funds under an ordinance of 1847, which handed "the real estate in the said church and all lands ... thereunto belonging" to trustees. The leasehold system existed from day 1 of the colony, so this was definitely an exception and appears to have been an attempt to reproduce the establishment of the Church of England (a topic on which we lack a good article). It was reaffirmed in an ordinance of 1850 and by the Church of England Trust Ordinance 1930 (discussed here), which is still in effect. Just before the handover, the cathedral council discussed transferring the freehold to the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui, but discovered that the cathedral (and St Andrew's Church, Kowloon, built under separate legislation) were still established churches; the government required a large land premium if the land was to be privatized in this way. No other church is a freehold because none of them have this particular history. As to why the land was granted freehold: it might have been a simple error by a draftsman forgetting or ignorant of HK's land system. But I think it is more likely that it is a consequence of two kinds of religion. Firstly, the Anglican theology held by the English civil servants who established Hong Kong. Like the Church of England, St John's was to share in some state privileges, without being part of the government. Secondly, that settlement was preserved by the deep conservatism of the Hong Kong elite, centred around the sacred system of land leases that has been so very, very lucrative for both the public finances and their private fortunes. Matt's talk 17:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Even if they did state they would close the casinos then, it wouldn't mean it's true, as the leadership of China is quite likely to change by then, and their policies tend to change with new leaders. Compare the China of today with Mao's China. StuRat (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * A search for guangdong casinos turned up this site (whose bias is obvious) which has some stories making it sound like China is not exceptionally adverse to gambling, and in fact is considering concessions (reduced border checks) to improve accessibility of the Macao casinos, while this source says explicitly that "any spread of underground Macao-style casinos in PRC would undermine its economic national security and social order". The overall benefit of a policy that prohibits gambling where the government can tax it while encouraging it in a region exempt from the normal taxation is not obvious, but War on Drugs style policies can be very profitable to specific enforcers and criminal organizations for a very long time. Wnt (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Presumably the Chinese are aware of the advantages and disadvantages of gambling:


 * The big disadvantage is that it's an activity that doesn't generate any wealth. That is, all it does is transfer money from one group of people to another.  So, if both groups are Chinese, then nothing has been gained for China.  See balance of trade.


 * However, if they can bring in foreign tourists, then that is a net gain for China, and being in a zone with special "pro-tourist" laws may help encourage tourism. (This may not be such an issue in China, where they encourage tourism in most places, versus say Saudi Arabia, where tourists are either forbidden in some areas like parts of Mecca, or severely restricted, as in the case of drinking alcohol and women wearing "immodest" clothing.)  Discouraging their own citizens from going abroad to gamble also helps here.


 * In other nations, notably the US, the local governments see the opportunity to extract money from people in neighboring jurisdictions as a positive, while in nations with a stronger central government, like China, that is seen as the overall waste of effort that it is. Therefore, new constructions that would only transfer wealth may not be approved, in favor of an export industry that will.  However, existing casinos have already been paid for, so closing them may not make sense, unless they can be reused in some more productive way.


 * In nations where imposing taxation is problematic, taxing gambling can overcome this. Not sure if China has this problem.


 * In nations where "off the books" gambling is widespread, leading to control by organized crime, legalizing it can allow for it to be taxed and regulated. StuRat (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks to me quite very old fashioned, in an even pre-Physiocracy way, to pretends that an activity that "just transfer money from one group of people to another" do not generate wealth. Gambling is an entertainment for sure.
 * Gambling is also a very social activity, with its merits, among which, the ability generate hope, and to drain wealth out of fools into hands able to make a better use of it
 * Most governments control gambling in a way or another, through permits, state-approved or stated-owned companies, etc. Part of the business is to please authorities so that they don't mess with your business, but mess with your concurrent's.
 * Gem fr (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I do think that services can build wealth, such as babysitting allowing parents to go work and do other productive things. However, gambling doesn't seem to qualify.  As for entertainment value, I don't think a gambling session leaves you with lifetime of pleasant memories, like a good concert might, unless you happen to be a rare big winner.  But the real issue is how China views it, and they seem to be very much in the balance of trade mode of looking for ways to increase tangible wealth, so are only likely to encourage gambling where it does that. StuRat (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I hadn't meant to start such a general gambling debate based on my "War on Drugs" crack above - I was referring more to the nature of the policing, in that it seeks out organized criminals and apparently willing customers, rather than the reason for prohibition. The interesting issues with gambling are not those typically involved in a poker game among friends - for example, you have to decide whether a casino has the "right" to keep money that was stolen from the company pension fund by a manager who really hoped the ball would land on black and he could return the capital ... or to keep money that was taken improperly from a spouse for wagering ... or wagered by someone who claims an addiction.  There are also some social order implications involved in the ability of a casino to accept a planned large, possibly anonymous cash payment, possibly of money in need of laundering, by someone who simply bets big again and again until a predetermined amount of money is lost.  I don't know if anyone has ever even proposed a "right to welsh" to curb casino sob stories and make them keep databases of reliable/unreliable customers, or what transaction monitoring is required nowadays or how effective it is (though apparently some no longer accept the lowly quarter and do everything electronically).  I suppose any long-term policy or guesswork/crystal ball gazing about Chinese or other policy toward casinos would depend in part on trying to explore and understand philosophical issues of this nature. Wnt (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Are public teachers and doctors in tax-funded institutions public servants?
Are they public/civil servants or government employees/officials? Civil service seems to blur the two terms, so I don't know if a civil servant is just an employee hired by the government to do skilled labor, while government officials and employees are elected or appointed. Back in the olden days of Europe, if a king hires a doctor, then is the doctor the king's private servant or country's public servant? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I assume that you are asking about the USA, but here in the UK, teachers and doctors are usually employed by individual schools and hospitals, or by Local Education Authorities and NHS trusts or NHS foundation trusts, not by central government, so they are not civil servants.   D b f i r s   13:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This varies by time and place. For example:
 * In many continental European countries, teachers are often public servants, which brings advantages (ironclad pensions and tenure) and restrictions (forbidden to engage in political activity or strike). You can learn about the German version of this system in our article on Beamter. Germany has a compulsory health insurance system, not a single-payer system, so doctors don't normally work for the government, so they are not public servants. Some doctors work in university hospitals though, so they might be included.
 * In the UK, civil servants are permanent employees of the national government. Traditionally, they role as contrasted with government ministers, the tiny (~100) of political officials at the very top, though this line has been blurred by the creation of quangos. Civil servants cannot take part in political activity, but their pension scheme was (until recently) very good. Neither teachers nor doctors work directly for the national government, so they are not civil servants. In some respects, they were treated in a similar way to employees of nationalized industries: they worked for an organization that was owned by the government.
 * University teachers have always have independent of the government.
 * The education of children was mostly the responsibility of local authorities until the very end of the 20th century. Most teachers in state schools now work for academies or free schools, controlled by some form of school governors. So teachers' salaries have never come directly from the national government.
 * Doctors don't work directly for the national government, but for the National Health Service. In the past, this was a kind of joint venture between local and national government. The doctors are now employed by NHS Trusts, so they are not civil servants.
 * In the US, doctors are usually employees of private businesses, even if those businesses have contracts with state or federal government. Teachers of children are normally employed by school boards. Those teachers often have tenure and other working conditions that are better than those available in profit-making businesses.. People who work directly for state or federal governments are public servants. The distinctive feature of US public service is the very large number of political appointments, though this would not usually include doctors or teachers.
 * Matt's talk 14:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In North Carolina public school teachers are employees of the state, participate in the State Employees benefit system (retirement, health insurance, etc.) are paid with state funds (though school districts can also fund supplements over the state scale), and can be members of the State Employees Credit Union, etc. Other states have different arrangements, where the teacher is solely an employee of the local school district.  By definition, public school teachers are "public employees"; i.e. they are paid by public tax funding.  However, the term civil servant or "public servant" is not a synonym of that, generally the term "civil servent" is strictly defined (based on jurisdiction) and may or may not include a teacher.  -- Jayron 32 14:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to expand a bit, a civil servant or "government official" is a person who is employed in governing a political entity. That is, they work in the enforcement of laws, regulations, and policies.  Teachers are employed by the political entity to teach, but have no role in governing, so are not civil servants or government officials.  -- Jayron 32 14:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the article you linked to backs up your assertion, Jayron. The more focused United States federal civil service specifically calls out that there are 600,000 postal workers within that heading and they're certainly not involved with governing anything, but are instead professionals that provide a public service, get paid from government coffers, and are not appointed/elected. Or maybe I misunderstood what you were saying? Matt Deres (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the US definition of "civil service" is far broader than someone "enforcing laws, regulations and policies." VA doctors don't enforce laws, regulations or policies, but they are, nonetheless, "civil servants" under the federal civil service system. The vast majority of civilian employees of United States government agencies are "civil servants" — the general exceptions being the policymaking political appointees at the top levels of bureaucracy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the UK the general term for teachers, health workers (in the NHS), police, firefighters and anyone else whose salary is paid from taxes and ultimately determined by central government funding decisions is also public employee or public sector employee. Confusingly, in Wikipedia public employee redirects to civil service, but in the UK at least (as pointed out above) the terms are not synonymous. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed that redirect to Public sector, but would be happy with a disambiguation page instead if public employee always means "civil service" in America. I've left Public servant still redirecting to Civil service since this is less ambiguous.   D b f i r s   07:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Public administration. Before that, a king would had "appointed" his doctor and the teacher of his children, just like his chancellor (Chancery (medieval office)) or any other office. Gem fr (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * One possible way to tell if a given professional is considered a "civil servant" is whether they had to take a Civil service examination to be hired. In the US, teachers and doctors do not... but this may be different in other countries. Blueboar (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

What was the longest first world blackout that made the sky much darker for at least 1 location?
The night sky. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * here are some well known ones. The New York City blackout of 1977 is certainly a contender.  It lasted the better part of 5 days, and has been the subject of feature films (Summer of Sam) and documentaries (NY77: The Coolest Year in Hell).  List of major power outages also will help you in your research.   -- Jayron 32 16:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * A much earlier example would be the wartime blackouts in the UK and other European cities. Although our article only mentions the Second World War, the first blackout in London was in 1915. When Leefe Robinson shot down a German airship in 1916, just to the north of London, the glow was visible in Cambridge some 50 miles away.  Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not surprised that a fire could be seen long distances in 1915. Nights were dark then. An autobiography of growing up in the East End of London at that time described how the stars were visible: from the centre of the largest city the world had ever known! What I'd like to know is when the stars became invisible from city-centres, a more gradual process. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Northeast blackout of 2003 ? "In more remote areas it took nearly a week to restore power." StuRat (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

A week? Pshaw. See 1998 Auckland power crisis for an outage that lasted 5 weeks. But I don't know if the area affected was large enough for appreciable sky-darkening. I suggest looking at the List of major power outages and searching on the page for the words "weeks" and "months" for other candidates. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)