Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers,
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.
    • We are not a substitute for actually doing any original research required, or as a free source of ideas.



How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
 
Choose a topic:
 
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual


November 16

Industries

Do industries overlap? I.e. can someone say they work in 2 or more industries in 1 job? For example, could someone working in a construction company building airports say they work in both the construction industry and the airports industry? Or could someone providing telecoms services for a bank say they work in both the telecoms and banking industries? 90.192.104.194 (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

They can "say" whatever they want, but that don't necessarily make it so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
So is there a correct definitive answer to the question of whether industries overlap? 90.192.104.194 (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
In your examples, I'm not seeing it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Construction and airport, no. Airport operations seems to be very removed from airport construction. But telecom and banking I can see - there are many areas where you need both banking and telecom knowledge to make things work (i.e. you need to take into account FCC rules when implementing a trading application). Industries don't form neat, clean taxonomies to begin with - the boundary between e.g. joiners and carpenters is quite fuzzy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It got even more complex with the rise of Human resource management. Like normal workers are sometimes "shared" between multiple companies thru Temporary work-agencies, it has become a business to "share" Engineers and alike highly specialized professionals. --Kharon (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes but theee will be an airport construction department within the airport authority, who will act as the client for the construction project. Would the engineers and project managers there be considered as construction industry professionals or airports industry? Same with highways and rail. Owning authorities will all have a construction department. 90.192.104.194 (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there even such a thing as "airport industry"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
You can call it what you want but the "overlapping" is more commonly called Synergy in the business-language. Its probably uncommon to refer to both or more industries. Instead it is then usually simply called Supplier or Service for industries, in general for single or multiple industries or businesses. --Kharon (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Since you're in the UK, I'd like to refer you to United Kingdom Standard Industrial Classification of Economic Activities, which classifies companies by industry. Please note that "One or more SIC codes can be attributed to a business", so it's more of a categorisation scheme (where an unlimited number of assignments can be given to an entity) than a classification (where an entity is put in exactly one place). Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Question about existence of my first relative

I'm curious about my first ancestor. The first person to be related to me. How can I find out when this person first came into existence? Yellow Sunstreaker (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

That would be this guy: Y-chromosomal Adam. The "when" is not exactly known. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a big difference between the first common ancestor of today's humans who lived a couple hundred thousand years ago, and the "first" ancestor, which would be some single celled bacteria-like organism several billion years ago. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
And the Y-chromosomal Adam is neither of these two. He is a common ancestor, and the most recent patrilinear ancestor (i.e. father or grandfather or grand-grandfather, or (grand-)*grandfather to any living human). The most recent common ancestor was a lot later. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
There's also the Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor, but Yellow_Sunstreaker's question (in the way that it was asked) doesn't have a definite answer. AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
That single celled bacteria-like organism preferred to be called "Steve". Seriously, the nature of speciation means there is no "first" human. - Nunh-huh 07:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The more usual scientific name for Steve is the Last universal common ancestor... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Of course, even with an expansive definition of person, Steve will have an uphill battle to convince most others that it meets the definition. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe that Nunh-huh's original point was that if you insist on strict demarcations between species designations going back in time, then the logical consequence would be that the first homo sapiens was born to a non-homo sapiens mother and father! AnonMoos (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. There's no black/white demarcation line in developing species. - Nunh-huh 06:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Pooh-Bah claimed he could trace his ancestry back to "a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule."[1]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Possibly note-worthy is the fact that none of us have a single ancestor. We each have two, a mother and a father, then four, then eight, and so on. Quite soon we have more ancestors than the total population of the globe. I've never seen this adequately explained. PiCo (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The lines of descent link up. That's how everyone in Europe is descended from Charlemagne. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
See also pedigree collapse. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and you don't have to go much farther back than PiCo says. If one of a pair of grandparents were cousins, then there would still be eight great-grandparents, but only fourteen great-great-grandparents, not sixteen. And on it goes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Even when you get back to some common ancestor you would also be descended from lots of other humans who lived at the same time, or even apes as can be seen for instance by that people have different blood groups descended from ones that apes have. Dmcq (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I think your first biological ancestor is a one-celled organism somewhere in the middle of the ocean whose own existence as an individual is so trivial that it does not really matter. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
If it's the granddaddy of all of us, then it would matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
If it were actually possible to trace one's lineage back that far, it would not be one single one-celled organism but billions of them. It'd be crazy to single out one of them and say this is "the" original ancestor. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Tell that to Pooh-Bah. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Jack, I don't believe that's true.
If you could trace your ancestry all the way back to Abiogenesis, I'm pretty sure you'd find a single individual. What mechanism are you imagining that would allow "billions" of separately evolved cells to come together into a single, single-celled species? (After all, if those "billions" of cells were the same species, you'd be looking for their single common ancestor.)ApLundell (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
You may have a point. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Or not. The first molecule of silver nitrate that precipitates out of solution isn't in any way the ancestor of subsequent molecules. If the conditions are right for abiogenesis, you have to at least entertain the possibility that more than one instance of it is occuring. - Nunh-huh 02:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Is the chance of an instance of abiogenesis being left or right handed amino acids about 50-50? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I would guess that that would depend on the chirality of the substrates, and their relative abundance :) - Nunh-huh 05:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
See Chirality (chemistry)#In biochemistry which mentions this question. In short, we don't have an answer (yet). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.37.45 (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Nunh-huh, I can't believe that ambiogenesis happened more than once, but only one of the individuals that emerged could be our direct-line ancestor. What mechanism are you imagining that would allow asexual organisms to have a family tree with more than one beginning?
(Your analogy with precipitates doesn't make sense to me. We're not looking for the first cell to emerge from the goo, we're looking for the particular cell, first or not, that is mankind's ancestor.) ApLundell (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The point is if it's happening in one place at one time suitable for abiogenesis, it's probably happening to a lot of molecules/whatever, not just in one single instance.- Nunh-huh 06:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
But that's not the question. It's not a question about all the different cells that emerged from the soup.
It's a question about the earliest ancestor, which by definition has to be a single life-form. All the cells that are not our ancestor are irrelevant to the question.
So sure, our original ancestor might not have been alone, but there was a point in pre-history where there existed only one ancestor of man. (And, yes, possibly a bunch of other recently-emerged life-forms that would not eventually evolve into mammals and are therefore not the answer to this question.)ApLundell (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
ApLundell (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Cells can exchange genetic material. And before there were cells, there were molecules. - Nunh-huh 03:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The entire premise is rotten; we have no proof the OP's first relative was not a lifelong virgin. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Besides, did any of them go through a legitimate form of marriage? If not, all their progeny are bastards (= societally sub-human), down to the 100 millionth generation, including us. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The first mammal has just been identified.[2] 92.8.223.3 (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This animal is poorly described in the popular press, it is a contender for the claim of earliest Eutherian, which includes placentals, but not marsupials or monotremes. The headlines are either inaccurate or vague with the qualifier "that led to us". μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

November 17

Indian driving licences

Here in the USA, your driver's license can have an endorsement: this means that you have some special status, e.g. mine says that I have to wear glasses while driving, due to myopia, while someone else's may say that he may drive a motorcycle, due to special training. According to driving licence in India, an endorsement is a statement of fault: if you commit a motoring violation, your licence has an endorsement related to India's Point system (driving). Does India have a term for what Americans call "endorsements", and if so, what is it? Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Terms may differ in different parts of the U.S. In my state, a notation that you need corrective lenses to drive would be a "restriction"; an "endorsement" would be a notation that you can do something for which a non-endorsed license would not be sufficient (driving a bus, transporting hazardous material, etc.) - Nunh-huh 02:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Oops, that's how mine is as well. Struck the erroneous parts. I thought you were from New Zealand? Of whom am I thinking? Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not know who, but I, for one, am definitely not native of nor emigrant to New Zealand :) .- Nunh-huh 06:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I was confusing you with Nil Einne, I think. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I am from NZ.Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
As for what you can drive on an Indian licence, the official term seems to be "Classes and Vehicle Categories". I couldn't find anything about wearing glasses for Indian licences, but in the UK that information is encoded in the number on your licence. We too have endorsements for traffic offences. Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)In Britain there is a penalty points system - when you reach a certain number you get banned. On conviction the magistrate or judge may order the licence to be "endorsed". There is also coding within the driver's number - for example the number FIELD962249JM9ZE 63 signifies to the examining officer:
  • First alpha symbols - driver's surname
  • 9 = 3rd digit of year of birth
  • 6 = 1st digit of date of birth in MM-DD format (increased by five if the driver is female)
  • 224 = remaining digits of date of birth
  • 9 = last digit of year of birth

He thus knows he should be speaking to a girl whose middle name begins with "M" and will turn 18 on Christmas Eve. Licences also carry a photograph. For a detailed analysis see [3]. Do other countries operate this system? 82.13.208.70 (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not well known, but there is also an indication on a UK driving licence to indicate whether the driver wears glasses (or contact lenses) - it is shown by an "01" in section 12 of the licence. There is a list of other codes which indicate special requirements due to health or disability [4] Wymspen (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Anecdotally, I have heard of a British driver in the US getting let off for speeding because the police officer saw the high number of endorsements and didn't want to ruin a near-perfect record. MChesterMC (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
In California, no, the license number is just a sequentially generated number. Personal information such as name and date of birth are on the license elsewhere (here are examples in PDF format if you're really curious), as well as stored electronically by the Department of Motor Vehicles and available to law enforcement and some other groups. Note that in the U.S. drivers' licenses are state/territory matters. Things can differ between states, though usually not too much because of certain requirements in federal law and a desire by state governments to cooperate. Other than that, we have a points system, vehicle classes, endorsements and restrictions pretty close to other places mentioned above. There are likely some international agreements to harmonize drivers' licenses so they're not wildly different between countries; see for instance International Driving Permit. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Private debt to GDP

Is the private debt to GDP ratio about how much of all the transactions that year were on credit as a percentage of that year's GDP, or all the private debt in the country as a ratio of the yearly GDP or what? Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, this says 156.7 in 2016 while this says 300 in 2017. Is that possible? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It’s “all the private debt in the country as a ratio of the yearly GDP“. That is, the numerator is the amount of debt ever incurred but not yet paid off. Loraof (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very kindly, Loraof! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Is this right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and I’ve done some copy editing in the article. Loraof (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Splendid, Loraof. Thank you so much! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Loraof.

I'd like to add a table to Consumer debt like the ones in List of countries by wealth per adult and List of countries by external debt. Is this a good source? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it’s the World Bank, so it’s a good source. Loraof (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Loraof, thank you! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

How did the British Empire end up with the Statute of Westminster?

What puzzles me is how did the political elites of Great Britain back in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries accept the idea of home rule of the British dominions and then allow the severance of last political ties and sovereignty in the Statute of Westminster instead of further integration in the form of an Imperial Federation especially in the case of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand? I can see how the Canadians, Australians, and Kiwis would prefer full independence since they each possesses a much lower population on a large territory compared to the Britain. However, I do not see why would the British accept that so easily. Did they think that the British colonial empire would last forever at least during the 1930s? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I've heard that the ~1867 Canadian Confederation was allowed to give them something so they don't feel like having another American Revolution down the road. And that the Civil War showed how easy it is for part of the continent to fight a war of independence. I don't know how true that is. If yes it worked since in 2017 Canada's still a proud part of the British Commonwealth and America never will be. Man, history would've been awesome if King George the Third wasn't such a dick. We'd be like a supercountry, maybe the capital would even move from London to New York (maybe not). Slavery might end earlier since it was illegal in England. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
70.95.44.93 -- part of it was how in 1914 the British government kind of unilaterally decreed the Dominions into the war. The Quebecois were not too enthused about that, and in Ireland it helped set the stage for a violent bloody secession. It was better to find a framework to recognize the effective reality that the dominions were reaching political/economic maturity, rather than to inappropriately treat them as old-style colonies. AnonMoos (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Why didn't the Quebecois care about liberating France? Or at least not enough to risk their lives for it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe Isolationism? Americans also weren't very happy about being pulled into either world war. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Sagittarian Milky Way -- at that time the Quebecois were very Catholic, and often not in sympathy with developments of French revolutionary ideas such as the recently-passed 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State. The main Wikipedia article is Conscription Crisis of 1917. AnonMoos (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The answer is that that the idea was rejected by the Dominions at various Imperial Conferences. They were concerned that the UK and England specifically would have a built in majority in any Imperial Parliament (compare the populations even today, England 55 m vs Australia 25 m and Canada 35 m. The disparity was much greater in 1900). See News and the British World: The Emergence of an Imperial Press System, 1876-1922 (p. 56) Additionally, it didn't fit the free trade world view of the Liberal Party which dominated British politics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The First World War put the last nail in the coffin of the Federation project, because the nationhood of the Dominions had been made very real by their participation in the conflict. look at Anzac Day for example. User:Sagittarian Milky Way's suggestion about the War of Independence seems highly unlikely to me to have had any bearing; perhaps he has a reference? Alansplodge (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the source. Maybe Canadian History for Dummies or its competitor the Complete Idiot's Guide to Canadian History (one of which I've read some of), maybe some Internet forum. (in case anyone's confused, America doesn't actually have thousands of insulting book titles written for the mentally challenged, the names are hyperbole). I'd read that by the time North America had 2 bloody independence wars (1775-1781 and 1861-65) the British were more amenable to placating their North American colonies instead of treating them like fully non-autonomous colonies and risking loss of the 18th century first mover advantage of lots of loyalists and loyalist refugees some time in the further future. (like 20th century?) I don't know enough to say if that's accurate. But the lower-quality outnumbered American troops were such an underdog even France wouldn't ally till they survived a few years and won anything significant. One can understand why the British didn't give more than tokenish compromise compared to after they'd fought their colonies at least twice and lost (War of 1812). Yes I realize America was lucky Napoleon and Louis the XVI kept the British busy while the "winning" was happening. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the War of 1812 was a "win" for the United States. At best, both sides fought to a stalemate on land, with neither side able to capture and hold any appreciable amount of the other's territory. The United States was never able to break the Royal Navy blockade that motivated the U.S. declaration of war in the first place. The war ended when both sides got tired of it and had exhausted their reasons to fight in the first place; the Treaty of Ghent put everything back status quo ante bellum. You could argue that the United States didn't lose, but it's a stretch to call that a "win". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
So it was a tie but a draw on land (not even home biome advantage often) and roughly similar casualty ratio against a more industrial nascent superpower that might've reconquered if things went better and making that superpower financially hurt to kill only 2,200 men seems like a win. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
What America won from the War of 1812 was the Battle of New Orleans, and hence President Andrew Jackson; and "The Star-Spangled Banner". What the British won was effectively an end to the hostilities between us, which would come in handy in the 20th Century when they needed us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The Star Spangled Banner was the earlier Baltimore battle. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Battle of Baltimore, September of 1814, during which "The Star-Spangled Banner" was written. Note the semicolon in my previous comment. I probably should have reversed the two items, to make them chronological. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The elites of Britain in the late 19th and early 20th century were wearisome of providing for the defense and administration of territories that were capable of self-government. A centrally-administerred British Empire run from London was inefficient. Pre-Victorian era, Britain outsourced the defense and administration of many parts of its colonial empire to private corportations (Hudson's Bay Company, East India Company, later Cecil Rhodes various African ventures, etc.) Such quasi-governnmental arrangements fell out of favor when their lack of oversight and human rights abuses became liabilities for the Empire, and Britain gradually began direct rule of many of these territories (British Raj, etc.) After World War I, it became clear within Britain that maintaining a centrally-administerred world-wide empire was not in the best interest of Britain itself, and began the process of spinning those places off into independent states. The Statute of Westminster was neither the start nor the end of that process; a process that began before WWI and ended in the 1980s. The British "elite" as you call them were central in the theory behind it. Lord Dunham is perhaps the first to propose what became known as the theory of responsible government, which was the British Empire's way of spinning off various colonies as quasi-independent states, and his ideas were not widely acceptable when he proposed them (as revolutionary ideas frequently are not) but it was part of a longer tradition of liberalization as seen by Whig political theory as first put together by leaders such as the Earl Grey. In simple terms, Classical liberalism as a political theory was a dominant political theory of much of British "elites" during the 19th and early 20th century, and the Statute of Westminster is an expected part of that thinking. --Jayron32 12:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
As Jayron already described, to put it very simple it is a result of political history. You can find a very similar odd looking political reality in today's world biggest taxhaven, City of London, with the difference that our article for that contains allot more about its historical/political development. --Kharon (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC) 07:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Citation needed that the City is a "taxhaven" please. Alansplodge (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
There's lots of reliable sources that talk about it in those terms. See for example [5],[6], [7], [8]. It is seen quite commonly elsewhere in Britain as a separate entity with undue power in the government that sucks money away from them and makes them poor. And citation for that see for example [9] where they are quite rightly worrying about Brexit and the effect if bankers leave 'Once, the reflex response to that would have been a yelped “Good riddance to the parasitic swine” (that’s the censored version, obviously)' Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Alansplodge: You actually live in London and you don't know? Seriously??--Kharon (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm no expert but I think those articles are using the term somewhat subjectively; the City is dissimilar to true tax havens like the Cayman Islands for example. Our Tax haven article doesn't mention London but does mention the United States as a tax haven. Anyhow, does this have anything to do with the original question? Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The article says as its second sentence 'There is no generally accepted definition of what renders a country or jurisdiction a tax haven' so I guess there is no such thing as a true or false tax haven. Dmcq (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Alansplodge: Seriously? --Kharon (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't appear on 'A global map of tax havens, using the list in the proposed 2007 "Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act", US Congress' which is included in the article. However, I bow to your superior insistence. Alansplodge (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I have thought with myself about this idea. Perhaps a "confederation of federations", where (say) Yorubaland would be part of a Federation of West Africa, which would in turn be part of a British Confederation?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

During the first third of the Twentieth Century, various Imperial Conferences were held, usually in London, during which the heads of government of the Dominions would gather and work together. The 1926 conference produced the Balfour Declaration, which stated that each of the Dominions was self-governing, and not subject to rule by the British Government. The Boer War, and World War One had demonstrated to Australia at least that there were advantages to participating as a constituent but autonomous part of the Empire, rather than as part of a unified whole under British rule. Australia, at least, had participated in the Versailles talks after the war as an independent nation.

The 1930 Imperial Conference formalised the arrangement with the Statute of Westminster, which was adopted later and severally by the Dominions. It was accepted that they would worl together as part of the Empire, but as self-governing entities. The best analogy I can find is where the children grow up, became adults, and sit around the table with their parents. The parents are first among equals, but the children are no longer dependents.

One consequence of the Balfour Declaration was that the British Government (via the Colonial Secretary) no longer advised the monarch to appoint Governors-General, and this task was given over to the various Dominion Prime Ministers. Along with any other circumstance where the monarch needed advice on Dominion matters. Australian PM James Scullin advised King George V to appoint Sir Isaac Isaacs as the first Australian-born Governor-General, against the wishes of the King, who preferred someone British. Scullin insisted, and the King had npo coice but to accept. --Pete (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Dmcq's link is seven years old and rather outdated. Political parties do now participate in the elections to the Court of Common Council (the last one was on 23 March). 92.8.223.3 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Anyway candidates to the Court of Common Council must be Freemen of the City of London. Dmcq (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
They also have to be City residents. See [10], [11]. 92.8.223.3 (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You still did not explain what you are trying to get at. And being a resident is about the least specific requirement, being a Freeman of the City is very specific. What you have said just seems to be just some fact picked at random off the web, have you a reason for saying it? Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The most striking feature of City elections is that it's not "one man one vote" - probably the only example of this remaining. It has many curious customs not seen elsewhere - for example the "silent ceremony" at which the new Lord Mayor assumes office. This was last performed on 10 November when the 690th Lord Mayor was inducted (the actual number of lines in our List of Lord Mayors of London article is 762 - see note to List of presidents of the United States). 92.8.223.3 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I am going to assume you are a robot. Dmcq (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Branding on large infrastructure projects

Why is it that on large infrastructure projects, all the companies involved whether the core client, programme management partners, contractors etc all seem to brand themselves with the project logo rather than their own company logo? 82.132.228.76 (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You're going to have to give us an example of that happening in practice, with links and photos, if you're going to get a meaningful answer. --Viennese Waltz 14:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Crossrail In london was all Crossrail branded. Everything including letters, hoarding, offices etc. 46.233.90.41 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
"A brand can give a project an identity and help it deliver extra value, says Donnie MacNicol [a project, programme and organisational consultant]. The accumulated wisdom of traditional project management provides the basis for winning the minds of team members. Winning the hearts of the team, and thereby getting the best out of them, requires an emotional attachment to the project. To do this, the project must have an identity". Project branding - giving your project an identity from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Alansplodge (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

November 19

Statutes at Large

Why were the series of the United States Statutes at Large continued up until the present day, while other compendiums of laws were not?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Your question is unanswerable, because you have not established that "other compendiums of law were not". What is your evidence that none of the other 200ish legal systems maintains no records of laws passed? On the face, it seems unlikely that the United States is the only country in the world that records its laws. The Canada Gazette, for example, serves as an official record of Acts of the Canadian Parliament. If your question is built on false premeses, it cannot be answered. --Jayron32 12:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
What I mean is why the Congress decided to order an entirely new edition of the laws in 1845 instead of a continuation of the existing Bioren and Duane edition.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Female politicians of American Samoa

Are there currently any incumbent/formerly incumbent female politicians of American Samoa without articles [key word]? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Florence Saulo was in the house district 16, elected in 2012. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Anglo Saxon Archbishop of Canterbury

After the death of Stigand who was the next Englishman of Anglo Saxon ancestry to become Archbishop of Canterbury? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7CF0:3070:598E:8B39:B062:E641 (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you counting the maternal line as ancestry? If so, it might have been Baldwin of Forde, as we don't know who his mother was. Given what little I (think I) know about the demographics of 12th-century Devon, she might have been Anglo-Saxon or even Celtic (Cornish or Welsh) – note that he later spent some time preaching in Wales, which might suggest a grasp of the language, perhaps learned from his mother (thin, I agree). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.37.45 (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The trouble is that very few of the post-Conquest Archbishops of Canterbury came from the higher aristocracy, the secular class for which most records exist, so we mostly know very little about their ancestry. Knowing that the father's name is a Norman one doesn't tell you much since the mother might have been Anglo-Saxon, or of course might not. In such a case even the father could, if he were English, have been of Anglo-Saxon ancestry since Norman names were fashionable in ambitious families, for obvious reasons. In some 19th-century histories, and in Jean Anouilh's play Becket, you might have found it claimed that Thomas Becket was an Anglo-Saxon; not so, as our article shows. But once you get into the 13th century, or even before, it becomes increasingly likely that a man born to English parents could have claimed both Norman (or other continental) and Anglo-Saxon ancestors, if only you could prove it. The earliest I can find who provably had some Anglo-Saxon ancestry, however slight, is William Courtenay, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1381 to 1396, who was great-grandson of Edward I, and therefore remotely descended from Henry I and from his mother-in-law Saint Margaret of Scotland, one of the last representatives of the House of Wessex. --Antiquary (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
One of the problems with answering the question directly is that after some time, there is no more meaningful "Anglo-Saxon" ethnicity, as it become subsumed into what we might consider the English ethnicity. Certainly at the time of the Conquest and for some centuries later, the conflict between the invading Norman French people and the native Anglo-Saxon people was a real thing, but by the middle-14th century, we run into two problems with answering the question 1) As a unified English national identity developed as an amalgam of Anglo-Saxon and Norman identities, it made less and less sense to think of Anglo Saxon as a meaningful way to think of ethnicity and 2) As that happened over 300+ years, people on the island intermarried in such a way that by 14th or 15th century, nearly everyone would have had Ancestors who were Anglo-Saxon at the time of the conquest, in so far as it could have been deduced from known records. --Jayron32 14:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, and indeed I'd go further. Even as early as the reign of Henry II the writer Richard FitzNeal could say that
Nowadays, when English and Normans live close together and marry and give in marriage to each other, the nations are so mixed that it can scarcely be decided (I mean in the case of the freemen) who is of English birth and who of Norman.
So to sum up for the OP, the answer to your question "who was the next Englishman of Anglo Saxon ancestry to become Archbishop of Canterbury?" is that almost certainly no Archbishop of Canterbury after Stigand was of full Anglo-Saxon ancestry, and that after a few generations (precisely how many it would be impossible to say) all of them were of partial Anglo-Saxon ancestry, which is to say they were English as we now understand the word. --Antiquary (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

court language(s) in either Sicily

Sicilian language and Neapolitan language are said to lack standard forms because neither was ever an official language. So, what were the court languages in the various Kingdoms of Sicily? French and Catalan?

(In the thirteenth century the Kingdom of Sicily – then under a French dynasty – grew to cover most of southern Italy, but then lost the island to a price of Aragon; the rump state is generally called the Kingdom of Naples but, I gather, went on calling itself "Sicily".) —Tamfang (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Sicily was famously founded and for a while governed by the Normans under members of the Hauteville family, who are only "French" in a very loose sense. According John Julius Norwich's "The Normans in the South" and "The Kingdom in the Sun", during the heyday of the Kingdom of Sicily, the "official" (more likely "administrative") languages were Norman French, Arabic, and Greek (Sicily used to be a core part of Magna Graecia, and, with a short Germanic Interregnum, stayed part of the Greek Eastern Roman Empire up to the Arab conquest during the 9th century). Sorry for just picking nits - I don't know what happened to the language usage after the Hohenstaufen lost control of the region. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
See also this previous question: Primary language of Capetian Angevins in Naples, Hungary and Poland?. Alansplodge (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I just found Sicilian_language#Catalan_influence, which claims "Catalan and Sicilian were the official languages of the royal court. Sicilian was also used to record the proceedings of the parliament of Sicily...", which would contradict your above assumption. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
That refers to the later Spanish kingdom of Sicily, not the earlier Norman kingdom of Sicily. Lingering effects of Byzantine and Arabic rule were more prominent in the Norman period... AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
We also have the awkwardly titled article Norman-Arab-Byzantine culture, which talks a bit about the use of various languages in Norman Sicily. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Zimbabweans

Just noticed a considerable number of white folks on these pictures during marches against Mugabe (and in the background). Per Zimbabwe#Demographics, "the majority people, the Shona, comprise 70%" and "the Ndebele are the second most populous with 20%", so wonder where do those folks come from. Tourists? Brandmeistertalk 12:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Like any capital city, I suspect that Harare is going to be much more ethnically diverse than the county at large. Although we currently don't seem to have any figures for ethnic composition in that article. Martinevans123 (talk)
Zimbabwe was a formerly a British Colony called Southern Rhodesia which had a large population of white settlers. In 1965, the white minority issued a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) rather than submit to majority rule proposed by the UK. There followed international sanctions and a rather nasty war white v black Rhodesian Bush War. A peace deal was eventually brokered in which the country returned to British administration before elections and full independence in 1980. A lot of white settlers emigrated to the UK at that stage, but many more some stayed to become White Zimbabweans. These have been a favourite target of Mugabe, see Mugabe to kick out all remaining white farmers, says Zimbabweans need land. Alansplodge (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Yep, just didn't know many are still there. For 2012 in Harare Province, this stats gave only 0,8% Europeans against 98,3% blacks. Brandmeistertalk 13:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I was overstating the case; Zimbabwe#Demographics says "The white population dropped from a peak of around 278,000 or 4.3% of the population in 1975 to possibly 120,000 in 1999, and was estimated to be no more than 50,000 in 2002, and possibly much less. The 2012 census lists the total white population at 28,782 (roughly 0.22% of the population), one-tenth of its 1975 estimated size. Most emigration has been to the United Kingdom..." Alansplodge (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
All eight of Zimbabwe's Olympic medals have been won by whites (most recently in 2008)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
And still three white faces in the Zimbabwe cricket squad. Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

How did the Nazis finance their public works projects?

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
VW logo during the 1930s, initials surrounded by a stylized cogwheel and swastika wings

How did they get the money in order to finance them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Renaissance Man (talkcontribs) 22:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

One way they rearmed was by requiring all German workers to have money deducted from their paychecks toward future purchase of a Volkswagon. Although Germans had been contributing to this plan since 1932, taken over directly by Hitler in 1934, our article says

The construction of the new factory started in May 1938 in the new town of "Stadt des KdF-Wagens" (modern-day Wolfsburg), which had been purpose-built for the factory workers.[14] This factory had only produced a handful of cars by the time war started in 1939. None were actually delivered to any holder of the completed saving stamp books, though one Type 1 Cabriolet was presented to Hitler on 20 April 1944 (his 55th birthday).

See also Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for this, although I don't have the pages in front of me. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
A Nazi layaway plan? (Not to be confused with Hitler's other layaway plan, which laid away well over 10 million customers.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
For one thing, public works projects originated in the pre-Nazi Schleicher government. For another, they were not as substantial as the propaganda touted. And, the most prominent project was the autobahn (Reichsautobahn) which was partly a thinly-disguised military project to enhance mobility for the pending "blitzkrieg".
More info:
  • Bendersky, Joseph W. (2007). "Eight: 1934-1938". A Concise History of Nazi Germany. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 111. ISBN 9780742553637. 
2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4DAA:30DE:5ABC:A09C (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Eisenhower was so impressed by the German Autobahn that he wanted one for us also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • See also Economy of Nazi Germany. (section Pre-war economy: 1933–1939): 'Following a policy dependent upon heavy borrowing of “gigantic sums of money”, Nazi Germany’s national debt by 1939 “had reached 37.4 billion Reichmarks,” [= USD 15.6 bn] where even “Goebbels, who otherwise mocked the government’s financial experts as narrow-minded misers, expressed concern in his diary about the exploding deficit.”' Alansplodge (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Not that surprising that the Nazi Party's economic policies had negative side-effects. Adolf Hitler was apparently proud that they had no concrete policies: "He clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all." "

But I think you are overlooking that the Nazi government depended on revenue from taxes to finance its policies: "It is estimated that in the mid-1930s, German workers paid 15-35% of their income to taxes, social programs, and (due to government pressure) charities."

They also raised fines on businesses, in a supposed effort to combat tax fraud: "In other cases, National Socialist officials were levying harsh fines of millions of marks for a “single bookkeeping error.” " Some sources compared the Nazi taxmen to vampires, and we have a nice book called "The Vampire Economy" (1939) by Günter Reimann which was analyzing their policies.

The Nazis also earned revenue by privatizing properties of the state: "Between the fiscal years 1934/35 and 1937/38, privatization represented 1.4 percent of the German government's revenues. Among companies that were privatized, were the four major commercial banks in Germany that had all come under public ownership during the prior years; Commerz– und Privatbank, Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft, Golddiskontbank and Dresdner Bank. ... Also privatized were the Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways), at the time the largest single public enterprise in the world, the Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. (United Steelworks), the second largest joint-stock company in Germany (the largest was IG Farben) and Vereinigte Oberschlesische Hüttenwerke AG, a company controlling all of the metal production in the Upper Silesian coal and steel industry. The government also sold a number of shipbuilding companies, and enhanced private utilities at the expense of municipally owned utilities companies." Dimadick (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

How could it be if cameras didn't exist until the 1820s?

Thomas Wedgwood died in 1805, so it must've been some sort of painting if the picture was legitimately of Thomas Wedgwood, unless he used some sort of technique to take it. -- MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

In your link it is written: "From a chalk drawing belonging to Miss Wedgwood, of Leith Hill Place. Artist unknown." (p6 above publication)" ---Sluzzelin talk 23:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Also in your link, farther down, it says “deurrogotype”, which I assume is intended as daguerreotype. And in Photography#Invention of photography it says “Around the year 1800, British inventor Thomas Wedgwood made the first known attempt to capture the image in a camera obscura by means of a light-sensitive substance.” Loraof (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
1805 would be too early for a daguerreotype. Or any form of camera photography. The photography article makes it clear that the earliest photographs were taken in the 1820s and the oldest surviving one is from 1826. (And it's pretty crude, requiring an exposure time of days. Obviously not suitable for portraits. )
It may be a daguerreotype of a chalk drawing, I suppose. ApLundell (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
What it says on the Commons file page (where you're reading "deurrogotype") doesn't matter except for the source of the image, [12], where the illustration note for the Frontispiece simply says "Tom Wedgwood. From a chalk drawing belonging to Miss Wedgwood, of Leith Hill Place. Artist unknown." That's all we know about this illustration. That a Wikipedian has written "deurrogotype" somewhere else isn't really evidence of anything we need be concerned about. - Nunh-huh 02:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
But note that the camera obscura was known since antiquity (possibly since prehistoric times), and in the 18th century was used as a drawing aid. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the photosensitive properties of silver salts or other chemicals was already known and he was trying to invent photography by discovering a way to remove the unexposed photosensitive substance or turn it insensitive to light? Failed experiments are still experiments. As someone needing camera obscuras for this work it isn't surprising that he'd be interested in using them to imitate the futuristic technology he hoped to invent (especially if the problem had already started to look so hard he thought it wouldn't be solved for years or decades). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

November 20

Al wadi desert shapes

Good afternoon everyone, I am failing to find if we have an article about these shapes on the ground in the desert in Saudi Arabia? Many thanks --Lgriot (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

In that article, in the second paragraph, it calls them Works of the Old Men. That is a valid redirect to Desert kite, though that article looks to only deal with some of the Arabian structures, but maybe not all of them. Maybe our article needs to be expanded and/or split. --Jayron32 17:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Jayron!
Resolved

Amalia Lindegren paintings

Are any works of art by Amalia Lindegren held in public collections outside Sweden? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not necessarily comprehensive, but does not list any publicly displayed works outside of Sweden. --Jayron32 16:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Trying to Find a Specific Book on a Post-Work Society

I'm trying to find a well-known (in the United States, at least) book that theorized what workers would do with their time after the need for productive work greatly diminishes. The book would have been written several decades ago, long before today's headlines of "robots will take all our jobs!": I want to say it was published in the 1950s, but I'm not sure. It's not "Theory of the Leisure Class", although I think the author argues that productivity will soon reach a point where leisure could realistically supplant work as the way people spend their time. I believe the book examined the implications of this for society: that is, if most people don't go to work everyday, how would this affect existing arrangements? I've tried Googling variations of "The Leisure Society", but without luck. Thanks! OldTimeNESter (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

'The Future of Work and Leisure' or 'The sociology of leisure' by Stanley Parker? It's actually of the 70s? --B8-tome (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Does the article Post-scarcity economy lead you anywhere useful? --Jayron32 12:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Possibly connected with the Technocracy movement? -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
John Maynard Keynes wrote an essay on the topic in 1930. Although the most influential economist of the 20th century, I'm not sure I'd call him or his works "well-known" among the general public, but noted here just in case I hit the bullseye. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Economic end times

I understand that the rich are getting richer exponentially like the end of a Monopoly game.

I've read that, if unchecked, the people will no longer be able to buy and sell, like the end of Monopoly.

Is there chart showing this with some sort of projection indicating when things cannot go further?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Predictions of the eminent demise of capitalism have been going on for over a century. Nothing lasts forever and no doubt one day a prediction will prove to be correct. Searches on "demise of capitalism" and "decline of capitalism" will provide plenty of reading on the general subject, if not this specific scenario.--Wikimedes (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
It is not the first time one small group claimed the whole cake for themselves and only left the crumbs for the majority. Go read history to learn about how that worked out usually.
You can not make a projection because people find a way of living under the harshest circumstances. The Crisis, Change or Revolution that changes the current or future wealth allocation may come tomorrow, in 100 years or never. Steve Keen and Nouriel Roubini became famous for predicting (aka projecting) the Financial crisis of 2007–2008 but when they spoke out almost everyone with a high scientific renome declared them to be "nuts" an their "projection" to be irrelevant. If that famous bank had not collapsed, they where probably still regarded "nuts" today. Maybe go check what Steve Keen and Nouriel Roubini "project" today. Maybe they are right again, maybe not. --Kharon (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Keen thinks China's private debt will lead to a problem. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikimedes, thank you. I will search those terms. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Unpack "the people will no longer be able to buy and sell". If you're talking about property, maybe. If you're talking about cabbages, it doesn't make sense. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The inequality is very worrying and is getting towards levels where violent things have happened in the past. See [13] for instance. Yes rich people are aware of the problem but it simply makes them become even more distant and protective of their wealth. For every Bill Gates trying to counter disease there is a crowd denying climate change to try and trying to make more money out of oil. Organisation s like Facebook and Twitter don't exactly help either - encouraging groups to hate each other is what their AI algorithms will do automatically even without people like Trump or Putin because that gets more usage. Dmcq (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Dweller, I mean like won't the rich eventually get all the money so people will not be able to buy cabbages or property. I mean, if we're on a dessert island with ten people and one person gets all the money, how do the others trade cabbages? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The one person loans the others money, and makes sure they stay in debt forever. See debt servitude. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Someguy1221, hi. Great. So people will borrow money for cabbages. But even that must end, no? The rich suck the money out of the system till they have it all, no? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Once you have all the money you start collecting slaves. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Most countries use some form of fiat money, which can theoretically be created ad infinitum, so literally "running out of money" shouldn't be a realistic threat. (The rich aren't hoarding banknotes in a vault - they're hoarding electrons in a database). The problem wouldn't be that they have all the money and therefore no one else can trade, the problem would be that they have so much more money that they can outbid everyone and, and buy all the cabbages leaving not enough to go around. Iapetus (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Anna_Frodesiak -- historically when there have been extreme wealth differences between a small upper group and a fairly uniformly-impoverished numerous lower group, the result has been a contrast of large agricultural landowners vs. peasants or serfs, as developed in areas of Europe during the decline of the Western Roman empire, in parts of Latin America, and during the 17th and 18th centuries in Russia, etc. People have speculated that the result in a modern context would be some form of "technofeudalism". Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on technofeudalism, but does have one on the related concept of Neo-feudalism... AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, AnonMoos. I'm going to read what I can find about that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

For an alternative view to the basic premisis -- that the world economy is not the best ever seen in human history -- see poverty reduction, and particularly the parts about the greatest-in-history improvement in the human condition. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm still confused about how 10 people could fit on a Dessert island? Probably a better question for the Science desk, but how much meringue is needed to support 10 average people above a Sea of Crème anglaise? 75.175.118.132 (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

It's related to the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a bowling pin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Does that differ from the number of Anglos having fits on Bowling Green? ¡Buen Día de pavo!

November 22

Native American groups

The intro of Seven Nations of Canada actually defines the "Seven Nations of The Iroquois Confederacy". Iroquois Confederacy redirects to Iroquois which talks about the "Five Nations" and "Six Nations", but has different listings. Are these the same Iroquois Confederacies, or are they referring to nations on different sides of what is now the U.S.-Canadian border? The six nations listed are actually the same as Six Nations of the Grand River but this looks like a specific territory shared by six of the federated nations? Can anyone clear up this confusion or point at some helpful sources? Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There were numerous people groups who spoke Iroquoian languages and lived in the Great Lakes region. Different alliances, treaties, and confederations through out history gave existed, resulting in different groupings of them. That's all. There are different names because there are different groups at different times. --Jayron32 03:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Can the law define Pi?

What if the government pass a law to define Pi to be exactly 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587 ? Would the scientific calculators need to update their firmware? 110.22.20.252 (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

No.--Jayron32 03:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
For the same reason that no government can pass a law to make 2 + 2 make 5. Or even to make it 4, because it's 4 regardless of any such wrong-headed and misguided human posturings. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
If you're working in base 4, then 2 + 2 = 10. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
(EC) Are you thinking of the Indiana Pi Bill? Anyway it depends what you mean by "define Pi". Ultimately if there are no constitutional blocks, there's nothing stopping a government forcing people to use a certain Pi value in certain contexts or requiring calculators use it. It doesn't mean it will actually be the real mathematical value though, and unless there is a strong penalty attached in most contexts people are just going to ignore the government and use whatever is convient to them. And in fact, except for some very large countries, the government may find it difficult getting people to bother to make such calculators. And for those and many more reasons, it doesn't seem particularly plausible that any government in most of the modern world would attempt that.Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
BTW, in case you don't understand "most convient" point, while the value you gave is not Pi, it's an approximation with sufficiently more accuracy than nearly anyone is likely to ever need [14] or that I think nearly any calculator uses. In other words, anyone with a basic understanding mathematics will know the value is no Pi, even if the law says it is, but will also generally use a value with lower accuracy than the one you gave. If attempts are being made to force people to use that value, you're basically forcing a value of greater accuracy (but still not Pi) than generally used. If you just define it in law without actually doing anything else, mostly you'll be mocked and ignored. I guess some lawyer like people make use the value to avoid dispute, and maybe lawyers will actually try to challenge something based on the "wrong" value of Pi being used, but in any decent legal system, even with the weirdness of the government having defined Pi in that way, it's likely to courts will effectively tell said lawyers to bugger off after some wasted time in court, recognising that there is no actual difference to the result between the value of Pi used and the defined value of Pi. This would apply even if the value of Pi used was more accurate than the defined value of Pi. If for some reason the final result was specified with sufficient precision that the value does make a difference, it seems likely any competent court can be made to recognise this is false precision since the accuracy of whatever else is involved in the calculation is unlikely to be that high. Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd say in that case the lawmakers should define the gravitational constant to be 0 and go to try flying off a tall building.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The British government has done something like this. It's done away with the standard yard and the standard pound. The yard is now exactly 0.9144 metres (exactly divisible by 36 because there are 36 inches in a yard) and the pound is exactly 0.45359237 kilogrammes (exactly divisible by seven because there are 7,000 grains in a pound and it is the only unit which is common to all the Imperial weights). 92.8.223.3 (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
That is very much different. In principle, any consistent set of measures is potentially useful, and aligning different sets is not a problem. Pi, on the other hand, is a mathematical constant with exactly one correct value (and that, unfortunately, is irrational). And G is a physical constant. Changing it may be easy for Q, but is beyond most governments. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
On a side note, I thought it was the US government that did that. Did they do it at the same time, in a coordinated manner? For all intents and purposes, these are American units, not "Imperial". (How much business do you suppose is conducted on the basis of, say, the American gallon, versus the Imperial gallon?) --Trovatore (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Apparently yes: International yard and pound. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

On a different side note, sometimes standards bodies do define the values of physical constants, but this is not what it seems to be — it's really defining units by the back door. For example, I believe the body that administers SI, can't remember what it's called, has given an exact value for c, the speed of light, in terms of meters per second. But this is not actually a definition of the speed of light. It's a definition of the meter, in terms of the second and the speed of light. (The second is defined separately, in terms of the hyperfine transition of the cesium atom or some such thing.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
They can define pi to be whatever they like in Australia [15]. :) Dmcq (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I can trump that: The following is part of Australian tax law, specifically s.165-55 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services) Act 1999 [16]:
For the purpose of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may:
a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and
b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:
i) having happened at a particular time; and
ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and
c) treat a particular event that actually happened as:
i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or
ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The tale of King Canute and the tide may be of relevance. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Laws are exactly like prayers, you can say what you want, reality is reality. I don't care how they define pi, as long as it's pecan. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Some Sort of Remote Writing Machine

  • https://youtube/nRVEOZphmDQ?t=1m45s

A man writes ONTIME on a movable board.

  • https://youtube/QaXZ8Nisyjo?t=1m28s

Another man writes down the boarding place remotely.

What is the name of the writing machine? Is there a Wikipedia article for it? -- Toytoy (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not able to view your YouTube links. Based on your description, perhaps you are talking about a Telautograph machine. Back in the 1970s, I worked as a hospital communications manager. We used Telautograph machines to rapidly transmit prescriptions from nurse's stations around the hospital to the pharmacy. We also used a Pneumatic tube system to rapidly transport medications and lab specimens around the hospital. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't do YouTube, but I remember when real-time train arrival and departure information at Toronto Union Station was provided by a man who sat behind a counter and got the information via a Telautograph machine. (In fact, the counter was set into the wall at a position seen directly behind the modern information sign in this photo. The ticket booths built out from the wall didn't exist then.) Anyway, here's a photo of a Telautograph machine in railway use: the first two lines would mean something like "time 09:00, train #647 on time, track 5" and I can't guess the last part. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There's Margaret Atwood's LongPen... AnonMoos (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Net neutrality

Net neutrality is on the news lately, so I've been reading articles about it[17]. For countries without net neutrality like Portugal, is there any mechanism that prevents ISPs from shifting certain news outlets to a "upper tier", and thereby de facto censors these outlets? Mũeller (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The customer's choice is a mechanism of course. Especially in a market full of competition any ISP who restricts his service will risk loosing allot of his customers to other ISP's that dont. This has already worked against the attempt of some ISP's to establish "flat rate" contracts that where in fact restricted with a monthly maximal traffic volume. How that will work out with potential restrictions on net neutrality in the future remains to be seen. --Kharon (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

"Flags from foreign battlefields"?

Why exactly does Obama call the Star-Spangled Banner that way here with respect to it having been put up in the course of the moon landing? Foreign battlefields to whom? And why that plural form?--Herfrid (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

He doesn't. He is talking about the people who have planted the flag in various places, on a spectrum that ranges from "foreign battlefields" to the moon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Stephan Schulz: Thank you very much for your explanation! Now the intention of that statement has indeed become clear to me – must have been really stuck there… So thanks once more and best wishes--Herfrid (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
You're very welcome! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Did any delegates of the US Constitutional Convention consider specifying a number of Supreme Court justices?

It seems like an oversight if the court can be packed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Rather the contrary. They will have preferred ambiguities and potential conflicts, unsatisfactory solutions etc, to surface and become visible earlier, vs. surfacing later. --Askedonty (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
They also probably did not foresee how important the court would become. Before John Marshall's tenure, judicial review was not really a thing, and without judicial review, the influence of the court is much reduced. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Judicial review was anticipated in #78 of the Federalist Papers. "The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. ... There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." As to Sagittarian's question, I don't know. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure the question of "how many" came up considering how concerned other parts of the Constitution (particularly Article I) are with numbers of people, but I get the feeling the intent was to leave such details to Congress, particularly given the broad authorization in Article III to legislate inferior federal courts into existence. Consider the Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number of justices with fairly little problem, and many of the founders were at that time still members of the federal government. Echoing the above, I agree that the concept of judicial review was still not so much in the mainstream, even if it was considered in Federalist 78. Consider Jefferson's reaction to Marbury v. Madison. But as to whether individual delegates to the convention specifically considered it? I would honestly question whether it even matters. I'm getting a little afield, but distilling legislative intent by looking at the intent of individuals involved in drafting a piece of legislation, or the Constitution itself, is typically not terribly helpful in solving a legal question. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Relevant, but not directly addressing the question is Chapter 3: Judicial Appointment and Tenure in The Majesty of the Law by Sandra Day O'Connor. In the early days of the Court, the Justices were expected to ride circuit as well as sit on the Supreme Court, that is, they would also sit at circuit courts throughout the country. The primary concern in determining the number of Supreme Court Justices was to have enough to be able to cover the circuit courts and still have enough time left over to sit on the Supreme Court. Now for OR: not constitutionally mandating the number of Supreme Court Justices allows the Supreme Court to expand with the country.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

November 23

Irish regional assemblies

After reading [18], [19], and [20], I think the regional assemblies basically oversee economic planning and economic-development schemes, but is that basically it? And do they have any authority over things like taxation and regional policy, or do they merely implement other jurisdictions' decisions? I get the impression that they have much less authority than the UK's devolved parliaments, and that they're a good deal more similar to the Regions of France, but I'm not sure. Note that we have an article on the former Regional Authorities in Ireland, but Regional Assemblies in Ireland redirects to an article about statistical regions, not administrative entities; if someone could write a basic article about them, that would be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

You may have more luck posting this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland. Alansplodge (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
This site [21] summarises the roles of the Regional Assemblies, and gives links to the acts which established them if you want to read more details. Wymspen (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


November 24

Characteristics of conduct disorder, psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, biopsychosocial approach and relationship between each and example journal articles

Sorry for the long title, but I want to know that what are the characteristics of conduct disorder, characteristics of psychopathy and characteristics of antisocial personality disorder? Also, what are the risk factors of each according to the biopsychosocial approach? and what are the relationship between each disorder and are there an example of those? I want to know if there any journal articles on the relationship between each disorders and as well as the risk factors of each disorders. Please and thank you.Donmust90 (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Official criteria for diagnosing personality disorders are listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the fifth chapter of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). See the Wikipedia coverage starting at Personality disorder. Blooteuth (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Republican Party US candidates not against Islam or Muslim community 2016 election

Leading up to the RNC and the presidential election, I want to know which candidate of the Republican Party had a platform or campaign that was not targeting the Muslim community or Islam like how Donald Trump, and Dr. Ben Carson were in the negative way? Donmust90 (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Dr. Ben Carson were in the negative way"? Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Donmust90 evidently means to say that [Donald Trump and] Dr.Ben Carson were targeting the Muslim community in a negative way; i.e. portraying them as being bad. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.173.186 (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • My recollection is that ALL of the Republican candidates (including Trump and Carson) made a point to say that they were NOT against the Muslim community or Islam, but against Islamic extremism (a faction within Islam). Whether you believed them when they said this (or not) is up to you, but that was the stance they took. Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=811848095"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA