Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 January 16

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

January 16

Far Spain

Near and far Spain

Far Spain and Near Spain are referenced in both Caesar and Tacitus, but Search does not yield any result for either. I'm trying to find out where each was located. I can guess that Near Spain refers to the area that is now Spain and Far Spain refers to what we now call The Netherlands, but I would like to know for sure.97.103.15.32 (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Latin terms are Hispania Citerior (Near Spain) and Hispania Ulterior (Far Spain) -- the articles will probably tell you all you want to know. Looie496 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the association between Spain and the Netherlands is much later - following the collapse of Burgundy in 1477. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What *is* the association between Spain and the Netherlands? I've never heard of any possible association before and did a double-turn when the OP mentioned the Netherlands - it just seemed like a completely random region to throw in there. 164.71.1.222 (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The association comes through Philip the Handsome, heir (via his mother) to the lands of Burgundy, including the Burgundian Netherlands and the Spanish lands through his wife Joanna the Mad, as well as the Habsburg inheritances through his father Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor. The unique confluence of inheritances resulted in the vast empire inherited by Philip's son Charles. But it is via Philips marriage to Joanna that the Spanish Netherlands specifically became, well, Spanish. Charles ruled the entire Seventeen Provinces, but a few decades after Charles, the northern Netherlands (the Seven Provinces) broke off as the Dutch Republic. The remaining southern ten provinces of the Netherlands remained part of the lands ruled by Habsburg family; either the Spanish or Austrian branch. As noted, this has nothing to do with the Roman-era provinces, as the map above shows. During Roman times, the Netherlands were the provinces of Belgica and Germania Inferior. The extreme northern parts of the Netherlands (Frisia) were never part of the Roman Empire, though I am pretty sure that name (Frisia) dates to Roman times; the local people were called the Frisii. --Jayron32 03:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Wow, I never realized the Habsburg empire was quite that big, I always thought it was just this monolithic central European juggernaut comprising roughly the German sprachenbund and some neighboring countries (mine own being one of them, no less). 164.71.1.222 (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Habsburg Empire of Charles V/I was an unwieldy thing, even he recognized that it would be impossible for a single king to administer. So he made arrangements to divide the Empire while he lived: his brother Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor was given eastern portions (Austria and the HRE) while his eldest son Philip was given the Italian, Spanish, and Netherlands portions, including Spain's overseas empire. The Spanish Hapsburgs were particularly fond of their Netherlands possessions; IIRC many of them used Brussels or Antwerp as their personal capital rather than Madrid, the Spanish Cortes was a bit of a pain in the ass, and the Spanish Hapsburgs preferred to not be bothered, leaving the actual administration of Spain proper to viceroys such as Lerma and Olivares. Plus, being in the Netherlands placed the king in closer proximity to his bankers and financiers, the Fuggers of Antwerp, who basically managed all of the money pouring into the Empire from the Silver mines in the Americas. --Jayron32 04:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Near Spain and Far Spain now created as redirects. Mr. 164.71.1.222, you must be an expatriate, because the Habsburgs never ruled Japan :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, a recent expat. I actually used to be a regular here, but then went on a longer hiatus and am only recently following these boards again. Haven't bothered to reclaim my username yet, is all. 164.71.1.221 (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles V allegedly boasted that the sun never set in his empire. While this was probably based on the misunderstanding that Columbus had really found the east end of the East Indies, and hence missed half the world, the empire still was quite impressive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, the claim was clearly based on having territories such as the colonies in the Americas and the Spanish East Indies as well as the European territories. With the Philippines claimed for Spain as early as the 1520s, they had an actual claim to the sun never setting. Whether it was strictly true may be debatable, but Spain claimed actual sovereignty over actual East Indian territory, and not just because Columbus believed it to be so. The idea that he did is also something which is highly suspicious. There is the possibility that he may have on his first voyage, but by 1500 or so, it was well established that he had discovered new lands, and by the time of Charles V, the general shape and layout of the major landmasses was fairly well established. Spain's claim had validity. --Jayron32 02:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would it be debateable? You can't put Argentina and the Philippines both in night-time, except in the case of an eclipse. Manila is 120°E of the Prime Meridian, and Argentina includes land at 60°W of the Prime Meridian, exactly on the opposite side of the world. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, then it isn't debatable. The issue was not the geometric possibility of the truth behind the statement. I wasn't claiming that it was or wasn't geometrically true. I was merely pointing out that Stephen Schulz was in error in stating that Charles V's claim that the "Sun never set on his empire" was based on some myth that Columbus believed that he had landed in the East Indies. That is wrong on multiple levels, including a) Columbus probably didn't believe that b) Columbus's explorations were two generations before Charles V/I and c) Spain had made colonial claims to territories in the East Indies before and during Charles's reign. I wasn't arguing the "sun never sets" thing was impossible, on the contrary I was fully arguing it was a legitimate claim, though I was hedging my bets against someone getting out their protractors and compasses to "prove" that the Philippines and Latin America and Iberia could all technically be at night at the same time. That they never could be is fine, but your point merely provides futher proof of my point, not refutation of it. --Jayron32 05:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And just to prove Nyttend's point with actual maps, here is a map of day and night time near the summer solstice (when the maximal night would be over the southern hemisphere) at about 9:00 PM GMT, which is very close to sunrise over the Philippines, and large swathes of South and Central America are still in daytime, and will be for some time. So yes, the statement that the "sun never set" on the empire of Charles V/I is actually strictly true. --Jayron32 05:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, you've refuted me; I thought you were debating the idea that the sun never set on it. Thanks for helping me understand better. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The claim that the sun never set on the empire is false, no matter how large the empire was, as anyone inside the empire can see for themselves every evening. What may be true is that when the sun sets on some place in the empire, there is another place in the empire where it is daylight.—Emil J. 14:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is precisely what the expression means. It was also used of the British Empire, and that didn't mean that London was in permanent daylight. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Emil is from a non-English-speaking country and probably did not get the subtlety. Sure, the sun set in individual places within the empire, but the empire as a whole spanned enough time zones that it never saw a sunset. Nowadays, I guess you could say that about the commonwealth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If we're getting technical, the empire as a whole certainly did see a sunset, and did see a sunrise - lots of them. What the expression means is that there was always some part of the empire in daylight. But equally, there was always some part of the empire in darkness, so the author would have been just as justified in saying the sun never rose on the Empire. Dracula would have preferred that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan

Why is this not a country? It has its own president and government system. The article describe it as an autonomous region. What is the difference between a country and autonomous region anyway? They are the same thing?65.128.142.118 (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

An autonomous region is one that is given the right to manage most of it's own internal affairs while the national government manages foreign affairs. It is basically a form of federalism. This sort of limited autonomy or sovereignty is common in many parts of the world; in the United States, for example, it is the normal state of affairs, as the U.S. States are given a fair degree of autonomy. Spain is divided among Autonomous communities as well, and many of the Federal subjects of Russia have a large degree of autonomy. As to why it isn't a country, well the answer is quite complex, but many of the issues related to Kurdish sovereignty are covered briefly in the article Kurdistan. For one, there are Kurdish people in several countries; including Turkey, Iran, and Syria along with Iraq. All of them oppose an independent Kurdistan separate from Iraq because this would also invite their own Kurdish populations to agitate for separation from themselves to join a united greater Kurdish state. --Jayron32 04:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The Kurds may be the largest ethnic group without their own nation. As such, it may not be possible to thwart their ambitions forever. The Kurdish regions in Syria may soon have a de facto sovereign nation, as the Syrian government has more important problems to deal with than suppressing their Kurds. StuRat (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A significant such group, but not likely the absolute largest. Consider that there are 30-38 million Kurds, but 77 million or so Tamils, another group which has been agitating for its own state on the island of Sri Lanka (Tamil Eelam). The Tamils in India, which represent the bulk of the ethnic group, are not similarly agitating for their own nation, but they still are a larger ethnic group than the Kurds, and don't have their own independent nation. --Jayron32 04:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that no superpower has supported the Kurdish wish for independence. The four states mainly affected are strongly opposed to it, and at least one of them was aligned with either side during the cold war. Turkey is a strategically important NATO member, Iran under the Shah was a western ally, Syria was nominally non-aligned, but Soviet-friendly, and Iraq was supported by different sides, depending on how Iran went. Neither the US nor the Soviet Union wanted to lose their allies, and, to be fair, neither wanted to add more instability to the region. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

However, a lack of outside support and significant opposition alone do not prevent an ethnic group from carving out it's own nation. For example, Israel was largely on it's own, early on, with violent opposition from all the surrounding nations. Haiti also had pretty much universal opposition from all surrounding nations, when it broke away from France. StuRat (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the passage that "Israel was largely on it's own" is borderline historical revisionism. The Zionist colonization in Palestine had received (in varying degrees) support for decades from the British, and the partition of Palestine had the backing of USA, Soviet Union and Western Europe. The nascent state was clearly dependent on economical support from USA and Western Germany, as well as arms deliveries from the Soviet Bloc. --Soman (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing private support and government support. Early on, Israel did not receive much support from either the US or UK governments. The UK even fought with the Jews, just prior to the partition: See Jewish insurgency in Palestine. The UK later joined with Israel during the Suez Crisis, but the US opposed it. StuRat (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

We clearly disagree on this. This has weak relevance for the original question, but the establishment of Zionist colonization in Palestine hardly happened without complicity from successive British government. The fact that the relationship with the British was not entirely smooth at all times or that the US had some reservations regarding Israel's role in the region does not weigh up the fact that Western powers clearly supported the setting up of a Jewish state in Palestine, and aided it materially (clearly outbidding the USSR in economic support for Israel was a consistent tactic during the immediate aftermath of the establishment of the new state, clearly successful in integrating Israel in the Western sphere of influence). --Soman (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Offices affected by the Weather Service Modernization Act of 1992

Resolved

 – All of the resolved thanks to User:TheAustinMan. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

For the life of me, I have never been able to find a list of NWS offices/facilities closed or substantially relocated as a result of the modernizing/restructuring associated with the Weather Service Modernization Act of 1992. Since this is the United States Federal Government I'm sure some documents exist somewhere if they can be found. Can anyone provide me a list of the offices affected (whole or incomplete) or tell me where I might have better luck searching/asking than Google and EBSCOhost? Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:TheAustinMan just presented me with my dream come true on IRC: Brief History of National Weather Service Offices Past and Present. I'm practically rolling around with joy...it's exactly what I was looking for. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

How can it make sense to issue mortgages now?

Banks, in general, earn money by constantly borrowing money at short-term rates for short intervals, while lending money at long-term rates such as mortgages. The difference is the profit. How does it make sense, then, to issue mortgages at today's rock-bottom rates, when banks know that 10 years from now, they won't be able to borrow money at today's artificially deflated interest rates? What will happen to their profits then, when short-term rates will most likely be higher than today's long-term rates? They can't securitize their loans easily these days, so they can't offload the interest rate risk like they did pre-bubble. 67.243.3.6 (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what country you're in. This may be too simple to be the answer, but here in the UK, most mortgage rates are fixed for 2-4 years, after which the borrower needs to find a new loan at competitive market rates, or fall into a very uncompetitive basket rate with their original lender. Either way, the bank can recover very nicely from the fact that rates have risen. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Similar mortgages have variable rates in U.S.: When interest rates began changing greatly, many banks increased the use of "variable-rate loans" which are tied to the prime interest rate (the rate which banks charge their best customers). The financial calculations behind loan origination are quite complex, especially for commercial loans, which typical have interest to the exact day of payment (versus the level payments of consumer loans), as well as including an added insurance premium for single or joint credit life insurance. The final calculation involves about 18 independent variables, any one of which will change the amount of the mortgage payment, but bankers carefully test the numbers to ensure a profitable result, sometimes using mathematical analysis by actuaries who are skilled at a variety of related complex math formulas. So that is why banks are typically able to predict the expected profits accurately, and are covered by insurance premiums also billed to the customer (in the total payment). -Wikid77 (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In the United States, long-term fixed-rate mortgages may be originated by retail banks. However, virtually all of them are guaranteed and/or owned by the Federal Housing Administration or by either of two GSEs: Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Retail banks originate the loans because they can sell them on to a GSE at a small profit, thereby avoiding any long-term risk. Often, the GSE will enter into a contract with the same bank to service those loans in return for an annual payment or share of the income they yield. So there is actually very little risk to banks. The GSEs, which receive government support and an implicit government guarantee, purchase mortgages issued on terms that almost certainly would not be available on a fully privatized market. Marco polo (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very good point. U.S. still uses fixed-rate loans for the most part. I do know that the banks have had trouble packaging their loans, but I think it may be getting slightly easier now. Still, until securitization returns to normal, the banks are taking on the risk themselves, right? Wells Fargo for sure are not selling as much of their loan portfolio as they used to. I've read an article that said in the just announced quarter, they have kept the loans so as to show a bigger profit than they would've otherwise. 67.243.3.6 (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is this article placed under Irreligion?

It seems that some people identify Agnostic theism is more closer to agnosticism than theism... so it fits under Irreligion? Huh? 140.254.226.237 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Dweller (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If only I could find the Religion template. 140.254.226.237 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Every article on Wikipedia has a corresponding talk page, for discussing improvements and issues about the article. Why don't you head over to Talk:Agnostic theism and broach this issue there?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If my country were ever attacked, could we attack their soil?

Could my country deploy troops overseas given that we only have self defense forces? Kotjap (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this an opinion question? 140.254.226.237 (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Which country? --Jayron32 21:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My country is Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotjap (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, what is the reason for the idiom 'my country' in place of the country's actual name? I found myself using it the other day, but I normally associate it with those whose first language is not English. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

English is not my first language. Kotjap (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The United States Department of Defense employs 2.1 million military active duty personnel and has managed their attacks on many countries around the world over the past 63 years, since it replaced the United States Department of War. Invasions of and various attacks on other countries seem to have been more frequent under the Defense Department than they were under the War Department. Edison (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but here the constitution forbids the deployment of forces to other countries. Kotjap (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

<ec> the USA does not have a constitutional constraint against aggression, like the Japan Self-Defense Forces do. See Japan_Self-Defense_Forces#Defense_policy --Dweller (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec with two above) The question seems to have been a little lost in the above. As mentioned in our Japan Self-Defense Forces and Military history of Japan, the Japanese constitution says they will not maintain 'war potential' and have given up on the threat or use of force or war to settle disputes. Even the formation of the defence force has been controversial and a number of their actions like participation in peace keeping operations likewise. The article doesn't specifically say how far they can go in the event of war from outside parties to defence themselves. On the other hand, I question the usefulness of going by how things are now anyway. Even if current interpretation of the constitution and policy of the government says they will not invade another country in retaliation and there is sufficient opposition from the Japanese people to make it unlikely, it's impossible to say this will remain in the event they are attacked. On other words, even without a change of the constitution it's possible they'd decide they can invade another country to 'defend themselves' if invaded and of course if they really feel they can't it's difficult to rule out a change to the constitution. I would note both our articles and [1] suggest that the JSDF do have some degree of power projection, and many suggest it is increasing [2] with increasingly liberal interpretations of the constitutional limits, even if the overall military budget is decreasing [3]. Although most of those sources as with others like [4] (albeit a bit old) do agree they nature of their forces do mean they're clearly oriented towards direct self defence of Japan itself so despite their power projection capabilities their ability based on their current forces to seriously invade any country likely to give them problems is probably in doubt (although again going by how things are now may be a mistake). Nil Einne (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The question seems to be asking about legalities, which are dealt with here, but there's a practical aspect, too. Without essential hardware like:

"aircraft carriers, long-range surface-to-surface missiles, ballistic missiles, strategic bombers, marines, amphibious units, and large caches of ammunition"

, your country would be extremely ill-advised taking aggressive steps against all but the least militarised countries of the world, unless you had allies taking up most of the slack. --Dweller (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not our place to be telling Japan or any other country what it would be ill-advised to do. All we can say is that Japan's military forces are constitutionally prevented from engaging in external aggression. Whether that would or could ever be over-ridden is something for the crystal ball, and we seem curiously out of stock of them at the moment. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I wonder what the term "Kotjap" is supposed to mean. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As a practical matter, if Japan wanted to either ignore that provision in it's constitution or remove it, how the world would react would depend greatly on the circumstances. That provision, of course, is to prevent aggressive actions like the invasion of Manchuria, Rape of Nanking, and, of course, the attack on Pearl Harbor. So, if Japan repeated anything like those actions, it could expect to be attacked by many other nations. On the other hand, if Japan was first attacked, say by North Korea, then I doubt if anyone would object to it doing whatever it takes to defend itself. However, since Japan lacks nukes, and NK has them, I agree that Japan is unlikely to be able to offer an effective counter-attack, so would have to rely on it's allies. StuRat (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

North Korea maybe has a small number of half-baked nukes without reliable delivery systems. It has a rather weak economy and industrial infrastructure. Japan is a modern high-technology country with 5 times the population and roughly 100 times the GDP (by purchasing power parity). I know which state I would bet on... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

We're straying well into the terrority of crystal balls here, but there are different levels of "winning" a war. I don't doubt that Japan would win a straight out war with North Korea (although one would never happen - other countries would undoubtedly get involved, the real outcome would depend on what China decides to do), but North Korea's nuclear technology could result in massive damage to Japan before they win (they've tested both nuclear devices and launch systems now - it's not a big step to combine them). Of course, North Korea actually using nuclear weapons on another country would guarantee the involvement of the rest of the world in the conflict. --Tango (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

So, when did the supply of crystal balls get replenished? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Japan is often classified as a "nuclear-capable" state: one that has the expertise and technological capability to build nuclear weapons in short order, if it decides it wants them. --Carnildo (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The legitimacy of Azawad as a state (Malian conflict)

I'm interested in understanding the Malian conflict a bit better to maybe propose some sort of solution.

A focal point of the conflict in Mali is the rise of Azawad nationalism, the movement of the far-right and Islamist extremists working to establish Azawad as an independent state. I wish to ignore all the talk of it becoming a terrorist haven, and focus on one question: under the universal right to self-determination, is Azawad a legitimate nation?

From research, I can see that 20% of the population is in the area claimed to be Azawad. Does the majority of this section of the population wish for Azawad to be a recognised independent state? Thanks. 72Volt (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This shows the demographic breakdown of Azawad. The nationalism you've been hearing about is by Tuaregs, who make up only 35% of Azawad's population. That is not even a plurality, let alone a majority.

As for whether Azawad is a "legitimate" nation, "legitimacy" involves nothing more than killing enough people and stealing enough land to make the rest of the world realize they need to take you seriously. It's solely based on political, economic, and military interests. The so-called universal right to self-determination was made up by European colonial powers after WWI to strip the Central Powers of their colonies so that they can control said colonies (see League of Nations mandate).

EDIT: Never mind, that pie chart is from 1950. For some reason, I can't find more recent demographic data.

--140.180.240.178 (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX much? Regarding legitimate, independent state, Wikipedia has an article called Sovereign state and also an article on Diplomatic recognition. Between the two of them, and links therein, the OP should be able to form their own understanding of the situation. They certainly don't need to you have their opinions created for them. --Jayron32 02:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The pie chart linked above shows the ethnic breakdown in 1950 of the region of Gao, one of three administrative regions claimed by the proponents of Azawad. In the other two regions, Tombouctou and Kidal, Tuaregs and Arabs together probably constitute a majority. It is likely that Tuaregs and Arabs make up a slim majority of the population of Azawad as a whole. Many, but not all members of these two groups support independence for Azawad. However, it is impossible to conduct a scientific poll in the region under the current circumstances, so there is no way to know the preference of the majority of the population. It is almost certain that most Songhai, the next most numerous group, do not support independence for Azawad. Marco polo (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

So, from this information, one possible solution I can see is to coerce the Tuaregs to give up their arms in exchange for a chance to peacefully figure out whether their independence would be viable, letting them know they could preserve the lives of many of their people if they did so. Thanks for the info! 72Volt (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Can we get a link to the Azawad state and an explanation of what "hard-right" means in theis context, other than, say, a 360, or support for hard monetarism? μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)