Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• 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 don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 2

Has the United States, by definition, always been a colonial power since independence?

Was the American opposition to the colonialism of Great Britain and France and its continuation especially during and in the aftermath of the Second World War an example of hypocrisy or double standard that resulted from saltwater fallacy, the notion that colonialism only applies to oversea territories? The only major difference between the British Empire after Statute of Westminster and the United States was that the former was exploitative colonialism and the latter had always been settler colonialism. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you the one that said, four days ago, "Wikipedia is not a forum"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this? I was only quoting the official policy guideline for this site in order to get people to have actual discussion on improving articles instead of engaging in pointless argument that would never reach a consensus or succeed in persuading the opposing side. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• The question can not be answered, since the answer depends on which definition of “colonial power” one uses. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I am only asking this because the article on colonialism includes more traditional land empires like the Russian Empire as an example. I am aware that the article is not in its best but its improvement is the primary reason why I am asking this in the first place. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It would not have considered itself such.

The USA's early westward expansion was not thought of as colonization, but the country's inevitable expansion into a territory it already considered part of its mandate. Manifest Destiny would be the article you want.

Of course, the people already living there would have described the situation very differently. ApLundell (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• It depends on your definitions. First, define what you mean by colonialism, then decide if the U.S. took those actions at any particular time. Arguments can be made both ways depending on how you want to define your terms. --Jayron32 20:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

70.95.44.93: actually, the U.S. government didn't own any land at independence -- it was the individual states which had land claims. Reconciling the various state claims, persuading states to drop some of the more theoretical and remote claims, etc. was one of the tasks of the Continental Congress or Confederation Congress, culminating in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787... AnonMoos (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Claims like the Connecticut Western Reserve. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_policing_in_the_United_Kingdom

Why is there no article like this for the US? Benjamin (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Because you didn't create it? --Jayron32 20:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to be sure the information I was looking for wasn't already in another article, perhaps by a different name or scope I didn't realize. Are there sources? Benjamin (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Some issues seem to be covered by other articles, such as Mass surveillance in the United States, which is a large article leading to interesting places. Perhaps that will give you a start. --Jayron32 20:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

In the US it is more commonly referred to as "working undercover" (e.g. Undercover operation, see section: Plainclothes law enforcement). —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3410:B2CC:5D3A:A0AC (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

January 4

Least painful age of womanhood

At what age is a human female's losing her virginity least painful? 83.137.1.204 (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Well... first we have to establish whether age has anything to do with the level of pain experienced (or not). Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If she never uses tampons, exercises strongly enough to affect the hymen or otherwise stretches it (i.e. beforehand to try to make it hurt less) then logically probably before feminine dryness sets in, after the guy's done it enough to do it very slowly without becoming too horny and speeding up and assuming similar ages possibly young womanhood when human tissue is most elastic (unless the average penis width to hymen opening width falls behind the adult ratio at some point which I don't really want to know but seems possible as boys have puberty later and girls are taller than boys temporarily. Of course she should wait till she's 100% ready) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks but I was hoping for a number of years. 83.137.1.204 (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Geeze trying to figure this out. I don't even! "A colposcope initially equipped with an Olympus camera, but now with a video camera attached has been used since 1994. Since 1994 the department has performed more than 100 examinations of children...." -- PMID 10641926. 83.137.1.204 (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

As SMW is trying to tell you, it's got more to do with your specific physical condition, along with your being willing and ready, than it has to do with any particular age. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I note that all the respondents here are male. They know best about these things, of course. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

At least, you think they are. --76.69.117.217 (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Woof. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

200 years old should do it in the absence of major medical breakthroughs on aging and longevity. I guess you could extend it to 10000 to cover that. You got to figure that after that, the difference between 10k and 1 billion years old is probably very small. Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In case anyone reading this didn't get clued in, the idea that a woman's "first time" always hurts is a myth. The myth generally holds that a woman's hymen is supposed to be intact until being penetrated. This is wrong for several reasons, as the article should make clear. Here's a reputable source discussing the topic. Persistent pain with sex is abnormal, and if one experiences it, one should consult a medical professional. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

On rare occasions a bride will beg her husband not to do it. He acquiesces and tries again on another occasion with the same result. This generally leads to the frustrated husband filing for an annulment. 2A00:23C0:7C00:B401:6D6A:7B2D:525E:9079 (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That's more about your personal life than we needed to know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Fifty-state strategy equivalent in other nations

In U.S., they have this strategy called Fifty-state strategy where a political party like the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are known to plan to win votes from all fifty states during the presidential election. Are there any equivalents to this strategy in other nations? Donmust90 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Link: Fifty-state strategy. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The USA Electoral College is atypical of democratic states - most of the others do not consider it democratic to allow the second placed candidate to win the presidency, even though someone else had more votes. In any country with a proportional representation system of elections, where the total number of votes for each party is significant in determining the number of seats won, all parties (except specifically regional ones) are likely to put up candidates everywhere. Even in a first pas the post system like the UK, the main parties all try to have candidates in every constituency. They may not expect to win, but the total vote share can be significant - for example in determining the right to put party political broadcasts on TV. Wymspen (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of the others are not collections of sovereign states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wymspen -- The electoral college did make some sense in the context of the late 18th and early 19th century, when voting qualifications differed widely from state to state, and the nascent federal government didn't have the desire or the institutional capacity to get involved in managing elections inside the various states. The authors of the Constitution weren't too sure that most voters in any one state would even be able to have informed opinions about politicians from other states. Basically, they thought that elections like that of 1824 would be somewhat typical. It wasn't until the rise of "Jacksonian Democracy" in the late 1820s that it even started to become meaningful to talk about a national popular vote (though Rhode Island and South Carolina continued to diverge from the other states for quite some time after that...) AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Donmust90 -- those who pursue a "50-state strategy" in the U.S. do not realistically expect to get electoral college votes from all 50 states (nobody has come remotely close to that since 1984). Instead, they're basically encouraging turnout for down-ballot candidates in the states where they're unlikely to win the presidential electoral college... AnonMoos (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's about ,more than just the Presidency. (Many of my fellow Americans seem to forget that there are elections for things other than the Presidency.) The broader idea is to contest every race instead of conceding races as "unwinnable" and not even bothering to nominate a candidate. Proponents of the strategy believe it may facilitate "upset victories", as the outcome of the recent Alabama U.S. Senate election has often been deemed in the press. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(1) While few other nations may have close equivalents to the U.S. Electoral College, very similar effects can happen when the Prime Minister is chosen by an unweighted parliamentary system which is composed strictly of members chosen by a straight plurality (or "first past the post") vote in each individual geographic district, constituency, riding or electorate (without "add-on" members reflecting a national party vote). The examples I can think of (perhaps inaccurately) are Canada and the United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland which uses proportional representation to elect nearly all other officials). I don't know enough about the systems (based partly on a preferential vote) in Australia and New Zealand, but I think that similar effects could still occur there, too.

For example, the Labour and Co-operative Parties led in Parliament by Prime Minister Clement Attlee, won more national popular votes in the U.K. in 1951 than the Conservatives and Unionists led by former Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill. However the Tories (Conservatives) elected more Members of Parliament (M.P.'s) and Sir Winston replaced Major Attlee as His Majesty's Prime Minister. [See United Kingdom general election, 1951.]

1950 results:

• for 625 members of the House of Commons
• total vote: 28,595,668
• Labour & allies: 48.8% of vote (13.949 million), 295 MP's
• Conservatives & associates: 48.0% (13.718), 321
• Liberals: 2.5% (0.731), 6
• Communists: 0.1% (0.021), 0
• others: 0.6% (0.177), 3

Roughly the reverse happened 23 years later in the General Election of February 1974. The Conservatives, now separate from the Ulster Unionist Party and led by Prime Minister Edward Heath, won slightly more U.K. votes than Labour, led by former Prime Minister Harold Wilson. However, Labour won more seats in Parliament (although not a majority) and Mr Wilson was asked by the Queen (following long-accepted constitutional convention) as leader of the largest party in the House of Commons to try and form a government, which he was able to do with support from the Liberals and other parties. Note that in February 1974, neither Labour nor the Conservatives approached even half of either Parliament or the country, as they had in 1951.

February 1974 results:

• 635 seats total (of which 12 from N. Ireland) *
• total vote: 29,189,178
• Lab: 37.1% (11.639), 301
• Cons: 37.9% (11.869), 297
• Lib: 19.3% (6.063), 14
• Scots & Welsh Nationalists: 2.6% (0.803), 9
• others in England, Wales & Scotland: 0.7% (0.212), 0
• others in Northern Ireland (Unionist, Nationalist & others): 2.3% (0.718), 12

'* [No Northern Ireland votes included in major party totals for this election.]

Source: Postwar Britain: a political history, by Alan Sked and Chris Cook, second edition, Penguin Books, 1984, pages 99 & 288, derived from British Political Facts, 1900-1975, by David Butler and A. Sloman.

(2) The fifty-state strategy, promoted in the Democratic Party while Howard Dean was Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and subsequently -- although not necessarily under that name, by Michael Steele as chair of the Republican National Committee, contrasts sharply with the successful presidential campaigns of Bill Clinton in the 1990's, managed by James Carville and Paul Begala. They concentrated almost all of their efforts on the 16, 17 or 18 states where the difference betwee the Democratic and Republican percentages of the state vote was relatively small.

In the 30-odd states (plus the District of Columbia) where either party enjoyed a crushing lead (e.g. Democrats in my state of Rhode Island or Republicans in Wyoming), the Clinton campaign was nearly invisible. The Clinton strategists saw little point in spending great amounts of money or volunteer effort where it was almost impossible to affect the electoral vote. (This of course did not prevent them from raising money and recruiting volunteers in those very blue or very red states to use in the one-and-a-half-dozen "battleground" or "swing" states.)

Partly because of a perpetual shortage of funds and positive enthusiasm, the Hillary Clinton campaign of 2016 did not pursue anything like a fifty-state strategy. Not only did this leave them vulnerable to the more-alert and agile Donald Trump campaign's successful last-weekend assault —- credited to Kellyanne Conway, the campaign's polling expert — on the supposedly-safe-Democratic states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin (which had not voted GOP since 1984 or 1988 and formed part of the so-called Blue Wall). The Clinton strategy may also be partly responsible for the loss of four or five seats, and thus a majority, in the U.S. Senate that the Democrats had hoped to seize from the Republicans in states such as Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania.

—— Shakescene (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Which counties of the Sun Belt

Which counties of US are part of the Sun Belt? Donmust90 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Link: Sun Belt (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

According to the article, it's not rigidly defined, as you'd expect with regards to a definition based mostly on climate. The linked article contains a map that gives you a good approximation. I thought the first reference on there might give you what you want as it supposedly backs up a specific population figure, but it simply points here and is therefore original research (and pretty piss-poor at that). Matt Deres (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

When did the name Bavaria arise?

Of course, I did have a look at History of Bavaria, but I coulnd't find any really pertinent information on when actually the Latin term Bavaria provably occurred as a geographical designation for the first time.--Siebi (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Siebi: I found an extremely unreliable source that says: "The tribe that gave the territory its name was the Baiovarii (Bavarians), which settled in the south between 488 and 520 ce.". This information is probably unreliable because I couldn't edit it. https://www.britannica.com/place/Bavaria (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: Thanks for answering. To clarify that: I've been familiar with the fact that the name Bavaria is derived from the tribal name, but that is not my question, in fact, which I tried to make clear by the emphasizing term geographical above... I simply wanted to know when the name Bavaria as such is first documented.--Siebi (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I know. My point was that it was probably at some point in space and time after they settled there (although I admit that doesn't narrow it down by much). I'll try to find more. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!--Siebi (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Siebi: I found a website that says: "The Lex Baiuvariorum (Bavarian law) is the oldest surviving Latin document of any extent composed in Bavaria and the most important source for the early history of Bavaria." and it links to here. Its from around 820-830. It seems very likely that it does refer to the geographical place, and not the people, but I am not an expert. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you asking about the specific spelling "Bavaria"? (Instead of other forms that also mean what we call Bavaria, like Baiovarii or Baiuvariorum, etc.) If so, Pope Honorius III corresponded with the "dux Bavariae" several times in 1218. That was the earliest source that sprung to mind immediately, but I'm sure that's not the earliest mention. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In the OP Siebi asked about "the Latin term Bavaria", but in Latin you can change the end of words depending on the context. Grammatical_case#Latin https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/possessive-demonstrative-pronouns/ I am not sure if I should interpret the words "as such" in the comment dated 18:27, 4 January 2018 to mean "with that exact spelling". If so then Bavariae is not the same as Bavaria. If not, then Baiuvariorum and Bavariae are both valid examples. Again, I am not an expert. Back when I was in school they tried to teach me six languages, and I was stoned most of the time. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: Other inflected forms of Bavaria are fine, too...--Siebi (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, then the answer is somewhere between ~488 CE and ~820 CE. Maybe someone can find an even older source that mentions Bavaria. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I still think Siebi is talking about the spelling "Bavaria"...not just mentioning the place, but using the term Bavaria specifically. Paul the Deacon calls it "Baioaria" in the late 8th century (probably c. 785-799), so, "Bavaria" must appear sometime after that. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The best place to look would probably be the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, which you can search online, although the sheer number of texts makes it a bit difficult to find something specific like this... Adam Bishop (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Adam Bishop: The oldest text I could find via that website was from 1829. [1] Am I doing something wrong? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Heh, well that's when the project started. The oldest stuff in there is from the 5th century, I think. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Otto of Freising, writing in the 1150s, also uses "Baoiaria". I suppose this may just be intentionally archaic though. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, then at least we can establish that it was not yet used under Roman rule, right?--Siebi (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes! It is definitely not the Roman name. "Bavaria" is a much later medieval simplification of "Baoiaria". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Adam Bishop: Thank you. But does that in turn mean that the form Baoiaria is Roman, in fact?--Siebi (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

No, "Baoiaria" is post-Roman. The area of modern Bavaria was never really part of the Roman Empire, although parts of it across the river from the provinces of Rhaetia and Noricum. Noricum seems to be used as a poetic/archaic term for Bavaria, sometimes. "Bavaria" (and "Bohemia") comes from the name of the Boii, or from some other Germanic tribe that adopted their name, but there was no name for the area where they lived. They were nomadic and did not have a "state" (in the Roman sense). But they were a coherent group of people, with laws, etc. As Quixotic Potato mentioned, the laws are called "lex Baiuariorum", "law of the Bavarian people". Later, they did develop into a state, a client kingdom of the Frankish Empire. I mentioned Paul the Deacon called their state "Baioaria" in the early medieval period, in the 8th century. So, the idea that there was a separate Bavarian people (Boii, Baiovarii, etc.), and that they had their own country (Baoiaria, or later Bavaria), post-dates the Romans by a few centuries. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I Am An Angry God?

Where does the phrase "I am an angry God" come from? I've heard it in a few Stuart Ashen videos. Rmaster1200 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

“ I am a god. And to those who do not worship me I am an angry god. Know my name. ” — Onslaught

But it may be older than that. A quote that is quite similar appears in the Bible. http://biblehub.com/nahum/1-2.htm I also found this which says: "This has been translated with: “I am a striving God,” or even “I am an angry God,”" but it is obviously not a reliable source because the writer was bonkers. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Ashen mainly seems to produce Entertainment. I never heard this "phrase" anywhere. I doubt there is more background than just Mr. Ashen trying to entertain us with some impressive religious role model. --Kharon (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that exact phrase appears in the Bible. However, there are several passages in Deuteronomy that are typically translated as "I am a jealous god." Exodus 20:5 is one example, and you can read different translations here (some of which indicate God can certainly become angry). http://biblehub.com/exodus/20-5.htm. OldTimeNESter (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Might be a reference to Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.John Z (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Deuteronomy is more productive:

6¹⁵ (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

9⁸ Also in Horeb ye provoked the LORD to wrath, so that the LORD was angry with you to have destroyed you.

9²⁰ And the LORD was very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him: and I prayed for Aaron also the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.94.204 (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust Rail Justice Act

What happened to it? Why doesn't one find any pertinent information on the website of the subcommitee responsible?--Siebi (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Status: Died in a previous Congress - This bill was introduced on March 17, 2011, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted. Their contact information is on their website. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

[2] seems to have mostly dealt with the concerns for one of the companies involved. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

January 5

Quote Source

I'm trying to find a quote which I believe may be from Shakespeare and may be a king which amounts to "since I'm not a very good good guy, I'm going to be baddest bad guy". Any ideas?

89.225.227.82 (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikiquote has a page of quotes related to evil here; you could check it out and see if anything rings a bell for you. More here. Matt Deres (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Shakespeare's Richard III, from Richard's opening soliloquy in Act I scene I:

And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.

CodeTalker (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's the opening soliloquy from Richard III in a somewhat abbreviated form (beware the king is shown from behind using a urinal) as adapted for Ian McKellan's most excellent 1995 film. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

89.225.227.82 -- Christopher Marlowe was fonder of ultra-villains than Shakespeare was (Tamburlaine, the Jew of Malta, etc.), but I don't know any quotes... AnonMoos (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia?

An article about this is outdated. What is the current state of Catalonia? Has the Spanish government re-instated the autonomy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by אילן שמעוני (talk • contribs) 14:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You mean to ask, "What is the current status of Catalonia?" Not "state", which is ambiguous. See Catalan independence referendum, 2017 for recent information here at WP. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the OP meant the statute, not status, as in Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia and the application of the article 155 revoking (temporarily) such statute. --Hofhof (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Language of TV broadcast and movies in India

I want to know about the language of TV program broadcast across India. As I get from the article Television in India, most Indian households have a TV. Is there a program that's watched in the same language all around India?

Do most Indians get, at least some, exposure to Hindi (or any other language)? Do most watch non-translated movies? Bollywood movies are originally in Hindi, but would people watch these in the original version with/without subtitles? Or do they get a Tamil/Kannada/Gujarati/and so on?--Hofhof (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Of the few Bollywood movies I have watched (e.g., Yaadein) they were in Hindi with a smattering of English code switching and brief English dialog. I was not aware of any Dravidian languages being spoken. By far, the two largest groups of languages spoken in India are the Dravidian and the Indo-Aryan languages with other significant minorities I will not address.

Basically, Indo-Aryan is closer to English than it is to Tamil. In fact, most linguists who study deep relationships think Irish is closer to Japanese than Hindi is to any of the Dravidian languages. See Nostratic languages for a discussion of Dravidian in relation to Indo-European.

That being said, Hindi and Gujarati are in no way mutually intelligible, although they are as close as Danish is to English, for example. Likewise, Tamil, and Telugu are not mutually intelligible, even though they are both Dravidian. And no Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages are mutually intelligible at all, although the share many words and other features due to language contact. I don't speak any of these languages natively, but have made a basic academic and OR study. As far as I am aware, English will be the default lingua franca when two Indians who speak languages of different phyla who are not speakers of each other's mutual language communicate. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As our article says, Bollywood movies are naturally mostly in Hindi (or perhaps more accurately Hindustani) although given the nature of language use in India, often with some English, also called Hinglish. Bollywood cinema is the largest and most well known part of Cinema of India but still, it doesn't even represent a majority of box office revenue, our article suggests it represents 43%. Telugu cinema also know as Tollywood and Tamil cinema also know as Kollywood together represent 36%, with the rest taken by the various other languages. Some of these may be dubbed, perhaps even released simultaneously. That said, there also sometimes restrictions on dubbing although it sounds like these are possibly coming to an end [3] [4] [5]. Dubbing of non Indian movies is of course also carried out [6], and dubbing may also be carried out without the distributor/producer authorising it [7]. There are also some movies which are multilingual, which doesn't generally mean parts are in one language and parts in another but rather they are shot simultaneously in two or more languages, see List of multilingual Indian films. This doesn't directly tell us much about TV viewing habits, but it is an important reminder that things in India are generally not monolithic Hindi or Hindi-English and Bollywood. See also [8] [9] [10] [11]. BTW the above article also has numbers of movies released in 2016, however articles like [12] gives an idea of why such figures should be considered with care. Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

In fact, most linguists who study deep relationships think Irish is closer to Japanese than Hindi is to any of the Dravidian languages. From the linked article, I'm not sure it would be correct to say "most". It sounds like a lot of people are skeptical about that grouping, or even that its possible to trace roots back that far. Iapetus (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You can easily find programming in the major languages such as Hindi, Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Hindi, Tamil, and even English. Most people in India know one of these major languages. That being said, none of these languages exist in a vacuum. Often people in India will be exposed to the major languages, and are able to understand them or talk at a conversational level. They may watch programming in other major languages with subtitles, or they may not watch the programming not in the major language they know at all. It depends greatly on the individual. Many movies will have some conversations in one language, and small parts in another, so Indians are not unaccustomed to hearing different languages and not understanding every aspect of what they're watching. HarryOtter (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get the question. There is a plethora of TV channels in India, but almost channels are usually monolingual. They are almost all broadcast nation-wide, you can watch a Malayalam channel in Delhi or an Assamese channel in Tamil Nadu. But their viewership will obvioulsy differ depending on the language-skills of the viewer. --Soman (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Saint Carpophorus

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen

I am looking since ages for a picture (or icon) of Saint Carpophorus. I was wondering whether some of you know where I could find such a Picture (maybe you are aware of a website or book)?

Thank you for your answers I wish you all the very best--2A02:120B:2C79:D630:E468:6FDE:D759:4B77 (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Saint Carpophorus redirects to Carpophorus, which lists a handful of people who were significant religious figures for one reason or another. Carpophorus, Exanthus, Cassius, Severinus, Secundus, and Licinius were martyred and they have feast days and our article refers to them as saints, but doesn't give a lot of detail. If you can read Italian, this site (Google translation here) has more detail. It's not clear to me if any of the images on the right are meant to represent Carpoforo (note alternate spelling). Matt Deres (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternately, this site lists three saints with similar names. At the very least, we'll need to know which (if any) of these you mean. Matt Deres (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• (ec)You will have to clarify which "Saint Carpophorus" you are looking for... we have articles on:

1. one martyred at Como
2. one martyred at Capua
3. one martyred at either Spoleto or Seville

And there may be others. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Blueboar! Thank you very, very much for your links and informations. Thanks to your help I was able to find a picture of Saint Carpophorus (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JqhXzH8TDGg/WipVb0NJf-I/AAAAAAAADmk/JMI1LDa6FE4jpflPHrvzBz9wpgIVxvWLgCLcBGAs/s1600/san%2Bcarpoforo.jpg)!

I wish you all the very best!

With kind regards--2A02:120B:2C79:D630:54EC:F65:8C21:749A (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Impacts of Preventing Cancer for a Country as a Whole

Hi. I am writing about how preventing affects the nation as a whole. I need help coming up with something along the lines of

1. Less health care costs
2. Less premature deaths.. increased productivity?

I don't think I'm explaining this well, but I need to think of a few, well fleshed out impacts and I can't really form them. HarryOtter (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It is also possible that you would have increased health care costs overall as those that would have died due to cancer would now real old age and gain the associated ailments. Depending on the country, the government would now have to find money to provide for those people's pensions or other benefits. This may lead to the statuatory retirement age increasing to alleviate the costs of an aging population. You would also have the impact to the healthcare industry itself. Hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and research organisations would have to find alternative revenue streams. See also (for example, there are many many many studies and articles on where the money currently goes and a handful on what could happen when that stops) [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] (obviously some of these articles may have been written by dirt-eating crystal-wearing anti-vaxxers, buyer beware etc). Nanonic (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Those are definitely impacts I hadn't thought about. HarryOtter (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

January 6

Catholics in London

I just discovered that the particular church for London is the Diocese of Westminster, headed by an archbishop. Why is it a diocese, not an archdiocese, if it has an archbishop and suffragan dioceses; or why is the ordinary an archbishop, not a bishop, since it's just a diocese? Some legal provision when Universalis Ecclesiae took effect, prohibiting the existence of a Catholic archdiocese on the north side of the Thames? I'm aware of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark with its cathedral a few km away, so obviously it's not as if all archbishops were prohibited from the London area. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The hierarchy are happy with the terminology [23]. 81.158.94.204 (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It is clear from that website that the church is happy to call it an archdiocese. Westminster was established as a metropolitan diocese - and historically a metropolitan bishop was actually a higher rank than a mere archbishop. When the hierarchy was re-established in England, in 1850. there was only the single province, with the Metropolitan Archbishop of Westminster at its head. The church has subsequently been divided into several archdioceses, but the original title for Westminster was retained, probably as a mark of its historical significance. Wymspen (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

When did we stop to be obedient servants?

Today we don't close letters by writing Your obedient servant, Address and Name. When did people stop doing that? Count Iblis (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It gradually got abbreviated to "Your obt. svt.", then "Yours etc." then "Yours". Abbreviate a formality to "et cetera", and it's likely to disappear as people forget what the "cetera" is. I've not yet found when those transitions generally happened. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The item in question is known as a valediction or complimentary close, which might help your search (our article doesn't contain much about historical usage). This and this might also be of interest to you. Matt Deres (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Not everyone has stopped signing themselves "your obedient servant" when at their most formal. A search of the Times Digital Archive, which unluckily lives behind a paywall, shows that two letters to the editor used that sign-off in the very last issue covered, 31 December 2012. --Antiquary (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Google NGram might help: [24]. While it is not a corpus of letters, it might give a rough approximation. It shows the phrase peaking in the 1860s with a steep fall after 1880. You'll have to model "yours etc" separately because of the scale. [25] That graph shows it was a phrase used in the 1920s, 30s and 40s.70.67.222.124 (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

People who sign off their letters to The Times with "YOS", are probably just warming up to write to their beloved hero. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC) i.e. they're a bunch of YOSers

Literature about the Ancient Sophists

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen

I am looking for literature that deals with the views and available personal informations about the ancient sophists and their movement. The article on Wikipedia about the Sophist Movement gives some tops about literature, however, for me as a starter of philosophy, it is not made clear which one of these books would suit my needs the most. Thank you for your answers

Kind regards--2A02:120B:2C79:D630:54EC:F65:8C21:749A (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If you're interested in a quick online source, this peer-reviewed site looks decent, and includes sources, additional reading, etc: "Sophists". www.iep.utm.edu. (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:D1A1:6412:B071:BD34 (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a million! That will do!--2A02:120B:2C79:D630:4C30:3595:124C:ADBD (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Refusing to let a British royal into your home: has anybody done it and what are the legal consequences?

This text implies that the Queen and other royals visits ordinary people from time to time (or used to visit when the text was first published). Have there ever been cases when a British royal knocked on an ordinary person's door and they (for example, being mentally ill) refused to let them in? Also, is there, besides the now-repealed lese-majeste, any old law containing legal consequences for such an action (I know it is unlikely that it would be enforced, I'm just curious)? --185.147.82.205 (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems she can still get into Waitrose: [26], if that's of any interest. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why you suggest mental illness (!) as a reason to refuse entry to a person who comes to your door unannounced and with whom you are personally unacquainted. Unless they have a particular reason (selling something, doing a survey, evangelising, collecting census forms, police business ...) - and not even then in most cases - I wouldn't be letting anyone come inside. Would you let Johnny Depp in just because he chose your door at random? Or Miley Cyrus? Or J K Rowling? No? Well, why would royalty be different? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think (see below) that in practice such a visit would always be carefully arranged in advance by a member of the relevant Royal Household, who would ensure that the visit was welcome: there are undoubtably some people of staunch Republican/anti-monarchist views who would object to a visit by Royalty, and many more who are not anti-royal but who would feel overwhelmed by the honour of being so visited. It is inconceivable that Her Majesty or other senior royals would be deliberately exposed to the potential of embarrassment by a refusal or a totally flummoxed host, not to mention the security implications of having such a visit go awry.

I haven't attempted to cite references for my assessment, because in British society such matters are generally conducted in confidence and are unlikely to have seen extensive public discussion (and therefore if I did have actual relevant knowledge I might feel constrained to keep it confidential). Someone else however may be able to add to (or contradict) this estimation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You cannot be punished for refusing to let the Queen into your home. In Southam v Smout [1964], it was found that 'The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. So be it – unless he has justification by law.' 211.23.25.64 (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

... and the tradition of Castle doctrine goes back in England at least a thousand years before that [27]. Dbfirs 11:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

And I'm reasonably certain that quotation is originally from Blackstone or Coke as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense, otherwise it'd be odd that a judge in 1964 would still be referring to the "King of England", when such an office ceased to exist in 1707. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The concept is usually expressed as "An Englishman's home is his castle". Lord Denning was quoting from a 1760 remark by William Pitt the Elder. The King has special privileges: see Semayne's case. Jack's claim that while England is perfectly capable of having a national football team it is impossible for her to have a Sovereign has been advanced before. See this discussion, started on what used to be Commonwealth Day:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 May 24#how come england gets to enter 4 different teams in the world cup, when every other country only gets 1? that gives england an unfair advantage of winning. 2A02:C7F:BE3D:8000:D5DF:3883:614E:60D6 (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

England has a monarch only in the same sense that New Hampshire has a President, or Tasmania has a Prime Minister, or Manitoba has a Governor General. You get my point. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The article castle doctrine, linked above, and to which An Englishman's home is his castle redirects despite not being mentioned in it, seems to me more concerned with how to get away with killing people than with the right to refuse entry to forces of the state, which is the meaning of the English expression. DuncanHill (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

January 7

Push-back against the phone zombies

Are there organizations that push back against the phone zombie/phubbing/idiots-staring-into-phones-all-day thing happening to our world? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

If you're talking about Smartphone zombie, as I understand it some cities are installing curb-level traffic signals to help the distracted pedestrians realize they might be stepping into traffic. Not so sure that's "pushback" as much as "giving in". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I refactored there. Yes, more broadly, all these people on smart phones. Are there groups of non-zombies out there? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps neo-Luddism would be of use. There's also a lot listed under See also: there. --bodnotbod (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, bodnotbod. Actually, those see also items aren't really organizations, or not currently operating ones, anyway. I was hoping to find that groups of people are popping up around the world to get together and chat and play frisbee and, well, live life and such. You know, the things people did before smart phones came along. Like in zombie movies where the few remaining non-zombies group together. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

As I'm sure you must be aware, such groups already exist everywhere. --Viennese Waltz 09:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Book shops, libraries. Certain schools. [28] [29] [30] [31]. A pub, restaurant, bar. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, The Quixotic Potato and Viennese Waltz. Here in China, there is nothing but groups of people sitting in parks, groups in cafes, groups standing about, couples in restaurants, etc., and all or nearly all consist of most people with a phone in their stupid hand and head down staring at it. There may be a cafe somewhere that doesn't allow it, though. What I hope will happen is groups forming of people who reject this idiocy, or at least question it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you think about asking for this sort of information by walking up to actual people in the street? < / cheeky face > --bodnotbod (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak - I object to you calling me an idiot. I frequently have to access my smartphone for work purposes when I am not at my desk.--WaltCip (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Not every smartphone user is an idiot, although this guy could qualify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I wish I could watch that, Baseball Bugs, but not youtube where I am. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Santa Claus gender

People:

In California the Spanish left their mark by naming towns, rivers, and cities after their Saints. Santa Barbara, Santa Monica and Santa Clara - were all FEMALE Saints where as the male Saints used San - San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego.

So why is Santa Claus not SAN Claus since HE is a man.

Please reply.

Thank you,

Rich Waters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:35AD:C00:FD3A:6400:4E9C:188D (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The name "Santa Claus" is believed to be derived from Sinterklaas. It's likely a phonetic corruption of the latter term, and spelled "Santa Claus" by analogy to familiar names like "Santa Maria", "Santa Barbara", "Santa Monica", etc. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: But, ehm, Sinterklaas is based on Saint Nicholas, right? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I took the question as suggesting that the phrase we use in English, "Santa Claus", is derived from Spanish like the list of California place names OP listed. My point is that the phrase "Santa Claus" is derived from a different language, so the analogy that was confusing OP didn't apply. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The Spanish version of Santa Claus is either Papa Noel, or El San Nicolas.

There aren't many Female saints with long white beards. But I'm pretty sure Nicholas isn't one of them. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There is Wilgefortis, known as Saint Uncumber in England. However, she was allegedly crucified while still a teenager, so it may not have been white. Wymspen (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What's that you say, Saint Cucumber? How ridiculous. Who's next Saint Carrot? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

That false etymology is quite interesting. Is there a specific term for that type of error (i.e. two independent word derivations being conflated over time because of similarities in how the words are spelled or pronounced)?OldTimeNESter (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@OldTimeNESter: I would recommend asking over at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

False etymology is called "False etymology". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

We always used the term folk etymology in historical linguistics, which, oddly enough, is a different article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to be completely clear - the reason why Santa Claus doesn't follow the Spanish pattern is because his name doesn't come from the Spanish. Or articles at Santa Claus and Sinterklaas do a reasonable job of describing the origin. Places named after Saint Nicholas by Spanish explorers do indeed follow the pattern you expect - see San Nicolás for several examples. You wouldn't expect any places to be named "San Claus" because the San is Spanish and the Claus is Germanic. Matt Deres (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Come on now Matt, have you never heard of equality?? But thanks, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this post. Matt Deres (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not alone. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If y'all are talking about the OP, who's made only the one edit, it's either true ignorance or trolling, albeit fairly benign trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Church-tower roofs

Has anyone ever heard an English analogue to nl:Kruisdaktoren? The article's in nl:Categorie:Dak (linked to en:Category:Roofs) and nl:Categorie:Kerktoren (linked to Commons:Category:Church towers), and all of the article's pictures (here's one) depict the same style of tower roof, so I'm confident that this is the subject. However, I've never heard a term for this form, which apparently is cross-roof-tower. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Not an official term, but it could be described as a “cruciform gable” roof. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

List of roof shapes implies "cross gabled" as standard term. Googling "cross gable roof" turns up enough similar images that it's clear this roof is in that family.--Jayron32 18:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ping An Finance Centre

Ping An Finance Centre says: "The two uppermost stories feature an observation deck."

Is this observation deck open to the public? If so, what are its hours and what's the admission fee (if there is one)? I can't find any other information about it online. Mũeller (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah its open to the public. chinahighlights.com/shenzhen/attraction/ping-an-ifc.htm (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

January 8

Refugees' immigration patterns in Europe

Why do some refugees migrate thru Austria, Switzerland or Denmark to Germany? I understand their wish to move to a save country, and give preference for more affluent ones, but what makes these former three countries less attractive than the latter? --Hofhof (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Relevant articles: Immigration to Germany, Asylum in Germany & European migrant crisis (and links therein). —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:50D3:F595:540:9925 (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Germany has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EU with currently 3,6%. Austria has 5,4%, Denmark 5,6% and Switzerland 5,1%. Because of that there is also a considerable migration of EU-citizens to Germany[32] which is a different case tho because EU-citizens are officially free to choose where they like to work inside the EU by EU-law. On top Germany also has a structural deficit of young labor force, so especially German employers and their institutions are lobbying for a very warm welcome for the refugees which in fact are mostly young males. Additional the leading political, centre-right Christian Democratic Union and her Chancellor Angela Merkel are classically regarded to be very close to these employer institutions. --Kharon (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, Germany has a longer established tradition and a more organised official system than most other European countries for accepting and administrating foreign workers, called Gastarbeiter (-en in the plural). This means that both economic migrants and refugees (some of the former may present themselves as the latter) from the Middle East are more likely to have settled communities of their ethnic peers, or even relatives, already in Germany, making their own reception easier. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

See also Demographics of Germany#Migrant background and foreign nationality, a large number of migrants from areas where refugees are leaving already live in Germany, making it likelier that refugees, seeking to live near family, friends, and associates, would also end up in Germany. There's 637,000 people from Syria and 253,000 from Afghanistan, and 227,000 from Iraq, for example, so additional refugees would naturally seek Germany as a final destination as there are already ready-made communities in Germany. You can check similar articles for other countries, and see the numbers are much lower. --Jayron32 15:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Windows 10 Mobile's Cortana's Quiet hours feature: possible collusion with MNOs and cold callers?

As far as I know, Windows 10 Mobile's Cortana's Quiet hours feature enables the user to set one automatic quiet-hour period for all the weekdays he or she chooses. This may be very inconvenient for some people, as these restrictions do not allow for different quiet-hour settings on workdays and weekends. Thus, there being no alternative apps with the Quiet hours feature, no Windows 10 Mobile user can automatically protect themselves from both unwanted night calls & unwanted early-weekend-morning cold calls. Has this hypothetical profit-over-people policy ever been criticized or at least neutrally described by any reliable source ? --Синкретик (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Would this question make more sense at the Computing Desk (WP:RDC)? --Jayron32 19:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Did Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Italy or the Biblical Holy Land ever get close to "full"?

That is, getting close to running out of land that could have a farm, garden, orchard, vineyard, livestock herd or fallow farm field on it (at contemporary technology level) but doesn't have one of those nor a human structure like a road or city (nowadays even full desert's farmable if you spend enough on irrigation and petrochemical fertilizer and they haven't gotten close to running out of unused desert yet (source: Google Earth) so if this ever happened technology later made them "unfull" again. And even running completely out of unused land wouldn't necessarily be "full" in the carrying capacity sense since imports and yield advances are a thing) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have trouble parsing your explanation - it sounds more like a statement than a question. But ancient Rome was "full" in the sense that it could not reliably feed its population and relied heavily on grain imports - first from Sicily, later from the province of Africa. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Israel had plenty of desert areas; even if you're just talking about the basic Eretz Yisrael from Dan to Beersheba, there's plenty of wasteland, and of course there's a lot more if you go from Damascus to the Wadi of Egypt. Just try Google Street Viewing the area around Beersheba, for example. Or maybe you're excluding deserts (like Stephan, I'm not quite clear about your meaning); if so, I'm not sure what the answer is. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem with your question is that the meaning of "full" depends on the level of agricultural technology (if any) available at a given time. When the cutting edge (heh!) is hunter gathering, the capacity of a given area of land to support a population was lower than for (the later adopted) semi-nomadic pastoralism, which again could support a less-dense population than the next stage, village-level agriculture (see the neolithic revolution), which in turn was less than subsequently-developed city-state agriculture. In our own lifetimes, the Green revolution has doubled or better the amount of food that farming (on land or water) can produce, and techniques such as hydroponics may in future produce yet more increases in the amount of food producable from, and hence the supportable population of, a particular area.

I suspect, given the propensity of human beings to reproduce and relocate, that most of the world has been at its contemporary carrying capacity for most of prehistory and history: one only saw major leaps in an area when radically different tecniques were introduced from outside. I'm sure that someone more expert in this topic will be able to give a much better answer, however. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering when (if?) these two moving targets hit each other or got very close since the transition to agriculture there and you suspect it was "most of the time". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sagittarian_Milky_Way -- the correct term for what you're asking about is Carrying capacity (not "full"). In ancient times, a territory was close to carrying capacity not when every last acre of cultivatable land was cultivated, but when a slight disruption to the system (an unfavorable harvest due to bad weather etc.) meant that some of the population would not have enough food to eat. In some ancient cultures, a sign of being close to carrying capacity was the prevalence of female infanticide. Much of southern/central Greece was pretty close to carrying capacity in the pre-Hellenistic centuries, which was the reason for repeated founding of colonies and emigration to areas outside Greece, and for the rise of imports of grain from the Black Sea area. As has been mentioned above, the city of Rome in imperial times was beyond carrying capacity without the help of grain imports from the province of "Africa" (i.e. today's northeastern Algeria and northern Tunisia), and also from Egypt, and the city's population declined fairly precipitously once such supplies were permanently cut off... AnonMoos (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Chapter III ("The Greek Cities: Social-Economic Conditions") of the 1952 book Hellenistic Civilisation by W.W. Tarn and G.T. Griffith has some melancholy passages on carrying capacity (though they don't use that term) and female infanticide in Greece: "the fundamental fact of life in Greece: the country had a limited amount of arable land, and could not of itself support [any] beyond a fixed number, long since reached". "Imported food had to be paid for" and there were only limited ways of doing that. "Of some thousand families from Greece who received Milesian citizenship c. 228-220 [B.C.], details of 79 remain, with their children. These brought 118 sons and 28 daughters... no natural causes can account for those proportions" etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

So at what point in history was it possible for a country like Israel, Greece, Italy, Egypt or Mesopotamia to have enough acres/farmer and/or enough wealth to cultivate almost cultivatable non-urban acre at contemporary tech levels without having to resort to famine culling, fleeing or infanticide? Is it still pre-industrial or later? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Nazi "ideologists" besides Hitler himself

(No, I am not the troll)

Besides for (obviously) Hitler himself, were there any notable individuals in developing Nazi "ideology and philosophy"? Particularly during the Nazi era, not those who preceded it. And if yes, whom? (If we have articles on them, a link would be appreciated). Eliyohub (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• List of Nazi ideologues —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:50D3:F595:540:9925 (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. I know WP:WHAAOE, but thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Eliyohub (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Himmler was the main man for ideology. Read Heinrich Himmler#Mysticism and symbolism. However Hitler himself called that "nonsense" and seemed to be into Heroism as in Richard Wagner#Nazi appropriation. So "ideology and philosophy" seemed less important in the Nazi mindset. The main nazi-focus was actually much more on "cultur and idols". --Kharon (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia threats spilling over into real-world violence

I gather that people who perform certain tasks on Wikipedia (such as dealing with vandalism and long-term abuse) regularly receive threats. I was myself subjected to a certain troll claiming I had threatened to butcher him with an axe, after I'd reported him to WP:AIV . (For the record, I had done no such thing, but I'm sure many here would not mind if the troll in question met a random sticky end).

Now, I am well aware that on some occasions, Wikipedia posts have been the subject of legal action. I am also aware that there are cases where Wikipedia edit wars have resulted in off-wiki harassment (as in, elsewhere on the net). My question is, for all the violence threatened, are there any recorded cases of real-world assaults stemming from these Wikibattles? Eliyohub (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I am currently reading List of Wikipedia controversies. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Haven't found any. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

January 9

Difference between evolutionary creationism and intelligent design

What's the difference between evolutionary creationism and intelligent design? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7733:AD00:91AB:8A81:12EB:DAF (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Both are so vague that they overlap a lot. But most forms of "creationism" are fairly open about who the creator is (usually the Abrahamic god), while Intelligent Design is more oblique. There is strong evidence that ID was explicitly designed (intelligently ;-) to get around restrictions about teaching religion in US schools - see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and Of Pandas and People for some history. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)