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

November 21

Handgun handle angle

Is there any historical or engineering reason that handguns from centuries ago- the flintlock, matchlock, etc.,- had handles that were nearly in line with the barrel compared to 20th century handguns, in which the handle is nearly at 90 degrees to the barrel? Thedoorhinge (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The arquebus, matchlock, wheellock and flintlock have stocks. The handgun has a handle. You need to compare the handgun to a muzzle-loaded, smoothbore pistol.
Sleigh (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

See also Stock (firearms)#Anatomy of a gunstock for some variations in shape. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

See also RefDesk Archives: What is the big ball on most wheellock pistols?. The answer is that in early pistols, the firing mechanism had to be forward of the trigger, so makers had to extend the "handle" in the opposite direction with a counter-weight at the end, to make it balance in the user's hand. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

logistically, what difficulties would moving Israel entail?

extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: please do not hat this question. this question is far smaller than a question 'what logistics would be involved in digging a canal through North and South America to connect the Atlantic and Pacific oceans', which was asked and answered in the 19th century, and involved moving as much Earth as it would take to tunnel clean through the Earth at a diameter of 6 feet. So please, if you do not have any knowledge, feel free not to provide references. This is a far smaller question than is typically asked on the Science desk, for example. If you have no civil engineering background, interests, or imagination, then feel free to ignore this questoin. Do not hat it. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC) So, I'm a zionist, I love all Jewish people and especially a Jewish state. In practice however Israel is located in an extremely contentious part of the world, and as a result it and the people in it are totally belligerent and extremely militant. I think this is a total waste of resources. So, I would like to know the logistics of moving Israel entirely, what difficulties this would entail. I'm only a kid, so I might want to become a billionaire first, but assuming I did and a bunch of other billionaires were on board...how might this process work? I realize that a few sites in Israel are "holy" and replicas of them would not really do the original justice. At the same time, I also think that 99% of Israelis would gladly replace true holy sites with shrines to the original, if it meant an end to the constnat fear, security, military, and general lock-down they have to live under, which includes mandatory military time under dangerous conditions. Israel has outstanding scholars, a venture capitalist presence by Israeli funds, great businesses, people, Universities, and could be a true Jewish Utopia if it didn't happen to be where it was. With this in mind I'd like to know what difficulties, specifically, would be encountered while moving it. Assume for a moment that the Israeli people themselves are on board. In tihs case how might it happen? Is it possible to disassemble and move houses, swiming pools, skyscrapers, roads,synagogues, telecom infrastructure, etc etc etc. I'd like to consider it from the point of view of not abandonment, but actually picking it up and moving it, after building modern, holy, reverent versions of the sites that are holy. I do believe for 99% of Israelis, the most important thing is the Zionist utopia that they and their kinsmen are building. Now I would like to know the logistics of my blue sky thinking. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Moving Israel would be pointless. It's the land itself that's meaningful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Maybe it's the land. Maybe it's the world's most brilliant, creative, industrious, constructive, fair, studious, sagacious people and the institutions and state they've created that is meaningful. Assume for a second that you're wrong and I'm right. Could you answer my question assuming this hypothesis? Logisticsnightmare (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC) If the land were not meaningful, they wouldn't have fought so hard for it. A second Israel? Easy. It already exists. It's the USA. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC) This like saying, if he didn't believe in God's providence providing it to him, Columbus or the pilgrims wouldn't have fought to colonize the New World. Maybe this is true but for the purposes of this question we assume it's totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with the social and capital wealth that is there now, which for the purposes of my question consists of the Jewish people primarily and the infrastructure they have built secondarily. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Haven't we already been over this? Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_June_18#what.27s_to_stop_creation_of_a_second_Israel Rojomoke (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC) My question is about the logistics (in particular, not any of the reasons) behind literally moving Israel itself. Not the creation of a second Israel. Also, please realize that I'm asking from a logistics standpoint, i.e. actually moving things, not political standpoint about why or whether anyone would want to do so. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC) See Uganda Scheme (especially the part just above "See also") and Jewish Autonomous Oblast. We've "been over this" more than a century ago. Anyway, what's the point of moving your entire infrastructure for vast distances? It's ridiculously more expensive to dig up and move a motorway, telecom infrastructure, houses, etc. than it is to build a new one after you get to Uganda or wherever you're going. Virtually nobody's particularly attached to most of the built environment; either they'll stay with their current built environment, or they'll decide that the costs of staying are too great, and they'll leave without their built environment. The only things to which people are deeply attached are the holy sites and the concept of being in the land of the Bible, neither of which can be moved, and the society/culture of the country, which wouldn't need to be moved like this. 2001:18E8:2:1020:24F2:D21E:C1AE:2FA7 (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Can you be more specific on the point you mention "ridiculously more expensive". This "ridiculously more expensive" part is the entirety of my question. How ridiculous, how much more expensive, and how many billions or trillions of dollars would it take? What specific logistics problems would be entailed? Logisticsnightmare (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC) There is the sheer logistics of moving 6 million Jewish citizens and all their possessions (assuming the other 2 million non-Jewish are happy to remain). That is 12,000 fully laden jumbo jets for the people, and thousands of ships/trucks to move their possessions. But as others have said, Jews choose to live in Israel because it is the land of the bible. Astronaut (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Right, that seems like the easy part don't you think? I mean, it seems that hte fixed infrastructure (telecoms, houses with foundations, swimming pools, built synagogues, university campuses, etc) would be the harder part. Could you give me an estimate on that basis, and how expensive it would be (for a large group of billionaires, for example), and what specific infrastructural issues would be involved? I'd like you to answer the question as posed. Thanks. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC) There is no economic reason to move e.g. a swimming pool, as it's cheaper to simply build a new one. Hence we don't have off-the-shelf technology to do so. If you throw enough resources at it, you certainly can, but the amount you have to throw to have a good chance of success is astronomical. A couple of billionaires is not going to suffice. BTW, do you need to transport the water in the pool, too? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC) You are saying "astronomical" but could you please be a bit more specific? What do you think 'enough resources' would be for this particular questoin. See, for example, the note I just added at the top of this page asking that this question not be hatted - the Panama project was certainly 'astronomical' but it could also be detailed for more precisely. I am pretty good at basic arithmetic, and although it might be less in vogue to know how to calculate civil engineering questions than it was for those educated in the 19th century, I am sure we can do better than 'astronomical'. Perhaps this should be moved to the Science desk? Yet I think Humanities is the right place for civil engineering questions. Thanks. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC) And don't forget transporting the water in the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. I'm thinking Mr. Logistics scenario is too complicated. What's really needed is a gigantic trowel, shaped like Israel, slid under it at some appropriate depth, then lifted by a gigantic forklift, and transfered to wherever they've decided to move it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC) I don't really like this solution, it seems exceedingly complicated solution. Could you share your calculations on how much it would cost in billions or trillions to have a trowel that is the size of exactly 6 city blocks that excavates, over a period of months, under a given area, then lifts and slowly transports what it has lifted? With a few such "trowels" your solution might work in city areas over a course of decades. I think your solution is not very practical - but let's at least quantify it. How much do you think one such system might cost? How long would it take to excavate and at what speed might it move after it has done so? To be very clear: I think this is a highly impractical proposal, but might set an upper bounds. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC) It's as practical as moving swimming pools would be. And I bet your Islamic Republic neighbors would be willing to chip in, as they want Israel gone anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC) If you asked 100 Israelis, I think you'd quickly find out that your assertion "I do believe for 99% of Israelis, the most important thing is the Zionist utopia that they and their kinsmen are building" is incorrect. The people of Israel have a deep and complex attachment to the land of Israel. Not any old land, but that particular patch of ground where their ancestors lived. For a poetic way into it, (not a bad way to understand emotion) I'd refer you to the words of Hatikvah. Outsiders often mistakenly assume this is something only relevant to religious Israelis. It's one of many misconceptions about Israel and Israelis. --86.12.139.34 (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC) While I thank you for this additional context, it doesn't really concern my question, which is about the logistics assuming we and Israelis wanted to do so. In addition, I said only 'most important' not 'only important thing'. Naturally the holy land is quite important. This question concerns the theoretical logistics of moving infrastructure. I am sure if you asked Israelis whether they would prefer to be able to live with greater resources, peace, education, scholarship, and the greatest country - by far - that has existed in the last 6000 years in terms of research, social equity, infrastructure, achievements, genius, and art that far surpasses anything the Renaissance produced, literature that far surpasses that of any of the ancient or modern writers, philosophy that dwarfs what meager progress had been made in human understanding in the previous millennia, riches that make the United States seem like beggars -- but they would have to visit the holy land to do so, as their country would no longer contain it....then a good portion would strongly consider it. Nevertheless, whether they would do so is not really what the quesiton is about here. Rather I am merely interested in the logistics such a theoretical move might entail, were the people of Israel and many billionaires interested in effecting it. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC) The question you seem to be insisting upon asking is unanswerable without major government studies. Since it would be cheaper to build new infrastructure than to dig up, salvage, transport, and reconstruct existing infrastructure (seriously? digging up roads? really?), no government has wasted the funding necessary to carry out such a study. Therefore we have no answers to give you. No sources are available for such a query, because no sources exist; and no sources exist because the action contemplated is such a ludicrous boondoggle that no group of people that even pretends to rationality would ever seriously contemplate it, let alone carry it out. The best we can offer is a few estimates of discrete pieces of the project, as others have responded with above, and maybe a reasoned series of fudge factors. For example, let the cost of building an entire country with area A and population P, from the telephone and sewer lines on up, be $X billion (probably the easiest figure to arrive at in all of the following - that should scare you). Now subtract, optimistically, 85% of the cost of the raw materials (allowing for some unavoidable loss/waste) M; now add the labor cost of disassembly and salvage of the entire nation's infrastructure D. Now add the cost of transporting everything - the big stuff is all on trucks and then trains, but is your population riding, biking, or walking? It's a big discount if they're left to their own devices, but for a sea journey you'll have to hire ships to get them and their cars and bikes across. And there's such a godawfully massive variety of things to be moved that you can't just price it out at $Y per ton; moving the steel in your skyscrapers (say I = deadweight of infrastructure) is a whole different animal than moving everyone's great-grandmothers' good china (say H = deadweight of compensable personal shipments). Assume a pulled-out-of-my-ass fudge factor of 3.5 times the cost of moving gross infrastructure to move personal stuff that needs padding and care. We haven't talked about incidental/emergency health care (C) for all the people who fall sick along the journey or get attacked by bears and sharks along their ill-advised shortcuts. Then also you'd better have a slush fund, $100 billion optimistically, for when the inevitable problems crop up. So now we're up to (X - .85M) + D + IY + 3.5HY + C + $100 billion. What the hell are all those numbers? Well, economics experts could tell you OK estimates for X and M, civil engineers might be able to take a stab at I, and a dedicated survey of world shipping companies from Maersk to FedEx to CSX to U-Haul might give you something remotely resembling Y and a better fudge factor for HY. Then realize those costs will go up as you take over probably the world's entire long-range transportation capacity. But the unbelievable scope of all of this means that putting all these numbers together is not only original research, but the kind of original research that only enormous resources and a full-time dedicated study could even begin to undertake. I'm therefore marking this section as closed and the question unanswerable. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC) I think this is a totally inappropriate response. For the value of your response consider t*h*e ^ n*u*m*b*e*r + o*f + a*c*t*u*a*l * f*i*g*u*r*e*s + y*o*u + m*e*n*t*i*o*n plus a slush fund of $100B. Honestly, why would you even type all that out? If you have no estimate, then don't try for one. You are not really adding anything to my question of logistics other than saying that a precise number would require further study. Well, obviously. I can come up with meaningless variable names too. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC) And I think your complaints to the other editors are inappropriate. You're dealing in fantasies here, and you're demanding an answer. Why do you think anyone here would be better at guesstimating this project's cost than you would be? In fact, you being a lover of all things Israeli would be in a better position to know the value of their stuff than we would. So here's a question to you: You keep asking how much it would cost. How much are you willing to spend? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC) The reason that others might be better than me at guesstimating this project's "cost" (in fact I didn't ask for a cost estimate, but rather what logistical difficulties it would entail) is that I am just a kid, have not studied civil engineering, have not read about large construction or relocation projects, have no experience with urban planning or construction, don't know much about transportation, and in general have no experience in any of the engineering or civil disciplines that my question concerns. If you don't know any more than me, I suggest that you wait for responses from others who know a bit more than a kid. If you don't care, then perhaps you can read other questions you do care about. At any rate I have good reason to believe that others know more than I do about the above disciplines. Thank you for refraining from further editing this question. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC) It's bad enough we have a single purpose account begging us not to hat the discussion--i.e., he's a sock who knows all about hatting. But we have no referenced material in answer so far, just a lot of heat. See talk.μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Try this... In the 1960's UNESCO came up with a plan to save the world heritage site of Abu Simbel from the rising waters of Lake Nasser. They moved this ancient temple just 200 m further up the hill and away from the water. It took four years and cost $40 million (in 1968 dollars - that's well over $250 million today). That was for an irreplaceable temple that they really wanted to save - and they still had to make some compromises. Quite why anyone would want to dig up someone's house, his garden, his garage, and the street outside; move it some vast distance and reconstruct it, is beyond belief. A very rough guess gives me "millions of dollars" per house. Then it is just the maths to multiply by the number of houses and then add more very rough guesses for all the other infrastructure.

Then there is the time involved - four years to move one temple 200 m, so moving a house ~2000 km (ie. far enough to be out of the Middle East) with the same level of care could take much longer. And there are resources like trucks, ships, etc. People would have to wait their turn - or build more trucks and ships while waiting. You would need a vast army of workers for the hard bit for which you don't have the expertise, consider the food the workers eat and the people to grow that food, the waste they produce, etc, etc, etc. How about the pay they all require to do the work. You are asking trillions upon trillions of dollars, per year, for multiple generations.

This is why when people have to leave due to war or disaster, they become refugees with only what they can carry. This is why it is vastly cheaper to abandon the old infrastructure and build anew. The planet Earth is littered with abandoned infrastructure because it is too much trouble to move it.

If you really wanted to move Jews to a new homeland, and could get round the "land of the bible" bit, move just the people and a minimum of their possessions. Oh, and move them somewhere where the sudden arrival of 6 million people won't upset the neighbours, or you'll just end up moving them all over again. Astronaut (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, this answers my question. If anyone has anything to add to it feel free to reply. (The hatted portion above is a lot of people saying that nobody can write a response like this.) Incidentally I am shocked that it would cost $250 million to move a single temple some 200 meters. I would have thought it's at least 2 orders of magnitude cheaper if not 3. I guess I saw a house being moved on a special truck, and thought that relocating infratsructure or buildings like this is not that impossible. Thanks. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Moving a factory-assembled home is easy: it's designed to come apart into portable pieces. Moving a wood-frame building isn't much harder, since it's reasonably flexible and all the pieces are nailed together. The expense comes when you try to move things like unreinforced masonry structures: you basically need to build a supporting framework around it, and then move the building very slowly and carefully so it doesn't crack. A wood-frame house can probably flex by several centimeters across the length of the building without damage; a similar-sized brick house can't survive more than a few millimeters of bending. --Carnildo (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

But aren't things (like even castles!) moved by disassembling them brick by brick and reassembling them somewhere else in the same order? Logisticsnightmare (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The cost of moving the Cape Hatteras lighthouse 2,900 feet was 11.8 million dollars. And that was just for moving it intact, never mind disassembling it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Verified cases of passenger landing commercial jet

It's a fairly common TV/movie trope, but are there any real cases in which both pilot and copilot were in some way incapacitated and a passenger took the controls and landed the plane with help from the control tower? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk down aircraft landing is the relevant article. According to it, "[t]here is no record of a talk down landing of a large commercial aircraft." Tevildo (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Last month, in a small plane. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) : I'm not sure how "commercial" the flight was, and it was a "light aircraft", so presumably not a jet, but there was a case of this very recently. TVTropes has a "real life" section for this trope. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's possible, though, especially if the jet is equipped with Autoland, so take along these pointers, just in case. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you know, incidentally, that the Handley Page Victor could land itself without a pilot or autopilot? Once established on the approach, the aerodynamics of the wing and tail would perform the round-out and touchdown without any control inputs. One of my favourite aviation facts. Tevildo (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

They don't make 'em like that any more. My dad was involved in the avionics suite of the Victor. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, the first thing I worked on professionally was the triangle resolver for the Vulcan. It's a small world. :) Tevildo (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Dad worked on a sort of rolling map that followed the terrain below, but I may have got the wrong end of the stick on that. I'll ask next time I'm in touch. He worked for Kelvin Hughes. Other readers, please excuse our digression. Alansplodge (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's OK. Such a connection almost makes you two cousins. Or something. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean, although I never worked on that particular system - a similar/the same system was used in the Phantom, though. The triangle resolver was made by Sperry - which is now "commemorated by a 4.5 metre aluminium sculpture". "Thinking of his own Gods, a Greek / In pity and mournful awe might stand / Before some fallen Runic stone - / For both were faiths, and both are gone." (Arnold). Tevildo (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit, I find the pessimistic attitude of the linked PopSci blog entry (the 'pointers') rather irritating. The emphasis is on the difficulty of a perfect landing, not on what it takes to get a jumbo jet on the ground in such a condition that the passengers survive. (Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing!) If I'm in the Airplane! scenario where all the flight crew are disabled by food poisoning, I don't care about pretty and I don't care if United has to write off the airframe after I'm done with it. I don't care if I don't have the flaps all the way down; I don't care if I blow a tire or two because I'm twitchy on the brakes. I don't care if I apply the thrust reversers or not. If I overrun the end of the runway at forty knots, I don't care; modern runways are designed with arresting areas. Hell, if I come in a little nose down and hot and crush the nose gear then slide off the runway, I still might be okay: [1]. And I'm not even going to attempt to taxi to the correct gate after I land. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

According to Pilot certification in the United States#Number of active pilots, roughly 1 in 50 Americans is a pilot, so there is likely to be someone better qualified than Ted Striker to make the attempt. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed a zero there: 1/500. Rmhermen (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Cut me some slack, Jack! Clarityfiend (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there a Sir Quiller-Couch character in J.M. Barrie's book Peter and Wendy ?

Hello Learned Ones ! I see that JP Hogan has included a Sir (along with a Lady) Edward Quiller-Couch in his Peter Pan (2003 film). I don't recall if in the book (I read it so many years ago, & maybe it was a simplified version...) there existed such a character. Does it refer to Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch (Q and Barrie were friends) ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers Arapaima (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No, this character is original to the 2003 film. In the book, Mr Darling is a stockbroker, and we don't see him at work (only going to work in the dog kennel). Tevildo (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The official list of most interesting things

Is there a billboard chart like there are for songs, where people can vote for the 1000 topmost interesting facts, researches, phenomena, etc? A list that would probably include trees falling without a sound, the Milgram experiment, Schrödinger's cat, people getting quite old in the 17th century, deja-vu, the Moebius ring, dividing by zero, Epimedes, etc.

In short, not the "Best articles" on Wikipedia nor the articles a small encyclopedia would include, nor a daily top 10 list of funny facts on the internet, but a list that is compiled by simply voting. Joepnl (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

GQ has a list, but they tend to be material things. "Interesting" depends on interests, of course, so it would be hard to compile a definitive "official" list for the world.

Anyway, you've piqued my interest. How old did 17th-century people get? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

According to our article, the "official" record holder is one Ferdinand Ashmall, born in 1695 and died in 1798 at the age of 103. There are unofficial record holders such as Tom Parr (1483–1635), of course. Tevildo (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Parr sounds official enough to me, just going by what's in our article. Pretty impressive, even if untrue. I like the way his death is relayed, as if being 152 isn't cause enough. And I love how it makes him sound like a transplanted sturgeon (definitely on my Top 100 North American Fish list).

Back on that topic, I found Discovery's Top 100 Discoveries here. They're about as globally mainstream as this kind of thing gets, so maybe the most official. It's not a thousand, but it's something. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all. "Things you should have heard about when you reach 40, compiled and voted for by 300.000 Wikipedians", something like that, I'd love to read it and find out what I've missed (like today I found this about Tesla, making him even cooler than I already thought he was). About 17th century lifespans: it was a surprise to me to learn (I hope it was correct) that while the average age was a lot lower, this was mostly due to a large number of people dying at a very early age, while the eldest didn't die that much younger than currentday eldest. So science didn't change the age at which one dies of old age al lot, but it got the average up by inventing cures for actual diseases. Joepnl (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, things like averages, percentages and rates are often misleading. I wish we'd all stick to actual numbers, especially when teaching children. Fifty dead newborns and fifty dead 100-year-olds certainly doesn't mean anyone was more likely to die at 50. Probably my second-biggest historical assumption peeve, right behind "Ancient Greece was full of white ruins". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it was? Reasons I can think of to demolish an old building are the need for its materials and its space. If both materials and space were abundant I can imaging buildings getting really old. I wonder what a graph would look like, X: history, Y: "average building age". Joepnl (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Important figures buried in present-day Israel

Who was or were the companion(s) of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or other important figure of Islam died and buried in present-day Israel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.20.21 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Very few of them have died in present day Israel. Did you mean to ask a slightly different question? Other important figure is too vague to address. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ubayda ibn as-Samit, a sahabi and an ancestor of the Nusaybah clan, seems to be buried in Jerusalem...apparently his grave was dug up by Israel to build a hotel, if we are to believe various anti-Israel blogs and such. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Would they have preferred that the hotel be built over top of the grave? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Which Pope worshipped Satan?

Historical Pope, I mean. I saw on a documentary once that one of the Popes hundreds of years ago was reported (by his enemies, maybe? not sure) to hail Satan from the Vatican. Anyone know who this was?

I tried to Google this myself, but all I found were pages and pages of modern-day conspiracy theories and anti-Catholic nonsense. --146.90.108.78 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You may have Pope John XII in mind. As you say, his biographer, Liudprand of Cremona, wrote that John toasted the devil with wine. But Liudprand was hardly a neutral observer. I think there may also be similar stories detailed with regard to some of those mentioned in The Bad Popes. Even if there aren't, it's an interesting book. - Nunh-huh 00:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

November 22

Products "shipped" vs "sold"

Many headlines of technology blogs feature stories when manufactures claim to have "shipped" a high volume of products. The common counter argument is that while these are sold to retailers, it should not count as "sold" until a consumer has purchased them from the retailer. So a company can manufacture 1,000,000 new gadgets and ship them to stores, they linger in warehouse shelves if consumer demand is low. So can someone explain the process of how retailers obtain products? Do they pay for the products upfront? Who is responsible for unsold products? Is the retailer responsible for the unsold products? Can they return them to the manufacturer for a refund? --209.203.125.162 (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it varies according to country/economic system, but since your IP address indicates you are in the US, I assume that is the market to which you are referring. As for the process of how retailers obtain products this google search would be a good start. And yes, most stores pay for their product up front. Unsold products most often end up in a "clearance bin"/"clearance rack" or are packed on a pallet and sold en masse to Outlet Stores or Discount Stores (e.g. Big Lots, etc.). FWIW, the same thing happens in the publishing world. Books on most "Best Seller" lists are there because Barnes & Noble, Amazon, etc. pre-ordered a huge amount, not because some certain amount of individual units have been sold to the end consumer.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 03:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It really depends not only on the country, but also on the product. In many markets, mass print publications (newspapers, magazines, mass-market paperbacks) are reported "unsold, destroyed", and the retailer is reimbursed for them. For these products, the cost of handling and sending back unsold merchandise is usually higher than the residual value - what's the value of yesterdays Daily Mail? "Destroying" ranges from throwing away (for daily newspapers) to ripping off and sending back the title page to the publisher, to simply putting a black stripe on it and throwing it into the $1 bin. For perishable standard items like food, the retailers bear the risk - but then they should best be able to estimate how many cans of tomato soup move in a week. I don't know what the standard is for expensive high-tech gear like iPads or Surfaces, but I can very well imagine that the producers are willing to push things into the market on a commission basis (i.e. the producer bears most of the risk, the retailer "only" provides some of its real or virtual space). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

What if the King dies before the heir apparent is born?

Under the rules of the British monarchy, what happens if a king dies while his wife is pregnant with their first child? Since the child isn't born yet, presumably it doesn't become monarch instantly, but instead the crown passes to whoever's next in line (e.g. a younger brother of the king). But then once the baby's born, where does it go in the line of succession? Ahead of the new king's own children? Is it booted out of the line of succession for ever? Or what if a queen regnant dies while pregnant with her first child and the doctors are able to save the baby? There would probably a few minutes at least between the death of the queen and the birth of the child; is that enough for the crown to pass to someone else? Is there even a law already in effect for such a circumstance? Or would parliament have to convene and quickly decide what to do? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This has never happened in England, although it has happened in other countries, as well as for noble titles in England. You can read about a number of cases at Posthumous birth#In monarchies. Note that although several English Kings are listed there, in all cases the posthumously born King only took that title long after birth (i.e. his father was not the King). There are Spanish and French kings who took the throne after a posthumous birth, and in these cases no other heir was seated during the intervening period. At least one English Duke was born after his father's death, Charles Edward - as with the kings, no other duke was declared until his birth. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is actually a genealogy question. The point is that the next in line to the throne would be the one with the most direct line to the monarch. That is NEVER an easy question to answer, but, if the King was on the throne when his wife became pregnant, his son (lets face it...it's almost always about the son...until recently) would probably have to prove his line all over again to the satisfaction of those in charge of such decisions. This is common in royal circles. But this is still a very interesting question and one I would wonder if there is a legitimate answer for. Seems that it really depends on the period in question. Today, I believe, the answer is simply, yes, they still take the throne...in Great Britain. But heraldry and royal lines do have a slightly different take depending on the country of origin.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Angr has produced the most likely scenario; that the first person in the existing line of succession would accede immediately, and the parliaments of the Commonwealth Realms would have to decide jointly if the unborn infant should go to number one on the new list. If it happens, it's not going to be for a long time. Alansplodge (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Our article on posthumous birth#In monarchies touches on this point, though without references. This question came up a while ago on this same desk; see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 8#Posthumous births in the Commonwealth Realms succession. The proclamation of Queen Victoria's accession included the proviso "...Saving the Rights of any Issue of His late Majesty King William the Fourth which may be born of His late Majesty's Consort..." (see Regency Act 1830) which indicates that the lawyers and lawmakers of the day were well aware of the potential problem. You may be able to locate more specific resources through Royal Succession Bills and Acts, but I make no promises. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

In the 19th century, it was decided that Victoria would become queen upon William IV's death but that her reign would end should a posthumous child be born to William IV's widow Adelaide. In such scenario, Victoria's reign would have ended as if she had died, and her newborn cousin would have ascended with Adelaide as regent. Since the British throne is never vacant (a new reign begins the moment the previous one ends), such a solution makes sense. For example, had Elizabeth II, Charles and William all died before Catherine gave birth to George, it is safe to assume that Henry would have reigned as monarch until the birth of his nephew. Anyway, this exact same question has been asked many, many times - try searching the archives for previous responses. Surtsicna (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• To give a greater world view of the question, the "first emperor of all (unified) China" Qin Shi Huang is said to have been born after his father died, that and the account that he wasn't even his fathers child! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Does this economic data on "Arabs" involve Chaldeans?

In this document http://econdev.cus.wayne.edu/Files/ArabAmericanStudy.pdf it states that some figures for "Arabs" do not include people who identify themselves as "Chaldeans" (often Chaldeans do not identify themselves as Arab) and that some of the figures do include Chaldeans.

But I am unclear how this data was used for the conclusions on p. 18 about the 47,924 to 58,515 jobs held by "Arab Americans" and the 99,494 and 141,541 jobs associted with economic activity from that group. Does this figure include Chaldeans or does it not? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's up to the people publishing the study to define their own terms. If it is not the pdf you already have, you should email the authors or the school itself if you cannot contact them directly. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The chart on p. 6 (Figure 1 Arabic Population Estimates for 2000 and 2004 for the Four-County Region) does not include Chaldeans.

• p. 7 states "Using the conventional approach, reported ancestry, showed the Arabic population to be 96,363 in the four-county region in 2000 and 131,650 in 2004. The estimate for 2004 used data from the 2004 American Community Survey, also published by the U.S. Census Bureau. We then used an expanded definition of Arabic that considered reported birthplace and languages spoken."

The chart on p. 8 (Figure 2 Arab Americans Living in the Four-County Region, 2000, 2004, 2005 Estimated population based on reported ancestry Point estimate (in white text) and 90% confidence intervals) does include Chaldeans

• p. 7 states "As a second preliminary step, we examined data illustrating population change among Arab Americans between 2000 and 2005 by comparing population estimates drawn from the 2000 Census and the 2004 and 2005 American Community Surveys. Again, we estimated the Arab American population using ancestry as the selection criteria. We included all persons reporting Arabic ancestry as their first or second ancestry; however, in this step, we also included persons reporting membership in the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac ancestry group. This conforms to the population estimation methods used by well-known researcher John Zogby, whose estimates include the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac group, however, Zogby’s estimates are also adjusted using a proprietary methodology (Zogby Worldwide, 2006)."
• p. 9 states "The 2000 Census classifies individuals as Arabic whose ethnic origin is one of the 22 countries that are members of the Arab League."
• p. 12 in the employment by industry it states "We used the American Factfinder database to query the 2000 Census for employment by industry counts for Arab Americans (as defined by reported ancestry and including the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac group). In all, employed Arab Americans accounted for a total of 47,924 jobs in 2000 in the four-county region. See Figure 6."

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Charles Martel of Anjou

Why was Charles Martel of Anjou name Charles Martel? Was that his own personal nickname or to honor the earlier Charles Martel?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"Whys" are hard to answer and I haven't found a reference. But it's possible "the Hammer" was not that uncommon a name to give a royal/leader? Other examples besides Charles Martel are Judas Maccabeus and your Charles' contemporary, Edward I of England. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

November 23

Former sovereign citizens

I've been looking for testimonials (just stories about their experiences, why they left, &c.) from people who were formerly involved in "sovereign citizen" or "freeman on the land" movements but haven't been able to find any. Are there any such people? --superioridad ^(discusión) 09:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I googled "former sovereign citizens" and the only thing that seems to come up is the ones who have been incarcerated. Considering the nature of these characters, if I decided to stop calling myself a "sovereign citizen" I don't think I would advertise it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried the search strings "why I am no longer" and "my life as a" and "memoirs of a" + various iterations of tax rebel, sovereign citizen, etc. I haven't read these results so I don't know if they are ex or not, but have a look at Memoirs of a tax resistor, Why I am no longer a libertarian, Autobiography of a Catholic Anarchist and this book: Confessions of a Radical Tax Protestor: An Inside Expose of the Tax Resistance Movement. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That first link, at the very least, is not a "former" tax protestor. He just doesn't have much of anything now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, there's a dilemma: If you consider yourself sovereign, i.e. that you answer only to yourself, doesn't that get compromised if you "join" something? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I imagine this is one of your jokes, but it falls flat; there's no reason joining an organization should conflict with individual "sovereignty". It's not like "anarchist leader"; one can join an organization without becoming subservient to it. It is not necessary to come up with a quip for every question on the boards. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sunni Muslims into Shi'a Muslims

Are Persian Muslims the only Muslims who were formerly Sunni and became Shi'a due to a policy of an empire or dynasty like Safavids? What about Azeris, Lurs, Gilakis, Mazandarani, and Qashqais? Were they Sunni Muslims before Shi'a Muslims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.80 (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

What about Fatimid Egypt? The ruling dynasty at least was Shia, and when the Ayyubids conquered it, it needed to be Sunni-ized again, although it seems unlikely that the general population was entirely Shia. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I only want to know Azeris, Lurs, Gilakis, Mazandarani and Qashqais. That's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.75 (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Missing in article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_College,_Colombo

Missing in article on Royal College http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_College,_Colombo

Wendell W Solomons Researcher in strategic geopolitical, economic and social forecasting

Number of websites using articles - 102,000 https://www.google.ca/#q=+-facebook+%22wendell+w+solomons%22

Joined school in 1955 Royal College Hostel photograph Row 2: Wendell Solomons http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lkawgw/rcpa01.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.166.13 (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Please raise this matter at Talk:Royal College, Colombo. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

November 24

German Invasion musical themes

Wiki's Operation Barbarossa article states: Each German invasion of a foreign country had an official musical theme that was frequently played for the purposes of Nazi propaganda, over the totally government-controlled radio stations after the invasion was officially announced. This was done to whip up enthusiasm among the German population for the military operation. The theme song for Operation Barbarossa was Les preludes by Franz Liszt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#Invasion_musical_theme

What were the themes to Germany's other invasions (Poland,Norway, France, Greece etc)? --Gary123 (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

off topic/talk page material
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would be surprised to learn it wasn't "TUMP utta bum... bum..." in every case. I do know Hotler's death was announced by Sigried's Funeral March. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Hotler? In contrast, American radios were probably playing, "Ding-Dong, the Son-of-a-Witch Is Dead." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Next time I say Hotler without [sic] you can fix it yourself. I was busy looking for the art historian who told the anecdote of Hotler's passing. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC) It was Ernst Gombrich and he heard a Bruckner Symphony dedicated to Wagner, not Siegfried's Funeral March. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC) See also This recent question (from less than one month ago). ---Sluzzelin talk 04:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Yes, I think our murder/Nazi/Japan/pacific islands troll, whatever his name is back. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Was that Timothyhere (talk · contribs) and his endless socks, or someone else? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC) The questioner has been a registered editor since 2004 and has always edited in this topic area.184.147.136.249 (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

See also This recent question (from less than one month ago). ---Sluzzelin talk 04:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Importing an article to be used as a basis for a television series

We are beginning to develop a television series on the history of Kentucky. I would like to import the wikipedia history of Kentucky to our computer and expand upon it with more editorial, scene content and locations. This will not be used to edit any wikipedia history on line. Is this import doable? If so, how do I do it so we can add content? Thanks much, -woody dugan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.217.249 (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This question would probably be better on the Help Desk, but Help:Export might be what you're looking for. Tevildo (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to be able to edit it like a Wiki article, you're going to have to have some software to do that in; the obvious choice is the Mediawiki software: if you have somebody who can set up a web server for you (even just on your local machine) they can set up your own copy of the mediawiki software, and then use Export to transfer the article to it (though you'll probably have to export all the templates it depends on as well, which might be tricky). I think you might do better to "Download as PDF", and then use one of the programs that will turn that back into word-processing format. --ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Another option is just to create an account and make a copy in your own namespace here in Wikipedia. You can then edit your own copy as you see fit, using our software. Note that even though it's in your namespace, anyone can edit it. This is good if you want people to work together on it. And, although it's also possible for random people to vandalize it there, they aren't likely to find it, and even if they do vandalize it, you can always revert the vandalism, just as in normal Wikipedia. StuRat (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a possibility, but I'm not sure it would be acceptable within the guidelines of WP:USERPAGE. It might be OK, though. --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Provided Wikipedia gets a proper credit for the final program, I can't see them objecting. StuRat (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• The responses above are all missing a crucial point, which is that Wikipedia content is released under a Creative Commons Share-alike license, meaning that any work containing significant amounts of material copied from it has to be released under a compatible license. In other words, if you derive your presentation from a Wikipedia article, you will have to release it under essentially the same terms by which the Wikipedia article is released. You can find a link to the license at the bottom of every Wikipedia page. Looie496 (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • On further consideration, I'm not sure that what I wrote above is correct. But I am sure that it is essential to read and thoroughly understand Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, as it relates to adaptations. Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

All you really need to do is copy and paste it into a word processor, where you can edit and expand it for your own purposes to your heart's content. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

November 25

Countries With (Attempted) Large-Scale Territorial Expansion/Enlargement Since 1800

Which countries successfully expanded or unsuccessfully tried to expand their borders since 1800? For this question, I am asking about countries where the bulk of the territorial expansion or attempted territorial expansion occurred since 1800, rather than about countries which did most of their expansion before 1800 (such as Vietnam (see here: Nam tiến) and (the) Russia(n Empire)) and then "finished up" their expansion since 1800. Also, I am not talking about territorial expansion which was done as a part of the process of national (re-)unification, such as for Germany and Italy in the 1800s (see here: German unification and here: Italian unification) or in 1990 (see here: German reunification). So far, the only examples which I can think of in regards to this are the United States of America (see here: Manifest destiny) and, from a more extreme perspective, Germany (during World War I and especially during the Nazi Germany; see here: Lebensraum). Which other countries am I missing here? Also, countries such as Canada do not count, since they expanded their borders due to the fact that they (a British colony in the past) absorbed other areas which were also British colonies in the past (hopefully this part here makes sense). Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The First French Empire, Japan, and Italy (to an extent) should meet your conditions. →Σσς. (Sigma) 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the First French Empire should count, since it expanded its territories (including its puppet states, which it perhaps might have wanted to eventually outright annex like it actually did with the Netherlands, northern Italy, and northeastern Germany) by a decent/large amount after 1799. As for Italy, I suppose that it could count to an extent, since AFAIK Mussolini had expansionist goals in the non-Italian countries/areas of Albania, Greece, southwestern France, et cetera (I don't really count the Italian territorial acquisitions right/shortly after WWI for the purposes of my question here, since Italy's post-WWI territorial acquisitions were at least generally Italian-majority, and thus, their acquisition by Italy can arguably be considered as a continuation of the process of Italian unification). And Yes, I suppose that Japan can count for my question here as well, at least to some degree. Futurist110 (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Canada should count as British Columbia did not become a British colony until 1858. Rmhermen (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't British Columbia under de facto and/or de jure British control before 1858 as well, though? I know that Oregon County was partitioned in the mid-1840s, with the United States getting the southern part and with the United Kingdom getting the northern part. Futurist110 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Oregon Country was disputed between Britain, Russia and U.S. after 1800. Rmhermen (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but Russia appears to have given up its claim to Oregon Country in the 1820s. Futurist110 (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

How about the Zulu Kingdom? Rmhermen (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I will need to look it up more, since I currently unfortunately don't know very much about it. Futurist110 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Territorial claims in Antarctica may be relevant. It's probably the last colonial land grab. Hack (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps; I wonder if there will ever be a serious discussion in any country in regards to annexing a part of Antarctica. Futurist110 (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There was serious discussion of annexing parts of Antarctica until the late 1950s. Maps from the era show the last continent divided and colored like colonial Africa; Argentinian and Chilean postage stamps showed the national borders including their claims to a slice of Antactica (see here e.g. [2]). The Antarctic Treaty of 1959 has put an end to that: while the various claiming countries have not formally renounced their territorial claims, they have all agreed to stop pursuing them any further and to let the continent be a common heritage of humankind. --Xuxl (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Arguably a number of Balkan countries tried, some succeeding, some not so much. Bulgaria has tried to create a Greater Bulgaria, but failed (see Second Balkan War). Romania gained independence in the 19th century in a form much smaller than what it is today (notably it didn't include Transylvania). Romania#Independence and monarchy has an animated map showing its expansion. Pfly (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sharecropping

Would it be accurate to say that sharecropping is a form of feudalism? →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The trend among scholars of European history for several decades has been to define the word "feudalism" more and more narrowly, so that true feudalism would be confined to a relatively small slice of European history only. According to such definitions, the answer would definitely be "no". The broader or looser traditional definition of feudalism is that in the great majority of people's lives, the power of their local overlord is far more significant than any theoretical central state or remote monarchy. Not sure sharecropping would qualify under that definition either (though it definitely sometimes included oppressive employment practices, or de facto debt servitude)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly not feudalism in any strict sense. Subinfeudation by commoners has been illegal since the statute of Quia Emptores in 1290, and the sharecropper's right to land is not a fief. Indeed, the sharecropper's limited right to land and inability to leave it to his heirs is central to sharecropping and an essential element of the landlord's power. In contrast, feudalism was an hereditary system. John M Baker (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It's actually more like manorialism than the usual understanding of feudalism, in the sense that sharecroppers, like medieval peasants, had to work the land for the local landowner, whoever it was, and were unable to leave and had very few rights. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It really depends on the details of the sharecropping arrangement. In the United States, cotton sharecropping often involved what had once been large plantations. Thus, the landlord tended to have many tenants, in an arrangement that could almost be seen as manorial. Other crops, however, tended to have smaller landlords for whom any comparison to manorialism would be ridiculous. A sharecropped farm might, for example, belong to the widow of the original farmer, now relying on the tenant for her own support.

While American sharecroppers tended to be poor, they had the option of leaving the farm, and once industrialization created sufficient jobs many of them did so. Sharecroppers could also buy the farm they worked, and this occurred sometimes, though probably not so much in the cotton plantation context. John M Baker (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Baker has captured the key difference between sharecropping and feudal relations. Sharecroppers were legally free agents in contractual agreements with landlords. They were free not to agree to a contract or to move on when the contract's term was finished. Feudal serfs were typically not free but were legally bound to continue working the estate where they were born. Serfs were more like slaves, with the key difference that feudal landlords could not buy or sell individual serf. (Typically, feudal landlords couldn't even buy or sell estates but held them as fiefs granted by their overlords. Feudal landlords typically only had the right to bequeath their fiefs to their heirs, and really only at the pleasure of their overlords, who could reclaim enfeoffed lands when their vassals died or if they were "disloyal.") But unlike sharecroppers, serfs couldn't legally seek a better deal on a different estate or as a wage laborer in a town. The only legal ways out of serfdom (before it started to give way to relationships more like tenancy beginning in the late Middle Ages) were to perform some extraordinary service to one's lord and to be granted freedom in return or, in some times and places, to purchase one's freedom. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

These answers are thought-provoking. Thank you all. →Σσς. (Sigma) 10:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

From the Marxist technical use of Feudalism (inherited from a pretty poor choice of technical terms in the 19th century), Sharecropping would not be feudalism to the extent that the landlord take the shared crop for sale on a capitalist market, rather than for personal enjoyment. The sharecrop for the landlord is potential value, it is capitalist in nature. For the Manorial lord, taxes as harvest or in kind are directly consumed, or sold out through non-capitalist means in order to procure limited luxury goods. The difference lies in the market economy, production for sale on a market, and the ownership of land as "a thing that can grow crops" or "a thing that provides market rents." Fifelfoo (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

But if not sharecropping, did the CSA not go through a feudalist stage, as it should have, after slavery was abolished? →Σσς. (Sigma) 10:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You can read Marx and Engels on this subject directly, I strongly suggest the Penguin collection of Marx's Journalism. They did not consider "The South" to be a slave society ala or Athens, Rome. Unfree labour existed in the context of a mercantile and developing industrial Capitalist economy for Freddie and Kazza. My go to here would be CLR James' The Black Jacobins, however, James has been criticised for being part of that whole Autonomist thing that puts the class before the party. Also Marx is pretty direct in advocating pushing as hard as possibly can be pushed in India, China and Russia for human freedom in his journalism and advocacy—certainly he wasn't a schematist about what was to be done. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Presidents/statesmen featured on US dollar bills

I think there is enough general background buzz surrounding the achievements of Washington, Lincoln and Franklin for Americans to really appreciate why they are featured on the $1, $5 and $100 bills, respectively. Jefferson ($2) and Hamilton ($10) require a bit more investigation, as unless one is somewhat steeped in American history, their contributions can be more easily overlooked. But what exactly is the spotlight on Jackson ($20) and Grant ($50) all about? I mean, sure, if one reads their Wikipedia articles, there's lots of great stuff, but if you'd give me the Wikipedia articles for all US presidents and early statesmen/legislators and asked me to speculate which ones had ben granted immortalization by having their pictures affixed to our currency, and then I read all the articles and attempted to rate the relative contributions of each, would I have chosen Jackson and Grant? Or Cleveland ($20) prior to 1928? I can't say that I would have. Am I just woefully unaware of these presidents' contribution to US history, or would the vast majority of non-historians also find it difficult to provide insight into why Jackson and Grant were honored over other presidents? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Jackson was generally considered the greatest President between the founding fathers and Lincoln, and was a war hero to boot (the Battle of New Orleans). Grant was the general who finally won the Civil War, after a whole string of commanders-in-chief of the Union forces proved to be unequal to the task; his two terms as President were less successful, but he was the first President to complete two full consecutive terms since Jackson (and the only one until Woodrow Wilson). They may be slightly forgotten now, but they were extremely famous men until the middle of the 20th century. Cleveland was also elected twice and he and Teddy Roosevelt were the most successful presidents during an otherwise uninspiring period running roughly from President Hayes to Franklin Roosevelt. --Xuxl (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Putting Jackson on paper money is a bit ironic though -- see Bank War. Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Jackson's reputation these days is a bit tarnished, especially on the left, since he was a slaveholder (though so were many of the Founders) and arguably genocidal toward Native Americans. However, he still has quite a following among conservative Southern whites and removing him from the $20 bill would be politically fraught. The $50 bill is not in wide circulation, and I doubt that most Americans would know, offhand, that it features Grant. The $20 and lower-denomination bills have much greater visibility. Marco polo (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The real fishy one is Salmon P. Chase on the $10,000 bill. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That was to honor Chase for introducing the modern banknote system, and the $10,000 bill was never publicly circulated anyway. I find that much easier to understand than Cleveland on the $20 bill from 1914 to 1928. John M Baker (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I find it odd that Jefferson would be in a "need more investigation" category. Jefferson is a bigger figure than Franklin, surely? The Declaration of Independence, and all. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale

Can anybody tell me something about the fertility options that were available prior to the publication of the The Handmaid's Tale? There are some things that don't make sense to me, like the fact that the couples use handmaids instead of adopting children from foreign or third-world countries or the fact that couples somehow don't have access to in vitro fertilization or the effects of going through a major genetic bottleneck. From a biological perspective, the handmaid's genes would likely contribute to the gene pool of the next generation, but since the handmaids give their offspring to the other parent and adoptive parent before moving on to the next household, it is assumed that the next generation will have a lot of half-siblings due to the handmaid's traveling. Half-siblings still wouldn't be good, because they can't reproduce with each other and doing so might result in inbreeding-induced abnormalities. 140.254.227.68 (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read The Handmaid's Tale myself, but I note that it is a work of fiction set in the near future. As such, I wouldn't get too hung up on whether or not the fertility options carried out by the characters in the novel make sense as logical choices today. The author may not have thought it was important to create believable future scenarios, preferring to take liberties for the sake of literary or dramatic effect. --Viennese Waltz 15:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

In vitro fertilization was a new thing when the novel was published; the world's first "test tube baby" was born in 1978, and the process took another five years or so to become widely available, which takes us to about the time Atwood wrote The Handmaid's Tale (which was published in 1985). In any case, Atwood was interested in a different scenario as a remedy for fertility problems, in what was a work of fiction anyway. --Xuxl (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A close reading of the text itself should suffice to answer your question. Pay particular attention to the Handmaid's memory of her youth in the prior society. Regarding half-siblings, read the earlier books of the Old Testament, these are Atwood's context for the theocratic state controlling significant portions of North America (chiefly, maternal line incest isn't a big thing in such a patriarchal society). Regarding "foreign-ness," the theocratic fascist state has a strong conception of "in" and "out" groups. Pay close attention when reading sections on un-women. Sourcing breeding stock from outside of the theocracy would be culturally distasteful. Also, it would be unnecessary, reread the sections on "econowives" as multiple purpose domestic, breeding and companionship women. Finally, the text contains major hints on how to read it ("context is all"), so you might like to both situate the text in the context of the mid 20th century, in particular the German and Soviet state's treatment of the other (I normally recommend Hannah Arendt's works on the German situation as a go to here, try Eichmann in Jerusalem, itself a highly ironic text); then, having done so, be aware that the text's alternate context is third wave feminism and reread the text through the kind of Marxist versus Radical (post-structuralist) feminisms debates on gender in the 1980s. The scientific availability of fertility and fertility control methods is insignificant compared to the social context of use of birth control. Culturally enforced non-breeding among a large proportion of the women controlled by patriarchs is more significant than IVF. Also, why on earth would a patriarch put a baby in his wife: don't be disgusting, that's just not done culturally. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't really talking about incest; I was talking about inbreeding problems. They are different but related concepts. 140.254.136.157 (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

So, I get the picture that somehow the United States of America is being transformed into the Republic of Gilead, a theocratic totalitarian patriarchal state rooted in old Jewish customs from an ancient era in which Jews were trying to develop their sense of identity but then this societal structure is mistakenly transplanted into the United States of America to create the Republic of Gilead? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think at least one of the confusing things about your original comment and probably why people thought you were referring to incest taboos is you said they "can't reproduce with each other". There's no "can't" about it for humans in most cases for biological reasons. You may have a higher miscarrriage rate and have a higher risk of genetic disorders, but there's nothing stopping it even in cases of full siblings. The only reason why "can't" would come in to it is if social issues make such incest untenable. Nil Einne (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Gilead doesn't particularly care about the negative genetic consequences of inbreeding. "Context is all." Fifelfoo (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"Against God's will"

How many things in history have been described as "against God's will" but nevertheless became widely accessible, distributed, available or just normalized? I'm just wondering this question, because I just looked up in vitro fertilization and there was this timeline that said something about a large portion of Americans that thought it was against God's will. It also occurred to cloning. 140.254.227.69 (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That's an unanswerable question. We cannot enumerate and give you a strictly accurate and reliable count of the number of "things" in all of history (what is a "thing" anyways?) that any of the billions of people who have ever lived have ever stated was against God's will. --Jayron32 17:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Final scene / climax in Hamlet

In the final scene (climax) of Hamlet, all of the major characters are killed off: King Claudius, Queen Gertrude, Laertes, and Hamlet himself. These are very significant deaths, as they constitute all of the major characters in the play; furthermore, all of these significant deaths happen in one fell swoop, in a matter of a few minutes. Further furthermore, Hamlet finally gets (through the death of Claudius) his revenge that had been so elusive to him throughout the rest of the entire play. So, it is generally understood that this scene constitutes the "high point" and the climax of the play. So, here is my question. After all of these important and significant deaths, the English ambassador arrives on scene and says, almost matter-of-factly, "Oh, by the way, I am here to let you all know that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead". Given that the other four deaths are much more significant (i.e., the more significant characters), this news relating the additional two deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seems very anti-climactic and almost out of place. Is there any reason (dramatic, plot-driven, etc., or otherwise) as to why Shakespeare would present the climax scene in this way? In the final scene, why would Shakespeare show us all the deaths of the four significant characters, but yet end the play on the very anti-climactic note of reporting the deaths of these two minor characters? To me, it seems very incongruous and out of place, almost a "let down" to end the final scene like that. Really, in the grand scheme of things, who cares about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, anyway? And, even if this news had not been reported, the audience/reader could easily have assumed that their deaths occurred simply by the previous events in the previous scenes. So, what's the point? Any ideas as to why Shakespeare thought that this was so important to include? And to include, of all places, at that particular point in the play? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no short answer, really. See Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Looie496 (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It ties up loose ends (a bit clumsily, but still ties them up nonetheless). The two were involved (likely unwittingly, but involved nonetheless) in the plot to have Hamlet executed by the King of England. So, they death, like the death of Claudius and everyone else who may have wronged Hamlet at all in the play, is tied up in the climax scene. --Jayron32 19:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

And after writing that, Wikipedia has an article titled Rosencrantz and Guildenstern which briefly explains their death and the reason for it. --Jayron32 19:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that's a better link -- although I don't think it tells the full story. What it comes down to is that for Shakespeare, there was no such thing as a throwaway character. In spite of everything else that has happened, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern still matter enough for their fates to be worth noticing. But that isn't the full story either -- as with many things in Shakespeare, there are levels on levels here. Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

With Shakespeare, the full story is never the full story. They say life imitates art; well, in this case, the art in the plays imitates the life of the writer, where there was always more to the story of who he was than the too-easy-but-good-enough-for-public-consumption "William Shakespeare of Stratford". That worked for a few centuries, but we now have a different standard, where good enough is never good enough. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "Rosencrantsz and Guildenstern Are Dead" is meant to be a serious literary analysis of Hamlet, and so might not be so useful for the OP. But by all means, watch the movie, read the play, or catch it live if you can. It is great, and, unlike Hamlet, quite original ;) I'm sure there are serious scholarly articles on this question, but it's hard for me to find them: it's not my field, and the very famous Stoppard play fills my searches with chaff. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

My answer is that this shows the working out of Claudius' plan, as commandeered by Hamlet. I'm tickled that you used the phrase "one fell swoop", which originates in Macbeth. --ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not realize that the phrase originated in Macbeth! Although I am not surprised that it originated with Shakespeare. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Bathetic comic relief, per On the Knocking at the Gate in Macbeth. 86.182.25.18 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

What Iran sanctions are these?

Mentioned in this article.

I need to link to something on Wikipedia and the article I tried doesn't mention it.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think that is not the right article? The article mentions an oil embargo against Iran and so does the page you linked to. RudolfRed (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program

Is this agreement a treaty subject to U.S. Congressional approval? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.38.145 (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not an answer, but it looks like this question relates to mine above.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

According to this source, it is not a treaty requiring U.S. Senate approval. Marco polo (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have an article about it?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Pssst. Look on the main page. Upper right corner. --Jayron32 00:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

In a desperate attempt to get an answer when no one provided one, I tried "Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program". I didn't figure Wikipedia would have an article title like that.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you mean "In the news". Why didn't you say so?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Jayron32 more or less did? BTW, that article much have plenty of redirects and links from our articles so whatever the title it can't be that hard to find. Wikipedia's search engine may be slightly slow to update, but there's always Google, Bing .... Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

November 26

Presidential laws

For the past month there has been a lot in the news about how the ACA roll-out has "fumbled." My question is, in US history, has there ever been any other president that had a similar experience?99.48.64.75 (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to know of any president that didn't experience a "fumble" or two. Like, for example, when Bush said "Mission accomplished!" in Iraq. Or when Jimmy Carter allowed the much-hated Shah of Iran into the US for medical treatment, triggering events that reverberate to this day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And JFK promised to support the Bay of Pigs invasion, but didn't get the job done, simultaneously pissing off Cuban exiles, Fidel Castro, and the Kruschev, leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis and almost causing WW3. I think that eclipses any "fumble", before or since. StuRat (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Carter and Operation Eagle Claw. Sjö (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bay of Pigs and Operation Eagle Claw were disasters for the US. Obamacare is just a website with some problems. Not even close to being in the same league with those other things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bay of Pigs is probably the most notorious fumble of all, because it took place only three months after JFK was inaugurated and cast a pall over his whole presidency. Here is a list of some other notorious ones, though:

• • • Bush 2: Katrina; Iraq invasion
    • Clinton: failed health care initiative; Somalia intervention
    • Bush 1: "Read my lips, no new taxes"
    • Reagan: Iran-Contra
    • Carter: failed Iran hostage rescue
    • Ford: nothing major comes to mind; some might say the Nixon pardon but I don't see that as a fumble
    • Nixon: Doh!
    • Johnson: Vietnam escalation

Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ford: "WIN - Whip Inflation Now". Not really a fumble, more like an incomplete pass. And JFK started the wheels in motion that led to the Vietnam conflict. People tend to forget that fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, hardly. The Vietnam conflict had been going on for decades before JFK ever became President. What he may have done is start the American involvement in the Vietnam conflict. Also, World War II started well before 7 December 1941. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the American conflict in Vietnam. JFK was a hawk. He laid this gauntlet down in his inaugural address: "We will go anywhere, pay any price..." etc. He created the Green Berets. Obviously, LBJ made it much worse. But they were on the same ideological page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no politician in a democratic country whose career does not involve significant controversy. Abraham Lincoln's election managed to provoke a war with 600,000 deaths and his policies were hated by all sides: "Radical Republicans demanded harsher treatment of the South, War Democrats desired more compromise, Copperheads despised him, and irreconcilable secessionists plotted his death." And this is for a president considered one of the greatest of all time. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I recall a history teacher telling us, "If Lincoln was such a great leader, how come it took him so long to find General Grant?" The south, of course, did not have to secede, they chose to - because Lincoln's recent predecessors did absolutely nothing to try and deal with the growing divide, and Lincoln got stuck with it. And his assassination had the unanticipated (by Booth, anyway) effect of just making things much tougher on the south in the short run. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ambassador Berlusconi

Apparently, Vladimir Putin intends to appoint Silvio Berlusconi as Russia's ambassador to Vatican Ciy, thereby giving him diplomatic immunity, and protecting him from prosecution in the Italian courts.

• I assume that DI normally only applies in the country to which the diplomat is accredited, so is there a specific agreement between Italy and the Vatican that the diplomats of one are covered in the other?
• Would the Italian government get any say in whether an individual was acceptable?
• Why wouldn't the Vatican just refuse the appointment? Would they be more worried about offending Russia than Italy? (I know, this calls for speculation so feel free to ignore this part). Rojomoke (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't heard this story, but it reminds me of the case of Julian Assange, where people asked questions like "why doesn't Ecuador make him a diplomat, so he'll have diplomatic immunity and be able to leave the Embassy freely?" The answer to that is that diplomats have to be accepted be the host country, and can't just be appointed at will. As you say, it's getting speculative, but the Vatican would certainly be able to refuse to give him DI, and that seems a likely scenario given that he's not a bona fide diplomat. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Most people I know do not regard the Daily Mail as a reliable source for anything. --ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

One interesting thing about the footage from Putin's recent trip was seeing him cross himself at some point. When's the last time a Russian or Soviet leader was seen crossing himself? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Russia has always been a highly religious society. The Soviets did what they could to stamp it out, but they've been gone for a generation now (how time flies). Yeltsin had some hangovers from his time as a Soviet official, so it's not surprising he wasn't given to overt displays of religiosity. But from Vladimir Putin: Putin regularly attends the most important services of the Russian Orthodox Church on the main Orthodox Christian holidays. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure diplomatic immunity doesn't work that way. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

General citing style used in the hard sciences

Is it generally the case that MLA is used in journals of biology, chemistry, and physics? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Most journals have their own specific style that you can read about on the journal's "information for authors" section. For example, here is Nature's description of how to write references, and you'll see a link to an example last page where they show what the formatted refs should look like. There is no explicit mention of a writing style, and I have not seen such in any of the journals I have submitted to. Most journals' referencing guidelines more or less resemble MLA or APA citation styles. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Maldives Greater India

Is Maldives considered to be part of Greater India? The description of the map on the article Greater India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.45 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The terminology is unclear to me, but have a look at the article Indian subcontinent, where (in the first paragraph under "definition") there are three references for the Maldives sometimes being considered part of a greater region that includes India - whether this matches the definition of Greater India I'm not sure. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)