Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:46, 22 November 2017

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

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.

November 14

What Christian denomination sect has beliefs and practices that are closest to what is currently known about early Christianity?

Considering the many Restorationist denominations of Christianity, as well as restorationist movements among mainline denominations, I was wondering: what extant sects or denominations have beliefs or practices that are closest to what is currently known (from a scholarly perspective) about Early Christianity? As in, what currently existing Christian sects most resemble Early Christianity? And have there been restorationist Christian groups that aim to follow early Christianity, based on what is known from historical and scholarly research, as opposed to their own interpretations of what early Christianity was like? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity diverged very early on, so there is not "one original form". See e.g. Gnosticism, Arianism, Apostolic Age, Jewish Christianity, and so on. The Nicene Creed, which was one of the more successful attempts to find a common base, only was formulated during the 4th century, about 10 generations after the period described in the gospels, and after Christianity had entered a symbiosis with the Roman empire. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that some of the links in your answer are entirely helpful -- for example, Gnosticism was a trend which intersected with Christianity (there were both non-Christian and Christian forms of Gnosticism), but there's little evidence that earliest Christianity was Gnostic. Arianism originated in the 3rd century A.D. AnonMoos (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 -- during Jesus' lifetime and probably a decade or two afterwards, the majority of followers of Jesus were Jews who still followed basic rules of Jewish law, and who didn't consider that they had ceased to be Jews by following Jesus. Non-Jewish converts to Christianity probably didn't start to significantly outnumber Jewish followers of Jesus until after the disruptions caused by the First Jewish Revolt... AnonMoos (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. See also Council of Jerusalem, which is believed to be the moment when Christianity made its major divergence from "Jewish sect" to "Missionary religion". Schulz's point is very valid; there is no one universal "Early Christianity" that meets the requirement of "The one way Christianity was first practiced before it broke into various sects". It has been distinct sects from very early on. Wikipedia has an article titled Early Christianity which covers some common beliefs and practices, though it itself should direct one to Diversity in early Christian theology which covers how not unified the early church was. --Jayron 32 13:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Client vs supplier vs sponsor

What exactly are the differences between the roles of client, sponsor and supplier organisations? 193.240.153.130 (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what context? Generally speaking, a client provides the demand and the supplier provides, well, the supply. "Sponsor" means different things in different contexts. In common parlance, it's used to describe non-profit organizations that facilitate the sponsorship of charities. Matt Deres (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In infrastructure projects. 193.240.153.130 (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catacombs of Praetextatus

Since the article didn't say that: Whom exactly are they named after?--Herfrid (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Ancient Angels: Conceptualizing Angeloi in the Roman Empire" by Ragnar Cline (2011) says Praetextatus was "an early bishop of Rome", but that can't be right - apparently that is a misreading of Gregory of Tours who talks about Praetextatus of Rouen. Possibly that error originates with John Henry Parker's 19th-century book "The Archaeology of Rome: The Catacombs", who mistakenly says Gregory of Tours is talking about a bishop of Rome. The catacombs certainly predate Praetextatus of Rouen so that's no help. "Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide" by Amanda Claridge (2010) says that Praetextatus is otherwise unknown but was presumably a Roman aristocrat who owned the site. There is a well-known Roman named Vettius Agorius Praetextatus, but I can't find any evidence that he is connected to the catacombs. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Praetextatus" is not necessarily the name of an individual. The term was also used for the ones who were wearing the toga praetexta, often young men over the age of 14 as a sign of their manhood. By association the term "praetextatus" came to mean "a youth in the age of manhood". See the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, Volume 43. Dimadick (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it had certainly become a name for individuals in post-classical Rome, and all the other catacombs are named after people, so it seems pretty likely that this Praetextatus was a person rather than a description. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non scholae sed vitae

The article states that the famous quote appears in an "occupatio section" of the relevant letter, but our "occupatio" links to a totally different, legal (!) subject. What is meant by "occupatio section" here then?--Herfrid (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Apophasis. - Lindert (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fixed link, added "otheruses" to occupatio. -Arch dude (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both so much!--Herfrid (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

A Good Text Analysis of Sound of Silence

I am looking for a good interpretive text (not video or recorded, unless there's a transcript) analysis by Paul Simon and others of his song Sound of Silence for a non-native English speaker who has asked for my help. We've both read the article, and I have given my comments, but I'd like to direct them to something more obvious and a lot more in-depth than neon vs. cobblestone, alienation and false gods. Thanks for any assistance. μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article references many interviews with Simon in which he discusses his writing process on that song. The summary article itself has some good quotes, and gives enough information that you can probably find the originals. --Jayron 32 12:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This book presents an analysis of the use of metaphor in Sound of Silence, pages 254-259. --Jayron 32 12:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My friend thanks you for the assistance, Jayron, and it's led me to some further help on google. μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How rich do first worlders need to be before other developed countries let them move there and not work?

This is not legal advice, whatever this amount is I'll never have it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In guilders, or florins? Trolling does not have to consist of legal advice, as you know. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Medeis, this is the reference desk, not the "Ask random questions that no one should rightly have written about before just to test the limits of what I get away with" desk. Please restrict your questions to concepts and things which people can help you research, not idle speculation based on completely bullshit premises. This particular question (and many you have asked before it) are based on such faulty premises that the question itself isn't even close to answerable because all we could do is spend time correcting the wrongness it is based on, which is so self-evidently wrong it defies the need to even correct. If you're not able to grasp that, to simplify: There's no evidence you have presented that there is a policy by which developed countries will allow "rich people" to move there and not work at all, so to answer "how rich do they have to be" is beyond bullshit, because your premise that they ever would do that is not established fact. We can't answer questions based on not-yet-established suppositions. --Jayron 32 12:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC) ED: My objections have been obviated by people who are not assholes like I am. Carry on. --Jayron 32 17:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The problem here is that there are over 200 nations available as origins and destinations, and SMW hasn't bothered to define any of their terms, so we have a possible ~40,000 different answers. This is simply a matter of asking whatever occurs to the OP, not a well-thought out question or one which it is possible the OP really even cares about in any real-world sense. This is WP:NOTAFORUM, and by conveniently prefacing their (?) question with "This is not legal advice" we can be sure the OP doth protest too much. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, your love of the rules is such that it causes boilerplate knee-jerk preemptive rebuttals. :) And you said I care cause I put a preemptive shh but I don't care cause that's thousands of combinations, which is it? And destination countries have different levels of xenowariness of course but origin countries aren't too dissimilar from each other and relatively high and low values might be more well known in the field which would be an interesting answer (like how Switzerland's pretty well known in the field of guns for lenient gun laws even to those who don't know every gun law on Earth). Or are you're saying I'm asking this for someone else? It seems commonsense that no rich country would let someone do this unless they could live off savings thus they could afford to ask a lawyer instead of asking me (why me?) to ask on the Internet. That's not to say I haven't later agreed with your hatting of something I wrote cause I have. But if you don't hat I usually get an interesting answer and if you do it's not worth arguing, no hard feelings. Someone else might even unhat it and I get the interesting answer anyway. Sorry for the vague and vast question, would you actually be fine if I made a list of countries or would you then complain that that's still hundreds and hundreds of combinations? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Immigrant investor programs, Economic citizenship, Portugal Golden Visa and Google "investment visa <country>" or "golden visa <country>". Basic searching shows that this can be done from between $200,000 and $10 million depending on country. Most offer the opportunity to 'invest' in the government itself. Some, like the UK, allow you to 'fast-track' your citizenship by 'investing' more.[1] Even with a golden visa you will still have to support yourself and pay local taxes. Nanonic (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also [2] for a nice breakdown of a number of countries' requirements. Nanonic (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible to answer this question the other way, of course - what is the least amount of money you need to immigrate. For Canada, for just one person it's $12,300. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case cited by Adam Bishop above, it's for potential immigrants who already qualify on the basis of their skills. Basically, it's money to tide them over until they're fully settled in and able to work in Canada. For investor immigrants (which is what the OP is talking about), the minimum amount was much greater (the program is presently suspended) [3]. --Xuxl (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't see how this applies given the 'not work' part of the question. I'm fairly sure if indicate to any offical involved in the process that you have no intention of seeking work in Canada you will be rejected. Of course the visa may be generous enough that if you don't manage to find work you will be supported rather than being kicked out but the OP seems to be referring to the case where the applicant has no intention of seeking work. And of course, barring special conditions you will likely be expected to be seeking work for any benefit [4]. I mean I guess technically there may be nothing stopping you living with the support of charities for the homeless, but that definitely doesn't seem to be what the OP is referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw this question I thought it was about countries which would allow people in but not give them a work permit. You don't need a golden visa to live in Portugal. There is also the "non-habitual residents scheme". Citizens of EU member countries may live and work there as of right. See [5]. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Western Europe and Eastern Europe

close trolling by user indeffed by checkuser

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is Western Europe richer than Eastern Europe?

Longjop (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to define your term. We have articles on Western Europe and Eastern Europe, and each article states that there is no single definition for these terms. In addition there are many ways to define the wealth of a nation: you can start at Gross domestic product and explore from there. -Arch dude (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, see East European economies - East, west and the gap between and News Flash! Western Europe Is Richer Than Eastern Europe. Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few different definitions of the wealth of countries. Even out List of countries by GDP (nominal) uses data from three different sources. In any case, the IMF list involves European countries in the following order:

1) Germany.
2) United Kingdom.
3) France.
4) Italy.
5) Russia.
6) Spain.
7) Turkey.
8) Netherlands.
9) Switzerland.
10) Sweden.
11) Poland.
12) Belgium.
13) Austria.
14) Norway.
15) Denmark.
16) Republic of Ireland.
17) Finland.
18) Portugal.
19) Greece.
20) Czech Republic.
21) Romania.
22) Kazakhstan.
23) Hungary.
24) Ukraine.
25) Slovakia.
26) Luxembourg.
27) Bulgaria.
28) Croatia.
29) Belarus.
30) Slovenia.
31) Lithuania.
32) Serbia.
33) Azerbaijan.
34) Latvia.
35) Estonia.
36) Iceland.
37) Cyprus.
38) Bosnia and Herzegovina.
39) Georgia.
40) Albania.
41) Malta.
42) Republic of Macedonia.
43) Armenia.
44) Kosovo.
45) Moldova.
46) Montenegro.
47) San Marino.
Not included in the list: Andorra, Liechtenstein, and Vatican City. Dimadick (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

close trolling by user indeffed by checkuser

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When will China overtake America as the world's largest economy? When will India become the world's second largest economy? When will India become the world's third largest economy?

Longjop (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please read the rules up top, in particular "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that there are sources other than Wikipedia that make economic projections, right? In any case see: List of countries by past and projected GDP (nominal).:

According to the 2017 estimates of PricewaterhouseCoopers, by 2030, China will be 1st, the United States 2nd, India 3rd, and Japan 4th.
According to the 2015 estimates of the Centre for Economic Policy Research, by 2030, China will be 1st, the United States 2nd, India 3rd, and Japan 4th.
According to the 2010 estimates of Standard Chartered, by 2020, China will be 1st, the United States 2nd, India 3rd, and Japan 4th. Dimadick (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reason to love Canada [Was the Joke that Canada was the only nation to have defeated the US historically accurate?]

I read this in the form of a joke entitled "Ten reasons to love Canada". One was that the nation was only one to have defeated the U.S. Is that so ? Did that historically happen ? Or does that mean something that happened altogether different than what seems have been conveyed in the literal sense - akin to something like a joke within a joke ?210.56.109.200 (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how you interpret it, see War of 1812. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is the Battle of Quebec (1775), which took place in what is now Canada. The American revolutionaries suffered a decisive defeat in their attempt to conquer Quebec, and the British were successful in holding present day Canada against the revolution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The United States also suffered a complete and total defeat in the Vietnam War. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the comment from Bill Murray's pep talk in Stripes: "We are 10 and 1!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge: "I guess we're not 0-1-1 anymore." (Korea, Vietnam) Clarityfiend (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada>US in ice hockey. Related? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that plenty of national sports teams have defeated US teams in various sports at one time or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The United States lost the Vietnam War, but was able to withdraw its troops without many losses and the impact was small. The American casualties were also relatively small. By the estimates Wikipedia includes: 58,318 dead and 303,644 wounded.

The cost of the war was mostly on American morale, as the military forces and their tactics were seen as ineffective. According to Henry Kissinger: "in terms of military tactics, we cannot help draw the conclusion that our armed forces are not suited to this kind of war. Even the Special Forces who had been designed for it could not prevail."

The American economy also suffered, because the United States spend an estimated 134.53 billion dollars on the lost war. It contributed to a large budget deficit.

The American military forces also lost faith in conscription, because several Americans lost their lives in infighting between American forces. "Between 1969 and 1971 the US Army recorded more than 700 attacks by troops on their own officers. Eighty-three officers were killed and almost 650 were injured."Dimadick (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

58,000 is only small compared to some other wars. "I wear the black in mourning for the lives that might have been / Each week we lose a hundred fine young men." -- Johnny Cash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of which relates to the question about Canada. Let’s stay on topic please. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is "has anyone besides Canada defeated the US in battle?" Vietnam is on-topic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs has the answer. The trope is based on the War of 1812, when the British Empire, largely represented by locally-recruited Canadian-born soldiers (who weren't, strictly speaking, Canada at the time, given that Canada didn't get responsible government until 1867, and there was no such thing as "Canada" except as some administrative divisions of British North America, but I digress). The simple fact is that "The U.S. was defeated by Canada" means one, and only one thing, and that is the War of 1812. Nothing else is ever meant by the trope, not Hockey games, not beer, nothing. It means the War of 1812. See here for example. Everything else in the above discussion is distraction. Ignore it. --Jayron 32 13:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm that that is what we mean. We will also happily tell you that we burned down the White House, even if there probably weren't any Canadian troops there. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to that is the Battle of New Orleans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the answer to that then Johnny Horton? --Jayron 32 20:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Straight Dope has a fairly lengthy column discussing the US loss in the War of 1812 and the role of Canada. [6] CodeTalker (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Flames Across the Border: 1813–1814, the second of a two-book series about the war, Pierre Berton wrote:

Having won the last battle, the Americans were convinced that they won the War of 1812. Having stemmed the tide of invation and kept the Americans out of their country, Canadians believed that they won the war. Having ceded nothing they considered important, the British were serene in the conviction that they won it. But war is not a cricket game. The three nations that celebrated peace were beggared by the conflict, their people bereaved, their treasuries emptied, their graveyards crowded. In North America, the charred houses, the untended farms, the ravaged fields along the border left a legacy of bitterness and distrust.

But the real losers were the Indians...

--69.159.60.147 (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breastplate

In this image, Moses (?) is wearing the Priestly breastplate on his back, and perhaps on its side. My question is, is this based on some religous text/tradition, or just artistic license? It kind of has to be on his back if we are to see it in the painting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be Aaron wearing the plate (see Exodus 28:30), and FWIW, I can find no other depiction of anyone wearing it on their back. The breastplate is often used in the iconography of Aaron (see many of the images here), and the artist must have placed it thusly to make it clear who he was, rather than as a correct historical representation of where it was supposed to be worn. --Jayron 32 12:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It´s not Aaron: [7]. Perhaps this scene takes place after Aaron´s death, but that´s speculation on my part. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, the artist really is making a mess of things. Neither Moses nor Joshua would have ever worn the breatplate, as neither was ever the High Priest of Israel. The high priest after Aaron's death would have been Eleazar, and after him Phinehas, and that carries us into the time of the Book of Judges which is well after the death of both Moses and Joshua. --Jayron 32 13:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Still, it´s a nice painting, and for whatever reason the Ark of the Covenant resembles the one in Raiders. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bible is actually amazingly detailed on the design of the Ark; for that reason most depictions tend to be similar and faithful to the original text. Exodus 25 gives the dimensions and ornamentation. It's interesting the painter was so concerned with getting the Ark right, but made a mess of the Urim and Thummim. --Jayron 32 14:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the ark is the cool thing. It would make a kind of sense if the painting was an interpretation of, say, Numbers 27:21.[8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The illustration may have been first published posthumously. There is a note from the publishers, and an introduction. It's possible The Jewish Museum took the title from the book and it's the fault of the publishers.—eric 01:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see another scripturally-inaccurate European painting with the high-priestly breastplate , look at File:Le mariage de la Vierge.jpg, which shows Joseph and Mary being married by the Jerusalem high priest (very implausible in several ways...). AnonMoos (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least he´s wearing it correctly, like Belloq in Raiders.[9] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It matters who you think it would be...Just sayin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.80.50.135 (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Sierra-class submarines have shark teeth painted on them?

Did the Russians think it was simply cool or did they serve a purpose? Any other examples of submarine art? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not submarines specifically, but nose art on warplanes is very similar and has a long tradition. Here contains a few other examples. --Jayron 32 14:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not shark but barracuda teeth, Барракуда (Barrakuda) being the project name for the class. Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Americans also have a thing for submarine nose art; USS Torsk, USS Redfin, USS Baya and USS Von Steuben have all sported teeth, whereas USS Chicago has had a cow of some sort (only joking, something to do with ~~American football~~ basketball I believe). If anyone is thinking of writing an article, I found nothing which could conceivably be used as a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be basketball, could be Chicago's traditional association with cattle processing (which is why the basketball team is called the Bulls). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking was that it was rather too close a resemblance to the team's logo to be a coincidence. Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navsource.org, which seems at least semi-reliable, says it is in tribute to the Chicago Bulls. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems plausible. And interesting that it was expected to wash away after a few dives. As an aside, you may or may not be aware of Cows on Parade, which were on display in downtown Chicago in the late 1990s or so. In olden times (until about the 1920s) they used to actually have cattle drives down city streets. That wouldn't work so well now - they would get stuck in traffic! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such "sentiments" have the function to boost the Morale of the soldiers. Allot like military medals and traditions, probably to distract from the functional core of this sector which apriori frequently becomes an "ice cold, down to the(your) bone" reality. --Kharon (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"allot" (v.): To distribute or apportion by (or as if by) lot. I think you meant "a lot". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

A lot meant? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two disasters, same cause

I know the American Red Cross helped out in the relief efforts following the sinking of the RMS Titanic aftermath. But did the same organization do the same thing in the Hindenburg disaster aftermath?2604:2000:7113:9D00:42A:E2CE:C3D7:55E7 (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is Yes. Checking newspapers.com (a pay site) I see blurbs that both national and regional officials were dispatched immediately to help where possible. Keep in mind that the loss of life with the Hindenburg was way much smaller than with Titanic: 36 vs. somewhere around 1,500. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much.2604:2000:7113:9D00:E489:B375:36EB:1AC5 (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By "cause", I assume you mean "charitable cause"? Because the Hindenburg crash was most definitely not caused by an iceberg. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they were both caused by physics! ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The captains of both ships failed to realize the gravity of the situation until it was too late. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mean charitable cause.142.255.69.73 (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where there are icebergs, there's evaporation. When things evaporate, skies get cloudy. Cloudy skies bring lightning strikes. That's not to say the ship was or wasn't struck by lightning, but if it were, it's not unfathomable that vapour from the Titanic's old foe (or one of its kinderbergs) regrouped and reformed over the next 24 years, circling the currents until the perfect opportunity for East Coast vengeance. Or it might've happened purely by coincidence. Water moves in mysterious ways, even when it all looks the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, November 19, 2017 (UTC)

That theory reminds me of the Pig-Pen character in A Charlie Brown Christmas, and about how the dirt that covers him could have been trod upon by Solomon or other biblical figures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mudwell the Mudbunny said something similar. "Look beneath your boots and I'll be there." Dude's talking about soil instead of dust, but isn't all dust just unreturned ground waiting for rain and lightning to revive it again? Verily I say unto thee, perhaps. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, November 20, 2017 (UTC)

November 16

Industries

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

They can "say" whatever they want, but that don't necessarily make it so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So is there a correct definitive answer to the question of whether industries overlap? 90.192.104.194 (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In your examples, I'm not seeing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Construction and airport, no. Airport operations seems to be very removed from airport construction. But telecom and banking I can see - there are many areas where you need both banking and telecom knowledge to make things work (i.e. you need to take into account FCC rules when implementing a trading application). Industries don't form neat, clean taxonomies to begin with - the boundary between e.g. joiners and carpenters is quite fuzzy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It got even more complex with the rise of Human resource management. Like normal workers are sometimes "shared" between multiple companies thru Temporary work-agencies, it has become a business to "share" Engineers and alike highly specialized professionals. --Kharon (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but theee will be an airport construction department within the airport authority, who will act as the client for the construction project. Would the engineers and project managers there be considered as construction industry professionals or airports industry? Same with highways and rail. Owning authorities will all have a construction department. 90.192.104.194 (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there even such a thing as "airport industry"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can call it what you want but the "overlapping" is more commonly called Synergy in the business-language. Its probably uncommon to refer to both or more industries. Instead it is then usually simply called Supplier or Service for industries, in general for single or multiple industries or businesses. --Kharon (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Question about existence of my first relative

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

That would be this guy: Y-chromosomal Adam. The "when" is not exactly known. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between the first common ancestor of today's humans who lived a couple hundred thousand years ago, and the "first" ancestor, which would be some single celled bacteria-like organism several billion years ago. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the Y-chromosomal Adam is neither of these two. He is a common ancestor, and the most recent patrilinear ancestor (i.e. father or grandfather or grand-grandfather, or (grand-)^*grandfather to any living human). The most recent common ancestor was a lot later. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor, but Yellow_Sunstreaker's question (in the way that it was asked) doesn't have a definite answer. AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That single celled bacteria-like organism preferred to be called "Steve". Seriously, the nature of speciation means there is no "first" human. - Nunh-huh 07:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more usual scientific name for Steve is the Last universal common ancestor...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, even with an expansive definition of person, Steve will have an uphill battle to convince most others that it meets the definition. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Nunh-huh's original point was that if you insist on strict demarcations between species designations going back in time, then the logical consequence would be that the first homo sapiens was born to a non-homo sapiens mother and father! AnonMoos (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There's no black/white demarcation line in developing species. - Nunh-huh 06:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pooh-Bah claimed he could trace his ancestry back to "a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule."[10] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly note-worthy is the fact that none of us have a single ancestor. We each have two, a mother and a father, then four, then eight, and so on. Quite soon we have more ancestors than the total population of the globe. I've never seen this adequately explained. PiCo (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lines of descent link up. That's how everyone in Europe is descended from Charlemagne. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you don't have to go much farther back than PiCo says. If one of a pair of grandparents were cousins, then there would still be eight great-grandparents, but only fourteen great-great-grandparents, not sixteen. And on it goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even when you get back to some common ancestor you would also be descended from lots of other humans who lived at the same time, or even apes as can be seen for instance by that people have different blood groups descended from ones that apes have. Dmcq (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think your first biological ancestor is a one-celled organism somewhere in the middle of the ocean whose own existence as an individual is so trivial that it does not really matter. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the granddaddy of all of us, then it would matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it were actually possible to trace one's lineage back that far, it would not be one single one-celled organism but billions of them. It'd be crazy to single out one of them and say this is "the" original ancestor. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to Pooh-Bah. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I don't believe that's true.

If you could trace your ancestry all the way back to Abiogenesis, I'm pretty sure you'd find a single individual. What mechanism are you imagining that would allow "billions" of separately evolved cells to come together into a single, single-celled species? (After all, if those "billions" of cells were the same species, you'd be looking for their single common ancestor.)ApLundell (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or not. The first molecule of silver nitrate that precipitates out of solution isn't in any way the ancestor of subsequent molecules. If the conditions are right for abiogenesis, you have to at least entertain the possibility that more than one instance of it is occuring. - Nunh-huh 02:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the chance of an instance of abiogenesis being left or right handed amino acids about 50-50? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that that would depend on the chirality of the substrates, and their relative abundance :) - Nunh-huh 05:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Chirality (chemistry)#In biochemistry which mentions this question. In short, we don't have an answer (yet). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.37.45 (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nunh-huh, I can't believe that ambiogenesis happened more than once, but only one of the individuals that emerged could be our direct-line ancestor. What mechanism are you imagining that would allow asexual organisms to have a family tree with more than one beginning?

(Your analogy with precipitates doesn't make sense to me. We're not looking for the first cell to emerge from the goo, we're looking for the particular cell, first or not, that is mankind's ancestor.) ApLundell (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is if it's happening in one place at one time suitable for abiogenesis, it's probably happening to a lot of molecules/whatever, not just in one single instance.- Nunh-huh 06:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not the question. It's not a question about all the different cells that emerged from the soup.

It's a question about the earliest ancestor, which by definition has to be a single life-form. All the cells that are not our ancestor are irrelevant to the question.

So sure, our original ancestor might not have been alone, but there was a point in pre-history where there existed only one ancestor of man. (And, yes, possibly a bunch of other recently-emerged life-forms that would not eventually evolve into mammals and are therefore not the answer to this question.)ApLundell (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ApLundell (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cells can exchange genetic material. And before there were cells, there were molecules. - Nunh-huh 03:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire premise is rotten; we have no proof the OP's first relative was not a lifelong virgin. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, did any of them go through a legitimate form of marriage? If not, all their progeny are bastards (= societally sub-human), down to the 100 millionth generation, including us. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The first mammal has just been identified.[11] 92.8.223.3 (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

Indian driving licences

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

Terms may differ in different parts of the U.S. In my state, a notation that you need corrective lenses to drive would be a "restriction"; an "endorsement" would be a notation that you can do something for which a non-endorsed license would not be sufficient (driving a bus, transporting hazardous material, etc.) - Nunh-huh 02:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that's how mine is as well. Struck the erroneous parts. I thought you were from New Zealand? Of whom am I thinking? Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know who, but I, for one, am definitely not native of nor emigrant to New Zealand :) .- Nunh-huh 06:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was confusing you with Nil Einne, I think. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am from NZ.Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for what you can drive on an Indian licence, the official term seems to be "Classes and Vehicle Categories". I couldn't find anything about wearing glasses for Indian licences, but in the UK that information is encoded in the number on your licence. We too have endorsements for traffic offences. Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)In Britain there is a penalty points system - when you reach a certain number you get banned. On conviction the magistrate or judge may order the licence to be "endorsed". There is also coding within the driver's number - for example the number FIELD962249JM9ZE 63 signifies to the examining officer:

First alpha symbols - driver's surname
9 = 3rd digit of year of birth
6 = 1st digit of date of birth in MM-DD format (increased by five if the driver is female)
224 = remaining digits of date of birth
9 = last digit of year of birth

He thus knows he should be speaking to a girl whose middle name begins with "M" and will turn 18 on Christmas Eve. Licences also carry a photograph. For a detailed analysis see [12]. Do other countries operate this system? 82.13.208.70 (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not well known, but there is also an indication on a UK driving licence to indicate whether the driver wears glasses (or contact lenses) - it is shown by an "01" in section 12 of the licence. There is a list of other codes which indicate special requirements due to health or disability [13] Wymspen (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, I have heard of a British driver in the US getting let off for speeding because the police officer saw the high number of endorsements and didn't want to ruin a near-perfect record. MChesterMC (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Private debt to GDP

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

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

It’s “all the private debt in the country as a ratio of the yearly GDP“. That is, the numerator is the amount of debt ever incurred but not yet paid off. Loraof (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very kindly, Loraof! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I’ve done some copy editing in the article. Loraof (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid, Loraof. Thank you so much! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Loraof.

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

Yes, it’s the World Bank, so it’s a good source. Loraof (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loraof, thank you! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I've heard that the ~1867 Canadian Confederation was allowed to give them something so they don't feel like having another American Revolution down the road. And that the Civil War showed how easy it is for part of the continent to fight a war of independence. I don't know how true that is. If yes it worked since in 2017 Canada's still a proud part of the British Commonwealth and America never will be. Man, history would've been awesome if King George the Third wasn't such a dick. We'd be like a supercountry, maybe the capital would even move from London to New York (maybe not). Slavery might end earlier since it was illegal in England. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

70.95.44.93 -- part of it was how in 1914 the British government kind of unilaterally decreed the Dominions into the war. The Quebecois were not too enthused about that, and in Ireland it helped set the stage for a violent bloody secession. It was better to find a framework to recognize the effective reality that the dominions were reaching political/economic maturity, rather than to inappropriately treat them as old-style colonies. AnonMoos (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't the Quebecois care about liberating France? Or at least not enough to risk their lives for it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Isolationism? Americans also weren't very happy about being pulled into either world war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagittarian Milky Way -- at that time the Quebecois were very Catholic, and often not in sympathy with developments of French revolutionary ideas such as the recently-passed 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State. The main Wikipedia article is Conscription Crisis of 1917. AnonMoos (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that that the idea was rejected by the Dominions at various Imperial Conferences. They were concerned that the UK and England specifically would have a built in majority in any Imperial Parliament (compare the populations even today, England 55 m vs Australia 25 m and Canada 35 m. The disparity was much greater in 1900). See News and the British World: The Emergence of an Imperial Press System, 1876-1922 (p. 56) Additionally, it didn't fit the free trade world view of the Liberal Party which dominated British politics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The First World War put the last nail in the coffin of the Federation project, because the nationhood of the Dominions had been made very real by their participation in the conflict. look at Anzac Day for example. User:Sagittarian Milky Way's suggestion about the War of Independence seems highly unlikely to me to have had any bearing; perhaps he has a reference? Alansplodge (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the source. Maybe Canadian History for Dummies or its competitor the Complete Idiot's Guide to Canadian History (one of which I've read some of), maybe some Internet forum. (in case anyone's confused, America doesn't actually have thousands of insulting book titles written for the mentally challenged, the names are hyperbole). I'd read that by the time North America had 2 bloody independence wars (1775-1781 and 1861-65) the British were more amenable to placating their North American colonies instead of treating them like fully non-autonomous colonies and risking loss of the 18th century first mover advantage of lots of loyalists and loyalist refugees some time in the further future. (like 20th century?) I don't know enough to say if that's accurate. But the lower-quality outnumbered American troops were such an underdog even France wouldn't ally till they survived a few years and won anything significant. One can understand why the British didn't give more than tokenish compromise compared to after they'd fought their colonies at least twice and lost (War of 1812). Yes I realize America was lucky Napoleon and Louis the XVI kept the British busy while the "winning" was happening. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the War of 1812 was a "win" for the United States. At best, both sides fought to a stalemate on land, with neither side able to capture and hold any appreciable amount of the other's territory. The United States was never able to break the Royal Navy blockade that motivated the U.S. declaration of war in the first place. The war ended when both sides got tired of it and had exhausted their reasons to fight in the first place; the Treaty of Ghent put everything back status quo ante bellum. You could argue that the United States didn't lose, but it's a stretch to call that a "win". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it was a tie but a draw on land (not even home biome advantage often) and roughly similar casualty ratio against a more industrial nascent superpower that might've reconquered if things went better and making that superpower financially hurt to kill only 2,200 men seems like a win. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What America won from the War of 1812 was the Battle of New Orleans, and hence President Andrew Jackson; and "The Star-Spangled Banner". What the British won was effectively an end to the hostilities between us, which would come in handy in the 20th Century when they needed us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Spangled Banner was the earlier Baltimore battle. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Baltimore, September of 1814, during which "The Star-Spangled Banner" was written. Note the semicolon in my previous comment. I probably should have reversed the two items, to make them chronological. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The elites of Britain in the late 19th and early 20th century were wearisome of providing for the defense and administration of territories that were capable of self-government. A centrally-administerred British Empire run from London was inefficient. Pre-Victorian era, Britain outsourced the defense and administration of many parts of its colonial empire to private corportations (Hudson's Bay Company, East India Company, later Cecil Rhodes various African ventures, etc.) Such quasi-governnmental arrangements fell out of favor when their lack of oversight and human rights abuses became liabilities for the Empire, and Britain gradually began direct rule of many of these territories (British Raj, etc.) After World War I, it became clear within Britain that maintaining a centrally-administerred world-wide empire was not in the best interest of Britain itself, and began the process of spinning those places off into independent states. The Statute of Westminster was neither the start nor the end of that process; a process that began before WWI and ended in the 1980s. The British "elite" as you call them were central in the theory behind it. Lord Dunham is perhaps the first to propose what became known as the theory of responsible government, which was the British Empire's way of spinning off various colonies as quasi-independent states, and his ideas were not widely acceptable when he proposed them (as revolutionary ideas frequently are not) but it was part of a longer tradition of liberalization as seen by Whig political theory as first put together by leaders such as the Earl Grey. In simple terms, Classical liberalism as a political theory was a dominant political theory of much of British "elites" during the 19th and early 20th century, and the Statute of Westminster is an expected part of that thinking. --Jayron 32 12:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Jayron already described, to put it very simple it is a result of political history. You can find a very similar odd looking political reality in today's world biggest taxhaven, City of London, with the difference that our article for that contains allot more about its historical/political development. --Kharon (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC) 07:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed that the City is a "taxhaven" please. Alansplodge (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of reliable sources that talk about it in those terms. See for example [14],[15], [16], [17]. It is seen quite commonly elsewhere in Britain as a separate entity with undue power in the government that sucks money away from them and makes them poor. And citation for that see for example [18] where they are quite rightly worrying about Brexit and the effect if bankers leave 'Once, the reflex response to that would have been a yelped “Good riddance to the parasitic swine” (that’s the censored version, obviously)' Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: You actually live in London and you don't know? Seriously??--Kharon (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm no expert but I think those articles are using the term somewhat subjectively; the City is dissimilar to true tax havens like the Cayman Islands for example. Our Tax haven article doesn't mention London but does mention the United States as a tax haven. Anyhow, does this have anything to do with the original question? Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article says as its second sentence 'There is no generally accepted definition of what renders a country or jurisdiction a tax haven' so I guess there is no such thing as a true or false tax haven. Dmcq (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: Seriously? --Kharon (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear on 'A global map of tax havens, using the list in the proposed 2007 "Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act", US Congress' which is included in the article. However, I bow to your superior insistence. Alansplodge (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought with myself about this idea. Perhaps a "confederation of federations", where (say) Yorubaland would be part of a Federation of West Africa, which would in turn be part of a British Confederation?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Dmcq's link is seven years old and rather outdated. Political parties do now participate in the elections to the Court of Common Council (the last one was on 23 March). 92.8.223.3 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Anyway candidates to the Court of Common Council must be Freemen of the City of London. Dmcq (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They also have to be City residents. See [19], [20]. 92.8.223.3 (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still did not explain what you are trying to get at. And being a resident is about the least specific requirement, being a Freeman of the City is very specific. What you have said just seems to be just some fact picked at random off the web, have you a reason for saying it? Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Branding on large infrastructure projects

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

You're going to have to give us an example of that happening in practice, with links and photos, if you're going to get a meaningful answer. --Viennese Waltz 14:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crossrail In london was all Crossrail branded. Everything including letters, hoarding, offices etc. 46.233.90.41 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A brand can give a project an identity and help it deliver extra value, says Donnie MacNicol [a project, programme and organisational consultant]. The accumulated wisdom of traditional project management provides the basis for winning the minds of team members. Winning the hearts of the team, and thereby getting the best out of them, requires an emotional attachment to the project. To do this, the project must have an identity". Project branding - giving your project an identity from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Alansplodge (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

Statutes at Large

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

Your question is unanswerable, because you have not established that "other compendiums of law were not". What is your evidence that none of the other 200ish legal systems maintains no records of laws passed? On the face, it seems unlikely that the United States is the only country in the world that records its laws. The Canada Gazette, for example, serves as an official record of Acts of the Canadian Parliament. If your question is built on false premeses, it cannot be answered. --Jayron 32 12:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Female politicians of American Samoa

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

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

Anglo Saxon Archbishop of Canterbury

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

Are you counting the maternal line as ancestry? If so, it might have been Baldwin of Forde, as we don't know who his mother was. Given what little I (think I) know about the demographics of 12th-century Devon, she might have been Anglo-Saxon or even Celtic (Cornish or Welsh) – note that he later spent some time preaching in Wales, which might suggest a grasp of the language, perhaps learned from his mother (thin, I agree). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.37.45 (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that very few of the post-Conquest Archbishops of Canterbury came from the higher aristocracy, the secular class for which most records exist, so we mostly know very little about their ancestry. Knowing that the father's name is a Norman one doesn't tell you much since the mother might have been Anglo-Saxon, or of course might not. In such a case even the father could, if he were English, have been of Anglo-Saxon ancestry since Norman names were fashionable in ambitious families, for obvious reasons. In some 19th-century histories, and in Jean Anouilh's play Becket, you might have found it claimed that Thomas Becket was an Anglo-Saxon; not so, as our article shows. But once you get into the 13th century, or even before, it becomes increasingly likely that a man born to English parents could have claimed both Norman (or other continental) and Anglo-Saxon ancestors, if only you could prove it. The earliest I can find who provably had some Anglo-Saxon ancestry, however slight, is William Courtenay, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1381 to 1396, who was great-grandson of Edward I, and therefore remotely descended from Henry I and from his mother-in-law Saint Margaret of Scotland, one of the last representatives of the House of Wessex. --Antiquary (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with answering the question directly is that after some time, there is no more meaningful "Anglo-Saxon" ethnicity, as it become subsumed into what we might consider the English ethnicity. Certainly at the time of the Conquest and for some centuries later, the conflict between the invading Norman French people and the native Anglo-Saxon people was a real thing, but by the middle-14th century, we run into two problems with answering the question 1) As a unified English national identity developed as an amalgam of Anglo-Saxon and Norman identities, it made less and less sense to think of Anglo Saxon as a meaningful way to think of ethnicity and 2) As that happened over 300+ years, people on the island intermarried in such a way that by 14th or 15th century, nearly everyone would have had Ancestors who were Anglo-Saxon at the time of the conquest, in so far as it could have been deduced from known records. --Jayron 32 14:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, and indeed I'd go further. Even as early as the reign of Henry II the writer Richard FitzNeal could say that

Nowadays, when English and Normans live close together and marry and give in marriage to each other, the nations are so mixed that it can scarcely be decided (I mean in the case of the freemen) who is of English birth and who of Norman.

So to sum up for the OP, the answer to your question "who was the next Englishman of Anglo Saxon ancestry to become Archbishop of Canterbury?" is that almost certainly no Archbishop of Canterbury after Stigand was of full Anglo-Saxon ancestry, and that after a few generations (precisely how many it would be impossible to say) all of them were of partial Anglo-Saxon ancestry, which is to say they were English as we now understand the word. --Antiquary (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

court language(s) in either Sicily

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

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

The Kingdom of Sicily was famously founded and for a while governed by the Normans under members of the Hauteville family, who are only "French" in a very loose sense. According John Julius Norwich's "The Normans in the South" and "The Kingdom in the Sun", during the heyday of the Kingdom of Sicily, the "official" (more likely "administrative") languages were Norman French, Arabic, and Greek (Sicily used to be a core part of Magna Graecia, and, with a short Germanic Interregnum, stayed part of the Greek Eastern Roman Empire up to the Arab conquest during the 9th century). Sorry for just picking nits - I don't know what happened to the language usage after the Hohenstaufen lost control of the region. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just found Sicilian_language#Catalan_influence, which claims "Catalan and Sicilian were the official languages of the royal court. Sicilian was also used to record the proceedings of the parliament of Sicily...", which would contradict your above assumption. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to the later Spanish kingdom of Sicily, not the earlier Norman kingdom of Sicily. Lingering effects of Byzantine and Arabic rule were more prominent in the Norman period... AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We also have the awkwardly titled article Norman-Arab-Byzantine culture, which talks a bit about the use of various languages in Norman Sicily. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabweans

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

Like any capital city, I suspect that Harare is going to be much more ethnically diverse than the county at large. Although we currently don't seem to have any figures for ethnic composition in that article. Martinevans123 (talk)

Zimbabwe was a formerly a British Colony called Southern Rhodesia which had a large population of white settlers. In 1965, the white minority issued a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) rather than submit to majority rule proposed by the UK. There followed international sanctions and a rather nasty war white v black Rhodesian Bush War. A peace deal was eventually brokered in which the country returned to British administration before elections and full independence in 1980. A lot of white settlers emigrated to the UK at that stage, but ~~many more~~ some stayed to become White Zimbabweans. These have been a favourite target of Mugabe, see Mugabe to kick out all remaining white farmers, says Zimbabweans need land. Alansplodge (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, just didn't know many are still there. For 2012 in Harare Province, this stats gave only 0,8% Europeans against 98,3% blacks. Brandmeister^talk 13:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was overstating the case; Zimbabwe#Demographics says "The white population dropped from a peak of around 278,000 or 4.3% of the population in 1975 to possibly 120,000 in 1999, and was estimated to be no more than 50,000 in 2002, and possibly much less. The 2012 census lists the total white population at 28,782 (roughly 0.22% of the population), one-tenth of its 1975 estimated size. Most emigration has been to the United Kingdom..." Alansplodge (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All eight of Zimbabwe's Olympic medals have been won by whites (most recently in 2008)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And still three white faces in the Zimbabwe cricket squad. Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did the Nazis finance their public works projects?

WP:DENY

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

See also Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for this, although I don't have the pages in front of me. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Nazi layaway plan? (Not to be confused with Hitler's other layaway plan, which laid away well over 10 million customers.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, public works projects originated in the pre-Nazi Schleicher government. For another, they were not as substantial as the propaganda touted. And, the most prominent project was the autobahn (Reichsautobahn) which was partly a thinly-disguised military project to enhance mobility for the pending "blitzkrieg".

More info:

Bendersky, Joseph W. (2007). "Eight: 1934-1938". A Concise History of Nazi Germany. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 111. ISBN 9780742553637.

2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4DAA:30DE:5ABC:A09C (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenhower was so impressed by the German Autobahn that he wanted one for us also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Reichsarbeitsdienst —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E958:86E3:541F:E7F1 (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Economy of Nazi Germany. (section Pre-war economy: 1933–1939): 'Following a policy dependent upon heavy borrowing of “gigantic sums of money”, Nazi Germany’s national debt by 1939 “had reached 37.4 billion Reichmarks,” [= USD 15.6 bn] where even “Goebbels, who otherwise mocked the government’s financial experts as narrow-minded misers, expressed concern in his diary about the exploding deficit.”' Alansplodge (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

In your link it is written: "From a chalk drawing belonging to Miss Wedgwood, of Leith Hill Place. Artist unknown." (p6 above publication)" ---Sluzzelin talk 23:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also in your link, farther down, it says “deurrogotype”, which I assume is intended as daguerreotype. And in Photography#Invention of photography it says “Around the year 1800, British inventor Thomas Wedgwood made the first known attempt to capture the image in a camera obscura by means of a light-sensitive substance.” Loraof (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1805 would be too early for a daguerreotype. Or any form of camera photography. The photography article makes it clear that the earliest photographs were taken in the 1820s and the oldest surviving one is from 1826. (And it's pretty crude, requiring an exposure time of days. Obviously not suitable for portraits. )

It may be a daguerreotype of a chalk drawing, I suppose. ApLundell (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What it says on the Commons file page (where you're reading "deurrogotype") doesn't matter except for the source of the image, [21], where the illustration note for the Frontispiece simply says "Tom Wedgwood. From a chalk drawing belonging to Miss Wedgwood, of Leith Hill Place. Artist unknown." That's all we know about this illustration. That a Wikipedian has written "deurrogotype" somewhere else isn't really evidence of anything we need be concerned about. - Nunh-huh 02:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But note that the camera obscura was known since antiquity (possibly since prehistoric times), and in the 18th century was used as a drawing aid. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the photosensitive properties of silver salts or other chemicals was already known and he was trying to invent photography by discovering a way to remove the unexposed photosensitive substance or turn it insensitive to light? Failed experiments are still experiments. As someone needing camera obscuras for this work it isn't surprising that he'd be interested in using them to imitate the futuristic technology he hoped to invent (especially if the problem had already started to look so hard he thought it wouldn't be solved for years or decades). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

Al wadi desert shapes

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

In that article, in the second paragraph, it calls them Works of the Old Men. That is a valid redirect to Desert kite, though that article looks to only deal with some of the Arabian structures, but maybe not all of them. Maybe our article needs to be expanded and/or split. --Jayron 32 17:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jayron!

Resolved

Amalia Lindegren paintings

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

This is not necessarily comprehensive, but does not list any publicly displayed works outside of Sweden. --Jayron 32 16:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

'The Future of Work and Leisure' or 'The sociology of leisure' by Stanley Parker? It's actually of the 70s? --B8-tome (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article Post-scarcity economy lead you anywhere useful? --Jayron 32 12:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly connected with the Technocracy movement? -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economic end times

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

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

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

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

Predictions of the eminent demise of capitalism have been going on for over a century. Nothing lasts forever and no doubt one day a prediction will prove to be correct. Searches on "demise of capitalism" and "decline of capitalism" will provide plenty of reading on the general subject, if not this specific scenario.--Wikimedes (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the first time one small group claimed the whole cake for themselves and only left the crumbs for the majority. Go read history to learn about how that worked out usually.

You can not make a projection because people find a way of living under the harshest circumstances. The Crisis, Change or Revolution that changes the current or future wealth allocation may come tomorrow, in 100 years or never. Steve Keen and Nouriel Roubini became famous for predicting (aka projecting) the Financial crisis of 2007–2008 but when they spoke out almost everyone with a high scientific renome declared them to be "nuts" an their "projection" to be irrelevant. If that famous bank had not collapsed, they where probably still regarded "nuts" today. Maybe go check what Steve Keen and Nouriel Roubini "project" today. Maybe they are right again, maybe not. --Kharon (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Keen thinks China's private debt will lead to a problem. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedes, thank you. I will search those terms. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The inequality is very worrying and is getting towards levels where violent things have happened in the past. See [22] for instance. Yes rich people are aware of the problem but it simply makes them become even more distant and protective of their wealth. For every Bill Gates trying to counter disease there is a crowd denying climate change to try and trying to make more money out of oil. Organisation s like Facebook and Twitter don't exactly help either - encouraging groups to hate each other is what their AI algorithms will do automatically even without people like Trump or Putin because that gets more usage. Dmcq (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, I mean like won't the rich eventually get all the money so people will not be able to buy cabbages or property. I mean, if we're on a dessert island with ten people and one person gets all the money, how do the others trade cabbages? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The one person loans the others money, and makes sure they stay in debt forever. See debt servitude. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

November 21

Native American groups

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

There were numerous people groups who spoke Iroquoian languages and lived in the Great Lakes region. Different alliances, treaties, and confederations through out history gave existed, resulting in different groupings of them. That's all. There are different names because there are different groups at different times. --Jayron 32 03:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can the law define Pi?

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

No.--Jayron 32 03:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason that no government can pass a law to make 2 + 2 make 5. Or even to make it 4, because it's 4 regardless of any such wrong-headed and misguided human posturings. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Are you thinking of the Indiana Pi Bill? Anyway it depends what you mean by "define Pi". Ultimately if there are no constitutional blocks, there's nothing stopping a government forcing people to use a certain Pi value in certain contexts or requiring calculators use it. It doesn't mean it will actually be the real mathematical value though, and unless there is a strong penalty attached in most contexts people are just going to ignore the government and use whatever is convient to them. And in fact, except for some very large countries, the government may find it difficult getting people to bother to make such calculators. And for those and many more reasons, it doesn't seem particularly plausible that any government in most of the modern world would attempt that.Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some Sort of Remote Writing Machine

https://youtu. be/nRVEOZphmDQ?t=1m45s

A man writes ONTIME on a movable board.

https://youtu. be/QaXZ8Nisyjo?t=1m28s

Another man writes the boarding place remotely.

What is the name of the writing machine? Is there a Wikipedia article for it? -- Toytoy (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 537: / Line 537: @@
 :: For the same reason that no government can pass a law to make 2 + 2 make 5.  Or even to make it 4, because it's 4 regardless of any such wrong-headed and misguided human posturings.  --  [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 04:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 :(EC) Are you thinking of the [[Indiana Pi Bill]]? Anyway it depends what you mean by "define Pi". Ultimately if there are no constitutional blocks, there's nothing stopping a government forcing people to use a certain Pi value in certain contexts or requiring calculators use it. It doesn't mean it will actually be the real mathematical value though, and unless there is a strong penalty attached in most contexts people are just going to ignore the government and use whatever is convient to them.  And in fact, except for some very large countries, the government may find it difficult getting people to bother to make such calculators. And for those and many more reasons, it doesn't seem particularly plausible that any government in most of the modern world would attempt that.[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 04:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
+== Some Sort of Remote Writing Machine ==
 * https://youtu. be/nRVEOZphmDQ?t=1m45s
@@ Line 546: / Line 548: @@
 Another man writes the boarding place remotely.
-What is the name of the writing machine? Is there a Wikipedia article for it? -- [[User:Toytoy|Toytoy]] ([[User talk:Toytoy|talk]]) 04:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
+What is the name of the writing machine? Is there a Wikipedia article for it? -- [[User:Toytoy|Toytoy]] ([[User talk:Toytoy|talk]]) 04:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)