Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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 26

Metal of a coin more valuable than the monetary value

Can the metal of a coin be more valuable than the monetary value printed on it? In countries like Zimbabwe, for example, due to hyperinflation, the monetary value of their cash might well end up not being much above 0. Or, if the metal prices skyrocket, would the smallest coin of a Western country fall into this category?--Llaanngg (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Coin#Currency, paragraph 2. Loraof (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The silver in Canadian quarters was worth more than face value back in the '70s, so people got their mitts on as many as they could and made tidy profits. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The production of a Swiss 5-Rappen coin costs about 6 Rappen which led Swissmint to recommend abolishing it a few years ago, but the Federal Council decided on keeping it because of the people's cultural attachment, see also this NZZ article and de:Fünfrappenstück which even gives the Swiss phrase "Chasch nöd s Föifi und s Weggli ha" as an example of the coin's 'cultural significance' (literally "you can't have your 5-Rappen piece and your bread roll", meaning "You can't have your cake and eat it"). ---Sluzzelin talk 06:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bullion coins have a face value far below their intrinsic worth. The British Sovereign has a face value of one Pound Sterling, but can currently be sold for over £200. Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bass bought US$1,000,000.00 worth of nickles--five cent pieces-- a few years back when their scrap value was 6.8 cents per coin. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So did he get 20 million coins or only 15 million? —Tamfang (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

$20 million. I am not aware of the details as to any fees or commissions paid or whether he actually took physical possession of them. And he'd have to take them out of the country to sell them as scrap. I am sure this is googleable, I simply remember it as a news item, I never read past the lead. μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The results of a Google search would suggest he did take possession of the nickels, and they are sitting in storage somewhere. Furtheremore, taking it out of the country would not help, as 18 U.S. Code § 333 does not care where the offense is committed. It is sufficiently broad, in fact, that even just selling the coins would probably count as a violation, if there is reason to think the buyer plans to melt them down. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a read of Thomas Levenson (2010). Newton and the Counterfeiter. ISBN 978-0571229932. (Yes, Isaac Newton). This covers the 17th century crisis in England, where the bullion value of the silver currency encouraged clipping and also trading across to Holland, where the metal was worth more and coins were melted. A further problem was the counterfeiting of good coins in pure silver with bad coins in a diluted alloy. This led to an actual shortage of coins, and an inability to mint more at a sensible cost. Eventually this drove England off the silver currency standard and onto a gold standard, where the currency of everyday commerce became a fiat currency, backed by gold held in a robust national reserve bank, but not actually circulated everyday. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the term "fiat money" here is incorrect. Fiat money refers specifically to paper that it not backed by, or redeemable in gold or silver or some other valuable substance. The term for paper money redeemable in a precious metal or similar substance is hard money, referred to as "commerce currency" in the fiat currency article. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, my use of the term fiat currency was carefully considered and is correct. In Wikipedia's terminology, this situation is more closely described as representative currency, a term which I did consider using instead. However as the first instance of fiat currency in this sense, and the first move towards fiat, rather than simple value based coinage, I consider it as the more illustrative term. Note that, in the sense of England's gold standard after Newton, that form of representative money is considered as a form of fiat.

Also, in Newton's period, currency also became significantly paper based with a growth in various forms of bonds or simple lotteries, the Malt Lottery being the most famous. These were pure fiat, and in turn led to the South Sea Bubble, in which Newton himself lost heavily. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite free to make up whatever meaning you like for a term, and government central banks can and do welsh on paper certificates, such as the US going off the Silver certificate (United States). But calling silver certificates fiat money, and money which cannot be redeemed for anything tangible "pure fiat" money is your own idiosyncrasy, and a version of the "No true Scotsman fallacy. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Keynes' term: fiat money is any money for which the face value is divorced from the intrinsic value of the coinage. This can be of two forms, either a fiat backed purely by trust and confidence, or it can be representative money backed by hard reserves (this has the advantage that the gold, or whatever, doesn't have to be circulated and so susceptible to wear or clipping. Nor would a reserve of diamonds or neodymium be easily coinable.). As the intrinsic value of the coinage itself though is negligible, both of these are fiat monies, according to Keynes. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coin clipping was a risky business in England, where it fell under the offence of high treason. Consider the fate of Thomas Rogers and Anne Rogers who were convicted of clipping 40 silver coins in 1690. "Thomas Rogers was hanged, drawn and quartered, and Anne Rogers was burnt alive". Alansplodge (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clipping was becoming uncommon by this time, in favour of either shipping the entire coins off as bullion, or as coining (minting counterfeit from debased alloy). Only the lower grades of criminal, without the skills or connections to do any better, were still at it.

Another form of profit to such groups, was in selling out other counterfeiters in exchange for a pardon. There were whole pyramid schemes of betrayal going on, where some of the most successful thief takers were little more than the best connected of the counterfeiters. The Rogers were simply at the tail of such a chain. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why were there so many counterfeiters with such harsh penalties? Did all the counterfeiters who turned in another live? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they could earn a pardon, see Queen's evidence. See also Bloody Code; "In 1688 there were 50 offences on the statute book punishable by death". Because coinage offences could undermine the whole financial system, the punishment had to be worse than that for common theft, which was hanging. Eventually, we decided to send our thieves to America instead, and when there was some local difficulty there, we found Australia. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My father was given a warning about defacing the coin of the realm once because he used a whole lot of Nigerian one tenth of a penny coins which were much cheaper and better quality than the washers he could get for a job. Dmcq (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Until the 2008 crash, pre-1992 solid copper coins circulating in the UK were often worth more than their face value. Not really worth the effort as a scrap metal trade, though. Blythwood (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly what the OP may have had in mind, but can someone link them to the article dealing with the long-running controversy over the retention of the U.S. penny, which has long fallen into negative seignorage territory? To quote our article: When copper reached a record high in February 2011, the melt value of a 95% copper penny was more than three times its face value. (The mint has since ditched most of the copper in the penny in favor of zinc, which is cheaper, but has not solved the problem that it still costs more than a penny to manufacture one). At one point, which was a while ago, it cost the U.S. mint 2.8c to produce the penny, which obviously have a face value of 1c. I presume the cost may since have risen. Even the nickel 5c is getting close to this point, if not having already crossed it too. So the answer is yes, even in the modern U.S. of A, the metal value of pennies and nickels has at times exceeded the face value. Ergo, the never ending battle over whether the penny has "had its day". Eliyohub (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides the guest selection for the White House Correspondents' Dinner?

Who decides the guest selection for the White House Correspondents' Dinner? The White House Correspondents' Association, the White House, or both together? Or some third party? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Deor (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

Government policy

Are government policies the same thing as organisation policies (I.e. Policies which defines the way an organisation functions - I suppose a bit like Wikipedia policies)? 2A02:C7D:B946:A000:F9F8:FC21:38F4:D028 (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Policy and Government policy. Government policy generally refers to decisions on how to influence conditions or entities outside of government, rather than how the government itself functions. Loraof (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But they're still basically the same thing right? Policy, organisational policy, public policy, Wikipedia policy. 2A02:C7D:B946:A000:F9F8:FC21:38F4:D028 (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that cows are the "same thing" as animals. Some policies are government policies, some policies are not government policies. Wikipedia policies are not the same as government policies. United States government policies are not the same as Saudi Arabian government policies, and I'm pretty sure that both of those are rather distinct from North Korean government policies. None of them are like the policies for the Church of Scientology, Alcoholics Anonymous, or Toys for Tots, which are organizations that have organizational policies, but not governments (and so do not have governmental policies, even if they may be affected by them to varying degrees). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC. Lord, I hate ECs.) Well, they're all policies of one sort or another. Loraof's answer seems to point to the nub of the difference between the two classes of policy. It's difficult to understand what you're wanting by way of an answer to the question. If you want a trite policy=policy, then we're done. If you want to start digging in a little more, there's lots that might be said. I suspect a central problem is that this is an ill-posed quesiton :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think there is a real dilemma here, in that while it has been government policy to regard policy as the responsibility of Ministers, and administration as the responsibility of officials, questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the administration of policy and the policy of administration, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts or overlaps with responsibility for the policy of the administration of policy (Sir Antony Jay, Yes Minister). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

A good comparison is that a foreign office (like the US State Department) might have a "sex discrimination policy", a "whistleblower policy", and a "policy towards Russia". All of those are government policy (in that the government sets them), but the first two are policies for how the office does its job, whereas the "policy towards Russia" is a political agenda based on what the government wants to do. Blythwood (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Arrangement" as a painting

The article Whistler's Mother, referring to the painting officially titled Arrangement in Gray and Black No.1, says that "The sensibilities of a Victorian era viewing audience would not accept what was apparently a portrait being exhibited as an 'arrangement'; thus the explanatory title Portrait of the Artist's Mother was appended."

What did Victorian viewing audiences expect an "arrangement" to be? Arrangement (disambiguation) doesn't appear to link to any articles which cover "arrangements" as paintings. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whistler frequently used musical terms to describe his pictures - see, for example, Nocturne in Black and Gold and Symphony in White, No. 2 - so our appropriate article on the term is Arrangement (music). This was to emphasise their status as "Art for art's sake", and to escape the constraints of the traditional Academic genres of painting. Tevildo (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How much is Newton's 1696 salary (£500-600) worth in today's US$?

In terms of how much of a CPI-type basket that'd buy. This says £62,570-£75,084 but the pound just dropped by a ton after Brexit and I assume any value added by British residents should not expensivize quite as much as how much the pound dropped relative to the dollar (since whatever Brit added the value must buy non-imports at times, too). What should I multiply the pounds by?

2. How many grams of each metal did he get? Was it 400 gold crowns and 3,000 silver shillings or 300 sovereigns and 4,000 half shillings and 5 bronze pennies and a copper farthing or what? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that inflation in the UK has not really been affected by the devaluation of Sterling yet (I'm not sure what "expensivize" means) - see UK inflation at 1% as price of clothes and fuel rises, so I think you could safely use a pre-Brexit rate of exchange from a few months ago. These historical equivalences are guesswork at best; "over long time spans, changes in prices give only the very roughest and most approximate idea of changes in the value of money." Exeter University - Current Value of Old Money. According to this, the pre-Brexit rate was $1.48 to £1. Thus a conversion of £62,570 - £75,084 would be $92,604 - $111,124.

The status of the English currency at that time was a bit complicated, as there was no fixed value for the standard high-value coin, the Guinea. Nominally worth one pound Sterling (20 silver shillings), because of the fluctuation in price between silver and gold, it could be exchanged for between 22 and 25 shillings in the 1660s. However, it eventually settled at 21 shillings, which it remained until 1971. So at a nominal rate of 21 shillings, £600 would be 12,000 shillings, or 571½ guineas, (each guinea being about a quarter of an ounce of gold) which gives 143 ounces or 8lbs 15 oz of gold or thereabouts, always provided that I've done the maths right. Our Cheque article says: "By the 17th century, bills of exchange were being used for domestic payments in England", so he probably wouldn't have been handed a big sack full of gold coins, just a piece of paper. Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've just noticed that you asked for grams (I thought you American chaps weren't metricated). That would be at 8.385 grams per guinea, equal to 4.772 kg (Hmm... that converts to 10 lbs 8 oz so maybe the "approximately one quarter ounce of gold" quoted in our article was only very approximate). Alansplodge (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Americans aren't metricated but since the troy pound has 12 ounces that are c.10% heavier than the avoirdupois ounce but there's 16 of 'em so the avoirdupois pound's c.22% heavier but it's used for regular things like pennies while troy ounces are used for gold and silver I thought it'd be better to just ask for grams and convert back to pounds (not the apothecary pound – that's only for drugs). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought about troy pounds but thought I'd better stick with the bog-standard 16 oz kind. I'd forgotten that the troy ounce was bigger, so perhaps that accounts for the error. Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

Cixi and Guangwu

When Empress Dowager Cixi and the Guangxu Emperor fled to Xian after the Boxer Rebellion where did they live in during their exile in Xian? They left Beijing on 14 August 1900 and did not return to the capital until January 1902. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a lot more obscure than it ought to be. It's not even mentioned in our History of Xi'an article. I was going nowhere until I remembered that in my far-off school days, Cixi was called Tz'u-Hsi [1] and that led me to Sian, the former transliteration of Xi'an. Anyhow, by a lot of Googling book titles, I eventually came to Through hidden Shensi (1902) by Francis Henry Nichols, an American charity worker, who arrived in Sian three weeks after Tz'u-Hsi (or Tsz' Hi as he calls her) had returned to Beijing. From page 203 to page 208, Nichols describes the Imperial progress through the countryside, staying at the residences of local governors or in official inns ("kung kwan") and accompanied by "wholesale decapitation" of those who displeased her. On page 209, he describes the former viceroy's residence "in a park in the northern part of Sian" which was renovated for the use of the Dowager Empress. "The whole area, comprising about fifdteen acres, was then inclosed with a high brick-wall, in evident imitation of the forbidden city in Pekin". A photograph of the elaborate gateway faces page 210. He managed to persuade an official to give him a tour of the complex, which he describes in the following pages. Identifying whether these buildings are still standing today has eluded me. Alansplodge (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mini pianos with 12 keys?

Are there mini-pianos for training scales? That is, twice 12 keys? Llaanngg (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some with 25 keys. --Jayron 32 09:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are toys though, this kind of thing is better. --Viennese Waltz 10:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not much more than a toy either, with its "mini keys". For "training scales" - which I assume means "learning to play scales on a piano" - you need full-size keys, preferably weighted (i.e not on springs), and at least four octaves (49 keys - which will of course only allow a scale of three octaves in most keys). For learning the fingerings one of these might be a better option. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yours is also a toy,User:Viennese Waltz , and as above, it's also designed for little fingers. And these keys are not weighted. --Llaanngg (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ones in Jayron's link are clearly designed to appeal to children, with their bright colours and superhero graphics. That's what I meant when I said they were toys. The one in my link may not be much good for learning to play scales either, but it's not explicitly designed to look like a child's plaything. --Viennese Waltz 17:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware the super-hero pictures altered the way it produced sound. --Jayron 32 17:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly! You'll be claiming that go-faster stripes don't make a car go faster next. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.248.159.54 (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's defined as a toy by what it looks like, not by the way it produces sound. --Viennese Waltz 07:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 US House election data

Hello,

I am wondering if Wikipedia has the 2016 US House election results in a data set that I would be able to use for my own research, if not, can you direct me to where your information came from? I have checked many other sites, and Wiki currently has the most complete and succinct list.

I appreciate your time167.206.48.221 (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Crystal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.48.221 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could do a copy-and-paste into whatever document you're working on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for a good way to extract the data, just copying the HTML tables into Excel usually does the trick, although you might have to fix a bit of formatting afterwards. Smurrayinchester 09:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For real research, you need the primary source information, not whatever Wikipedia has. More than that, it looks like the Wikipedia sources are newspaper reports (for example, at United States House of Representatives elections, 2016#References), which are also liable to error and change.

You really need the official numbers from the US Government: usa.gov says they will be available at usa.gov in mid-2017; but if you need them sooner, you can go one by one to each state's election office, where they will be posted no later than Dec 19. 184.147.120.192 (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to use Pandoc to convert the wikitext of those tables into a more palatable file format, with less pain than trying to scrape HTML. Wikidata might be a good place to share the output. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betrayal of Anne Frank

Who betrayed Anne Frank, her family and the other 4 people in hiding and why? 81.154.209.39 (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article you just linked, her betrayer has never been identified. The same article also notes several suspected informants, but no one has been firmly identified as the one. --Jayron 32 18:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think why the unknown person informed the Nazis where they were hiding? He/she betrayed them because...? 81.154.209.39 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't know who betrayed Anne Frank, we don't know their motive for sure either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CautionThe person who asked this question is a multiple block evader. Please do not feed this troll. David J Johnson (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

Defending abortion without defending infanticide

According to here, Abortion debate#Fetal personhood in the second paragraph it says that one person concedes that infants do not qualify as persons according to the criteria for personhood mentioned in the first paragraph. The second paragraph says that defenders of the criteria respond that reversibly comatose patients do fit the criteria, but not infants. How could one defend the criteria in such a way without defending infanticide? I'm not asking for arguments in favour of abortion which don't use the criteria.Uncle dan is home (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given a certain definition of personhood, the difference between a patient in a reversible coma and a fetus is that the former is a once-and-possibly-future person, while the latter is merely a possibly-future person. Critics of potential-personhood-centered pro-life arguments often take the concern over potential-future-persons to the extreme and insist that one should conclude that even sperm and eggs would be protected under such criteria. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the difference between an infant and fetus?Uncle dan is home (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a sharp partition, but a fuzzy transition. But just because it is a genuinely hard problem to determine where exactly the transition takes place does not mean that we cannot identify clear examples of one case of the other. A very early foetus does not meet any definition of personhood. A healthy young child certainly meets most. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another definition is life starts at conception and potential human doesn't mean anything. Otherwise people should multiply as fast as possible till whatever the Earth can take (36 billion?) then instantly switch to replacement-level fertility cause otherwise they're preventing future lives. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the abortion debate is an issue of what social scientists call Framing. How you view the issue depends on how you "frame" the issues in context. "Should we kill innocent babies or not" is a different "frame" than "Does restricting access to abortion result in better health outcomes for society as a whole". The defense of legal abortion is not in redefining personhood to make aborting a fetus more acceptable, the defense of legal abortion centers around a more nuanced view which is that health outcomes are better in a society with access to abortion, and that reducing abortions (which is still a goal of the pro-choice crowd) is accomplished not by restricting access to abortion, but through education, access to birth control, raising the socioeconomic status of women, etc. --Jayron 32 20:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Protestant clergymen of Polynesia

Who was/were the first indigenous Protestant clergymen (i.e. Pastors or Reverends) of Polynesia? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it, but this book looks promising. --Jayron 32 16:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page notes that Pomare II was the first Polynesian to be baptised, which was done in 1819. That would give you a date to start looking for the first native clergymen; it would have been a considerable time after that. --Jayron 32 16:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know the answer for the Hawaiian side: James Kekela in 1849. But that still doesn't mean other pastors/ministers could have been ordained before then in other parts of Polynesia. I know the early missionaries had people they called native helpers or lay preacher but I'm not speaking about those.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moorish Revival landscaping

I am researching landscaping solutions that would complement a city's Moorish Revival architecture. This is somewhat complicated by the city's humid continental climate. Almost all examples of Moorish Revival architecture I find are from areas of either Mediterranean or subtropical climate, which means the plants are not cold-hardy. Can someone tell me where to look? Any significant examples of Moorish Revival landscaping in continental climate? Surtsicna (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the two articles you linked to find a list of buildings that qualify as that type of architecture and are located in a city that matches the coloured-in areas on this map. Examples would include Dohány Street Synagogue in Budapest, Neue Synagogue in Berlin, Vorontsov Palace in Crimea, National and University Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo, etc. If this answer failed to understand the question, please post a clarification. 184.147.120.192 (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mangareva and the Gambier Islands Annexation

I'm trying to find the exact date for the annexation of Mangareva and the Gambier Islands but it seems there are two different ones reported: 21 February 1881 when the island chiefs and Henri Isidore Chessé signed an agreement and then another date "23 February 1881" which seems to be a revision of the existing native law code. My confusion with this is why did annexation dated to the latter date instead, These are the two sources I've been using [2] and [3]. However there are more ones out there. Please someone with the knowledge of French or the patience to copy and paste French text to Google Translate, help me understand the reason for this dual dating. Some sources with the 23 February [4]. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say the same thing but disagree on the date: that the inhabitants of Gambier Islands were convened in solemn assembly and voted in favor of annexation. The problem is, as you state, that some say the assembly was convened on February 21 and others on February 23rd. There is no indication that the meeting lasted more than a day either, so that's not the source of the discrepancy. Both sources are relatively close to the events themselves, but still a few years removed, so it's hard to say which one of them is correct. --Xuxl (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This source [5] confirms les habitants demanderent le 21 fevrier 1881 l'annexation a la France, and their wish was granted two days later. 81.134.89.140 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It says the treaty was ratified by the President of France the following year in January 1882 not February 23, 1887.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know about usage of ancient buildings?

For example, How do we know that Colosseum was used for gladiator? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology and studying written contemporary sources.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, for instance, Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre, which mentions the works of Suetonius and Cassius Dio and Martial. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How archeology can tell us By the 2nd century BC the area was densely inhabited? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to read Post-excavation analysis, and this article from Slate. 184.147.120.192 (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Presidential Election

How did Hillary Clinton manage to lose all three battle ground states and 3 of the blue wall states. I can understand splitting but going 1 for seven?68.191.203.98 (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The polls got it wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not even very wrong. National polls were wrong by about 2%, which as it happened was enough to flip many battlegrounds and a few of the less secure traditionally Democratic states. [6] It's not magic, a more popular candidate will win more states. This year the polling was off which gave many Clinton supporters a false sense of confidence, but historically pollsters often make systematic errors of a few percentage points by misjudging who is going to turn out to vote. Dragons flight (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this year the more popular candidate won less states. Clinton was more popular by 1.7%, well north of 2,000,000 more votes. She only won 20 states + DC, or 21/51. Trump, with less votes, won 31/51 states and 306/538 electoral votes. The reason for that is that a vote in California (the most populous state) is only worth 1/4th of a vote in Wyoming (the least populous state). You can dominate the electoral college by appealing to the low-population rural states, which is what Trump did, because the voters in those states "count" more towards the presidential election than do the voters in high-population, more urban states. See here for a breakdown of what a person in each state is "worth" to the electoral college process, and here for a more broad-based social analysis of how Trump won. That analysis seems to show that the difference was in Rust Belt voters who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and switched to Trump in 2016, which pushed former Great Lakes Region states, traditionally Democratic strongholds, into the Red camp. --Jayron 32 18:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, Clinton won the popular vote. In my head, I was actually thinking something along the lines of being more popular compared to expectations and thus winning more states than expected, but obviously I did not express that. Dragons flight (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many times did she go to these states to campain, compare to Donald Trump, after the conventions? Dja1979 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the final weeks (not sure about right after the convention) she did relatively little campaigning in those states, with some outlets (maybe unreliably) reporting that there was major conflict within the Clinton organization because of that. Bill Clinton purportedly got into a big argument with Hillary's campaign management, saying they were making bad calls by staying out of those places. (Although Hillary herself didn't campaign much there, Bill made multiple appearances on her behalf). The usual narrative about the rust belt is that people there blamed its economic decline since the 1990s on NAFTA, a trade agreement signed by Bill when he was president, that was seen as exporting jobs to Mexico. Trump campaigned hard on a protectionist platform opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and that gained him considerable support in the midwestern industrial (rust belt) states. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium - Netherlands land swap

This article indicates that the final impetus for the land swap between the two countries is linked to an investigation, and the explanation includes how very difficult it was for the Belgian officials to cross the river by boat. I live in New Jersey, and if the Maas River is anything like the East River or the Hudson River, I don't understand what the big deal is. What is this major obstacle or crossing a river all about? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article links [7] which says "no proper landing zone for boats or equipment coming in by water" and "You had to jump from the boat onto the shore. You needed to be in shape for this." They are not building shore facilities for a few acres. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such transfers are actually not uncommon in order to make things easier for law enforcement, and especially when rivers change course. For example, check out this book which mentions a 1950 land swap between the US states of Kansas and Missouri for exactly this reason. Blythwood (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial evolution of the United States mentions several such changes. There's also the dozens of transfers between the U.S. and Mexico required when the Rio Grande gets straightened or floods. On the other hand, sometimes no one wants to change - for example, Carter Lake, Iowa, is on the west side of the Missouri and seems to have no desire to join Nebraska. --Golbez (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are MANY such locations in the U.S. where land swaps never occurred, not just Carter Lake, but also places like Kaskaskia, Illinois and Corona, Tennessee and the Kentucky Bend and Marble Hill, Manhattan, and many others. --Jayron 32 04:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Kentucky Bend is different; that simply stems from the definition of Kentucky being "the area above a certain line, on this side of the Mississippi". They didn't realize the Mississippi curled back across that line a couple of times. Similar to Point Roberts, Washington, though in that case they did appear to know the coastline crossed the border more than once and simply let it be. --Golbez (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about odd borders and law enforcement problems, incidentally, reminds me of the slightly off-topic Yellowstone Murder Zone. Blythwood (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 30

Successful assassination of Castro - what would it have accomplished?

Apparently at one point, the American government made great efforts to make Fidel Castro dead. Him personally, not the government he led. There were attempts to undermine and overthrow his government too, and even invade his country, but lets put that aside. I'm purely interested here in the attempts to kill him personally.

My question is, assuming such efforts had yielded fruit and Castro was killed, what would they have practically accomplished. Political assassinations of this sort, from what I understand, historically generally fail to accomplish the political goals of the assassin. Did Castro represent someone who was truly politically irreplaceable to his regime? Was his potential successor (most likely Fidel's brother Raúl) deemed any more amenable to U.S. interests at that point? (NOW, decades later, in a drastically different international geopolitical environment, is a different story). Was there the slightest chance that if Castro was successfully killed, his regime would somehow spontaneously come crashing down? Have any "alternative history" historians (those who speculate on what might have been) commented on what actually would have happened in the way of Cuba's political trajectory had Castro been successfully killed - and whether there was any realistic chance of it causing a regime or policy change in Havana which would have been favourable to U.S. interests? Or do they deem a successful killing of Fidel as something which, whilst perhaps emotionally satisfying to America, would not have really changed the overall situation? Eliyohub (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion here - though probably not very academic in tone - http://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/consequences-of-a-successful-castro-assassination.241302/ Wymspen (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, amateur as it is. It seems that others agree that the mere death of Fidel would have been extremely unlikely to lead to any real shift in Cuba's political orientation, unless they could then bump off Raul as well, and even then, would things in Havana become more favorable to the Americans...doubtful? The Soviets could have always helped a replacement get a proper grip on power, couldn't they? Eliyohub (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The belief in the U.S. was based on the notion that Castro was a totalitarian dictator whose power was based on a cult of personality more than as merely the current leader of a particular stable government system. --Jayron 32 17:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That he was a totalitarian dictator, I do not doubt. But other regimes based on personality cults, the biggest example being North Korea, have survived the death of the "cult leader", and the passing of the torch to a new member of the "cult family". So is there any realistic reason to think Cuba would be any different? Or was this wishful thinking? Fidel is now dead, the transition to brother Raul was smooth, so would it have been different then? Eliyohub (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be instructive to read about Ngo Dinh Diem and see how well that turned out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may depend on a couple important factors:

1) How early it happened. Early on Cubans were hopeful for free elections and many people who favored that were still there. Decades later, Cubans who had hoped for democracy had given up, fled or been executed. Put another way, there was no civil society left to take control. StuRat (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2) Whether the assassination could be made to look like an accident. The US assassinating Fidel may have made enemies out of those who were opponents of Fidel, but nonetheless are even more opposed to their leader being assassinated by former colonial powers. StuRat (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humiliation of Germany after ww1

How was Germany humiliated after ww1?24.90.72.195 (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See World War I reparations which discusses all of reparations and concessions that Germany and the other Central Powers got at the end of World War I. --Jayron 32 19:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: by "got", Jayron means that these requirements were imposed on the defeated countries, like saying that a sports team "got a penalty". --76.71.5.45 (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I should have said what you said. --Jayron 32 00:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major academic journals

Hello! Could anyone help clarify as to weather or not Palestine Exploration Quarterly would be considered a major journal in the field of archaeology? If there is some way of quantifying the "level" of an academic journal in general, that would be helpful too. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 22:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impact factor is a common means of journal ranking. --Jayron 32 00:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sites like this one show that PEQ is a very low impact journal. Most of its articles are never cited, and those that are cited, rarely so. For the most recent quarter, it is ranked as the 64th most impactful journal in the field of archaeology. These rankings of course mean nothing about the trustworthiness of the journal, but suggest that most of the work published therein is pretty low-profile. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All that, of course, does not necessarily relate to whether content in such a journal merits inclusion in content here. While in general it probably would be the case that an article with contrary opinions in a higher impact journal might carry more weight, if eventually some reference work refers specifically to an article in one lower-impact journal as a source, but no articles in other, generally higher-impact journals, the piece in question could obviously still be used as a source here. John Carter (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to consider whether a journal has effective editorial control and peer review, or whether they allow anything to be published on payment of a fee. 81.134.89.140 (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I asked the question because it is the only sticking point in a deletion discussion. Basically it comes down to whether or not the article satisfies criteria 8 of WP:NACADEMIC (IE "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area."). The consensus here suggests that it isn't a major journal, and therefore being its editor wouldn't grant someone notability. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 01:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that in deletion debates, the Individual Notability Guidelines are meant to serve as aids to finding likely reliable sources and are neither meant to be inclusionary or exclusionary (i.e. everyone that meets a criteria MUST be included, or everyone without a specific criteria MUST be excluded.) The ONLY criteria that should matter is do we have in-depth, reliable, independent information about this subject we can use to help us write an article. Merely making a check-mark on a list means nothing if we don't have any information to base an encyclopedia article around. When in doubt, revert to WP:GNG or WP:42. If the source material doesn't exist, the article shouldn't either. If the source material exists, use it to write the article. The silly lists of individualized criteria, like "The person is or has been the head or chief editor..." etc. can be useful to deciding if it's worth your time to search for more sources, but ultimately, if you can't find source material, what are you going to cite in the article?!? --Jayron 32 02:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

good place to find election and polling results?

Is there a good place to find election results and exit polls (demographics etc.) about the 2016 US presidential election? Not too concerned about pre-election polls, but want stuff like state-by-state results for both the primaries and the general, with info like "how much of the under-30 Hispanic vote did Trump get in the Illinois primary" and stuff like that. I can generally find individual statistics like that in news reports with a search engine, but ideally I'd like a single site or database with everything, so I can crunch numbers without having to constantly search around. I can access some commercial databases through my local libraries if that helps, but probably not the really good ones. Thanks. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FiveThirtyEight.com has switched over from predictions to post-election analysis articles. See [8] where they have several articles on analysis of the post-election polling data. --Jayron 32 02:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that looks helpful. I'm still looking for raw numbers rather than analysis, but this is a start. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the fallacy that works like this?

What is the name of the fallacy that works like this?
One example:
X and Y are Z.
X and Y are legal.
W is Z.
PS:W is illegal.
We must make W be legal.

Another example:
W is Z.
W is illegal.
X and Y are Z.
PS:X and Y are legal.
We must make X and Y be an illegal thing.