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.

October 9

Switzerland = Oligarchy?

The sovereign nation of Switzerland seems to be lead by the Swiss Federal Council. The article on the Council says that leadership rotates among them and that they collectively make up the "head of state" and "head of government". The President of the Swiss Confederation is described as "first among equals". My question is. . .

Would this make Switzerland an Oligarchy? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. Generally, oligarchy isn't just about having a leading group, it is also about the degree to which complete governing power is concentrated in that group. To draw an analogy, just because a country has a strong, single leader doesn't necessarily make that country a dictatorship. For example, the American President is powerful, but that power is not unlimited. He has to deal with Congress, an independent judiciary, and ultimately the voters. Similarly, the Swiss Federal Council has a lot of power over running the government of Switzerland, but they still require the Federal Assembly to pass new laws, and are limited by Switzerland's unusually strong practice of direct democracy via popular initiative. So, while the head of government in Switzerland is shared by a small council, I don't think their role should be described as rising to the level of an oligarchy because substantial political power is still distributed at other levels. Dragons flight (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons flight seems to explain it well, oligarchy means direct rule by a small aristocracy. Switzerland has none of that. List of forms of government doesn't seem to have any listed forms that describe Switzerland's executive by a specific term. If we were to invent one, "executive committee" seems to meet the requirements well, in the British parlance the term "executive commission" maybe reasonable, compare to Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, which is how the former office of Lord High Treasurer is held in modern British convention, not by a single person but in commission. However, in Switzerland, the Federal Executive is comparitively weak compared to other levels of governance; Switzerland like the U.S. or Canada is a federal republic, however in Switzerland the balance of power is shifted in favor of the Cantons of Switzerland over the Federal Government, and even moreso towards the people. Switzerland makes extensive use of the referendum for governance. You can read more at Politics of Switzerland. If you want the details of the written law itself, Swiss Federal Constitution will start you off. --Jayron 32 12:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, the aristocracy concept typically translates to concentration of power at the hands of a ruling class. Oligarchy translates to "rule of the few", and implies that power is concentrated at the hands of "a small number of people". How these people got to power is not part of the typical definition, though Aristotle (who coined the term) was speaking about the power of the wealthy: 'oligarchy is when men of property have the government in their hands... wherever men rule by reason of their wealth, whether they be few or many, that is an oligarchy, and where the poor rule, that is a democracy'." Dimadick (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and? --Jayron 32 10:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there so many countries now than in the past?

I mean, a long time ago, there were huge empires that spanned across a continent. These empires often were created by fighting and uniting several peoples into one society. And they could claim such a big territory because they had the military power to do so. Now, the world seems so fractured. And somehow a country can exist without a military as long as it makes arrangements with another country to supply a military. Eh? Is this a country or not? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Empires come and go. Look on the internet for the way Europe looked 400 years ago, and you'll see a whole mess of little countries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50.4.236.254 -- I'm not sure there's any long-term consistent trend. The result of the Napoleonic wars was to reduce the number of autonomous political units in Europe, but increase the number in the Western hemisphere. The late 19th century and early 20th century had a relatively low number of autonomous political units, but it started increasing with the new nations created after WW1, then the independence of Indonesia, Burma, India, Pakistan, Israel etc. after WW2, general decolonization beginning in the 1950s, and finally the breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.

If you go back more than a few centuries, then there will be many independent tribes who were not part of any centralized national government as we would think of it... AnonMoos (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say that is strictly true, depending on how one defines "country" which is not all that simple; the earliest such attempt was defined by Westphalian sovereignty in the 17th century. Indeed, arguably after the Thirty Years War, all of the various component States of the Holy Roman Empire were functionally independent, as the post-Westphalian emperor was reduced to a meaningless title as the individual states essentially managed their own domestic and foreign relations without him. States with Imperial immediacy in the HRE numbered in the hundreds; and included large important states such as the Kingdom of Bohemia as well as tiny territories like the Principality of Anhalt-Köthen. It wasn't until the German mediatization of the 19th century that the number of German states was reduced considerably. Arguably, since these could be considered as independent countries (depending on your definitions), there were many more countries in the 17th century than today. --Jayron 32 13:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Italy was pretty much the same-i.e. divided into a large number of small independent states - until Italian unification in the 1860s. --Xuxl (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the OP's confusion may stem from a misunderstanding of what an empire was or is. An empire by definition contains more than one country, nation, or state (note the multiple political meanings), and may contain many (as Jayron points out for the Holy Roman Empire), so comparing numbers former 'empires' to present day 'countries' is misleading. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.210.199 (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also important that the modern definition of a country (which in common understanding is synonymous with a sovereign state) is a very modern idea indeed, and that drawing simplistic comparisons to earlier time periods when such a concept doesn't make sense is a foolhardy venture. To put it simply, the very things that go into defining a "country" today were not applicable in earlier time periods or in different parts of the world, and as such, we can't "count" countries like this, since counting "countries" in the 21st century is not the same as doing so in 1400's Europe or 1200's Africa or whatever. The rather simple way we look at the world as divided up into neat little packages of land with clearly delineated borders that mark the limits of a government's jurisdiction is simply not universal, and is a fairly recent invention. --Jayron 32 15:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our List of states in the Holy Roman Empire is not even certain how many states and subdivisions the Holy Roman Empire actually had. By an estimation, there were 1,800 of them by the end of the 18th century.

By the way, the "long time ago" of the question's premise is a bit misleading. World War I (1914-1918) famously led to the dissolution of four different empires: Austria-Hungary, the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Russian Empire. About a century has passed since their fall. And World War II (1937/1939-1945) led to the dissolution of the Empire of Japan. This empire is still within living memory. Dimadick (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, empires come and go. At the begining of the 20th Century, there weren't that many countries, because European empires had taken over most of the world (because they had the Maxim gun and their enemies did not, among other reasons). However, fighting two world wars in succession weakened or destroyed most of those empires, encouraged their subject peoples to demand or fight for independence, while also undermining the moral justifications (or excuses) for empire. This resulted in lots of new countries forming - see Decolonization for more detail. Iapetus (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even as recently as 1990, it wasn't really clear how many countries existed in the world. The Soviet Union was, for most purposes, a single centralized country, but some of its constituent republics still sat on the UN independent of the USSR - the Ukrainian SSR and Byelorussian SSR (Belarus) even had their own defense and foreign ministries. Conversely, Czechoslovakia was nominally independent from the USSR, but its attempt to actually assert that independence was brutally crushed. Smurrayinchester 08:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has a city or town ever turned off it's lights for tourist or cultural reasons?

Lots of these are bright: fireworks, Christmas lights, Diwali, bonfires, Times Square, East Asian lantern festival.. Does the opposite direction exist too? i.e. the few seconds of Easter Vigil before the fire comes in but I am not aware of the electricity being turned off for this in an area wider than a church. Lonely Planet® said Mongolia's capital turns off its streetlights at 3am but that's just to save money. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it meets the definition of "tourist or cultural reasons", but Earth Hour may be of relevance? Eliyohub (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not quite the way you want. Lights of most public buildings, roads and bridges, and even some ships are turned off in Budapest during the big state-funded fireworks, so that the fireworks look better. Such fireworks are usually after midnight in New Year's Eve, and the evening of August 20. – b_jonas 12:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The town of Laon, situated on a strategic hillock on a French plain, planned for thousands of visitors to the Solar eclipse of August 11, 1999. When the atmosphere darkened mid-day and the birds, all perturbed, flew home to roost, a manual over-ride prevented the street lights from turning themselves on, as they would in a dark daytime rainstorm. OR: Probably lots of places do this for any eclipse that's coming their way. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are natural darkness preserves in various parts of the world, where lights are deliberately kept dim and rare in order to enhance the visibility of the night sky. Southeastern Quebec, near the border of Maine, where the Mont Mégantic Observatory is located, is one of these, and the fact is used to attract tourists. --Xuxl (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up: the official name is Dark Sky Places. Dark Sky Places are supposed to try to keep dark year-round. I don't know of any that are temporarily dark for festivals, as the original question posed. --M @r ē ino 14:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not the whole town, but Mousehole turns its Christmas lights off each 19th December in memory of the Penlee lifeboat disaster of 1981. —Arwel Parry (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reykjavik turned off its lights for two hours (10pm - midnight) on 28 September 2016, "to allow people to view a spectacular Northern Lights display". ("Iceland turns off street lights in Reykjavik so city can enjoy Northern Lights" The Independent) I couldn't find whether this was the first time and whether it has been or will be repeated. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Mercury-Atlas 6#First orbit; the residents of Perth, Western Australia turned on their lights to greet the spaceship. I'm not clear if they turned off their lights beforehand (so that turning them on would be particularly spectacular), or if the effect were performed in some other manner. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Dark-sky preserve - regions that manage artificial lighting in order to attract amateur astronomers. Most are quite remote, but some - such as Uplands Park in Victoria, British Columbia - are very urban. Smurrayinchester 08:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G. K. Chesterton story

Can anyone tell me in which of G. K. Chesterton's stories there is a chacterter who always contrived to bring any conversation round to the subject of the Roman Catholic Church? Thanks.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some observations from Father Brown, who features in his stories: [1]. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but that doesn't seem to be relevant.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've only lightly skimmed it, but The Ball and the Cross has two main characters, an atheist and a Catholic, who are both rather obsessive, and apparently could talk the hind leg off a donkey... AnonMoos (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

feminist art

I was looking at something on RedBubble. It happened to consist of Lady Justice, Columbia and the Statue of Liberty standing together. All three female figures are standing behind a Nevertheless, she persisted banner being held by Columbia. The artist happens to be Caviglia, who is based in Brooklyn. Does Caviglia have a real name? (The artwork I described is nice.)2604:2000:7113:9D00:E489:B375:36EB:1AC5 (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what her real name is, but here's her etsy shop. --M @r ē ino 14:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain whether it is an individual artist or a group. Their page in tumblr is called "Caviglia's Cabinet of Curiosites" and their motto is "At Caviglia's Cabinet of Curiosites, we draw pictures and write stories. Some are true. Some are not." Later on they explain: "We specialize in pin ups, chorus girls, creative portraits, fairy tales and robots." Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual property vs producing the same effect as other people's work

It seems to me that a company will come up with a cool e-mail feature, like making the e-mail messages appear in a single conversation instead of multiple pages, and then some time later, other companies all start doing the same thing and upgrading the appearance of their own e-mail services. Is there a limit to intellectual property in the realm of business and technology? Or does this mean that one can copy the effect of another's work but has to do the work by himself? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated and depends largely on what lawyers can convince a court of law. In general, concepts like Idea–expression divide come into play here, except that legal protections of intellectual property do sometimes protect ideas as well as expressions, i.e. something like a patent can provide limited legal protections for ideas as well as expressions, though only if you can convince a court one way or the other. Legal concepts such as copyright and trademark and patents all come into play in intellectual property law, but not in identical ways and the relationships between legal and illegal uses of intellectual property are a quagmire of complex law. --Jayron 32 15:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

Is this a colony?

During the 19th century, Europeans scrambled for Africa, cutting away bits and pieces. Okay, so that's a colony. Also, around the same time, there was no Poland or Latvia or Lithuania or Czechoslovakia. So, does that mean modern-day Poles are really descendants of the people who were colonized by the Russians? Even today, the United States includes Puerto Rico and Samoa and Indian Reservations. Are they American colonies? Are the people there American citizens or American colonists? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're being too tied into trying to fit every situation of a limited number of simplistic categories. Merely because you can draw minor similarities between two different situations doesn't mean the situations are meaningfully identical. Poland was not, in any meaningful sense, a "colony" of Russia. It was an autonomous region which had been incorporated into the Russian Empire. Imperialism and colonialism are similar in some ways, but only superficially, and "taking land from your neighbor" is not generally seen as colonizing. Puerto Ricans are American citizens, and have been since 1917 (see Jones–Shafroth Act). American Samoans are American nationals but not American citizens, though they can move freely to the mainland and acquire citizenship after a certain period of residency. See American Samoa#Nationality. All residents of Indian Reservations are citizens of the U.S. and have been since 1942 (see Indian Citizenship Act). --Jayron 32 14:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Partition of Poland (it was split between Prussia, Austria and Russia) would usually be referred to as annexation rather than colonisation, although the difference between the two is not exactly clear-cut. The original meaning of a colony was a community from one culture being established in the territory of another (usually seen as less developed by the coloniser); examples are the 16th century Roanoke Colony and the 17th century Jamestown settlement. I believe that calling a whole territory a colony was a later development. The US has been particularly careful to avoid calling its overseas acquisitions "colonies", although it's hard to see much difference between the administration of the United States Virgin Islands and the neighbouring British Virgin Islands which is plainly a colony and was officially referred to as such until 1983. Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a pretty accurate description; colonies are by nature exploitive and remote; there is little-to-no attempt to assimilate the native population; their either removed (British North America) or enslaved (Congo) and the land turned over to the conquerers. In the cases of imperial annexation, we see plenty of examples where the local population, and often the local government, is left in place, with the conquering empire taking a much less overt control over removing the local population and replacing it with its own; power structure may change, but the people remain as they often have. It's important to note that these definitions are not strictly, bold lines and mutually exclusive, for example Ireland is often described as having been colonized by the English despite being quite close geographically, because of how England treated Ireland, by actually sending settlers and displacing local populations, i.e. the Plantation of Ulster, which is a distinctly colonial process. On the other side, Russia never really colonized Poland, they merely took over the power structure; any Russian migration into the former Polish lands was more natural and not a deliberate attempt to settle the land, which is not to say that it was all rosy during Russian control of Poland, but what it wasn't was colonisation. --Jayron 32 16:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron is correct about the Russian policy in Russian Poland. In Prussian Poland, on the other hand, the government's policy was to displace the ethnic Polish population and replace it with ethnic German colonists. See Prussian Settlement Commission. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A link to colony might also be helpful. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:852E:7393:15B7:B79E (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be if the article were better quality. The initial definition in the lede section is too vague to be useful (and has been tagged as such for some time). The "definition" section of the article is not a definition in any sense of the word, but a discussion of Roman Empire colonies, which may or may not be all that useful for understanding how modern usage works. The rest of the article is a few random lists of ancient and modern dependent territories which may or may not meet any reasonable definition of "colony". --Jayron 32 23:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some more thinking about this, and I think it may be more helpful here to understand what is meant (in the modern sense) by European colonialism, which as a concept is tied to the economic theory known as mercantilism. According to mercantilism, a colony is an exploitive venture: its main purpose is as a source of cheap raw materials to be sent back to the mother country to process into finished goods for exports. Colonies in the sense we usually use the word have those features: You have a mercantile class who is sent to organize a workforce, extract raw materials, and ship it back to the home country. THAT is what makes a colony a colony. Other forms of dependent territory would not meet that definition. In that sense, that's why the British Virgin Islands were labeled a "colony"; as just like the rest of the Caribbean, those islands were true colonies of Britain: Slaves or cheaply-paid workers were importated to the islands to grow crops (mostly sugar cane), which was shipped off-island for processing. Names are stubborn things, which is why it wasn't until 1983 that the name was changed, long after it stopped acting like a colony economically. The U.S. Virgin Islands were not colonies of the U.S. in that they had not had the mercantile purpose of a true colony for the U.S. (the U.S. being based on a capitalist rather than mercantilist economic system has a different relationship with the acquisition of raw materials and the flow of goods), they were dependent territories of the U.S., after previously having been colonies of Denmark. --Jayron 32 23:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But if that's what a colony is, by definition, what would you say about the Thirteen Colonies, or later developments like the South African Dutch settlements or the British settlements in Australia, New Zealand, and Rhodesia? They were a good deal more comparable to the ancient Roman and Greek concept of colonies, in which a significant population of the mother country goes to live in another place and recreate the society of the mother country. Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were plenty of British colonies established after the end of the slave trade and we colonised places of virtually no economic value, like the South Sandwich Islands, mostly to stop other powers from getting them first. The US acquisition of Hawaii was blatantly colonisation in the 19th century sense of the word. Alansplodge (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Britain attempted to treat the Thirteen Colonies as mercantile colonies for a long time. Remember what colonialism in the Mercantile Age was supposed to work like: 1) obtain land that has raw materials you need 2) provide workforce you use exploitively 3) extract raw materials from that land. 4) Restict economic growth in colonies deliberately to focus purely on raw material extraction; industry and external trade happen only with parent country, NOT colonies. Everything I just described the is how the 13 colonies were treated by Britain. Colonists were sent to work the land and provide raw materials for Britain; naval stores, furs and agricultural products like rice and cotton were the main raw materials that Britain was extracting. Colonists were mainly the workforce and had little in the way of political rights; remember the whole taxation without representation thing the Colonists got up in arms over? The other part of the work force was slaves, which were considerably numerous; and self-evidently, they did not have political rights either. Economic growth was legally restricted by all sorts of laws that prevented trade and industry in the 13 colonies, the Navigation Acts, Stamp Act, Sugar Act, Intolerable Acts, Townshend Acts, etc. On the second point, European colonization of Africa is still based on this model, but the colonizers aren't the workforce, they're the management of the colonies. Africa already had a sufficient population to work all of the mines and fields and whatnot, and so didn't need to have colonists or slaves imported to work those areas. What they needed was white people to manage such (essentially enslaved) workforce, and then support staff for those white people. That's how it was coloninized, but it was still colonized primarily for the purpose of raw material extraction; Southern Africa and all the countries you note were British colonies for the sole purpose of providing mineral wealth to Britain in the form of raw materials and precious goods. They were NOT merely some sort of romantic terra nullius for the British to go set up little Britains around the world. The white settlers did do that, but largely the purpose of those White settlers was to establish political control and thus maximize control over the flow of raw materials. Do you think its any coincidence that the main political force in British South Africa (Cecil Rhodes) was primarily involved in running mining companies? --Jayron 32 11:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term "colony" comes from the idea of a "settlement".[2] Hence, Jamestown would qualify as a colony, while 19th century Poland would not. It's easy to see why an isolated collection of ants could be called a "colony". (What the ants themselves might call it is unknown.) Any kind of isolated settlement can be called a "colony", hence the term "nudist colony" (a label which I gather that actual nudists don't care for, but that's beyond their ccntrol.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are of course plenty of middle cases where it is difficult to decide if annexation or colonisation should be used. See for example the annexation of Ethiopia by Italy, which was the continuation of the takeover of Africa through colonisation. See also the expansion of Russia into far away Siberia and Central Asia. Were Siberia and Central Asia colonised, or annexed? It took place at the same time as when Western Europe took over their colonies, after all, so why not consider them successful colonisation attempts? But Siberia starts was next door to European Russia, just like Poland, so should it be annexation? It is a continuum, not a set of categories. And there are other names for land grabs. --Lgriot (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's very apt and well explained. --Jayron 32 15:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colonialism is almost gone. It has become something new/different called Neocolonialism. --Kharon (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it never really went away. What happened is the American model of imperialism has taken over; by replacing government power with corporate power, countries can exploit workers in other nations in the same way that they used to, but the governments of those countries are insulated from the negative impression of colonialism because they are insulated by the layer of corporatism. Private corportations act as power structures in the same way that governments do, but are not perceived in liberal and neoliberal tradition as government, so they are not bound to the same responsibilities as governments. Simply put, America got very successful at outsourcing it's exploitive colonialism to corporations, such that the government can pretend it doesn't happen. America as a society benefits from such colonialism in the exact same way that Mercantile age powers benefit from government-sponsored colonialism, but the American government keeps its hands clean from the nasty side products of colonialism. All of that is essentially what Neocolonialism is. --Jayron 32 11:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is this corporate colonialism as new as you suggest? Hudson's Bay Company, etc. Discus. Hayttom (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the wall at the American-Mexican border made of, and how long is it?

I think it's an actual physical wall. I recall seeing pictures of it. The problem is, the borderline is mostly desert. So, wouldn't the desert be enough of a barrier? How do Mexicans even cross the border anyway and survive the desert? Is this border similar to the one between the Koreas or different? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What parts of the article titled Mexico–United States barrier do you have further questions about after you had read it? --Jayron 32 16:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, apparently there is another title called Mexican-American border. Weird. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it weird? The Mexican-American border is not the same thing as the barrier along the border. The article on the border is already so long, that a split probably makes sense. And the article on the barrier is linked to multiple times within the article on the border. Including prominently in the Mexico–United States border#Barrier section. And even the section on the barrier within the border article already answers the question of what it's made of and how long it is. The article on the barrier does of course also link to the article on the border, including in the very first sentence. You've been on the RD for going on 6? years IIRC, if you haven't learnt by now that we have multiple article on multiple different things, and they often link to each other where relevant, you might as well just give up. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's got a case of "The Mondays"... on Wednesday! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on feedback received here and else I've rephrased my reply.

Could you explain why you think it's weird?

The Mexican-American border is related to but different from the barrier along the border. The article on the border is quite long as is the article on the barrier, so a split probably makes sense. Wikipedia is intended to be a comprehensive encyclopaedia, so where necessary, there may be multiple on different but related subjects if it's not possible to cover these in a single article without creating one that is overwhelming long. (And probably confusing, if someone only wants to learn the basics of something, but instead comes across an extreme level of detail on one specific area.)

Note that the article on the barrier is linked to multiple times within the article on the border, so even if you just came across the article on the border this should not be a problem. In fact there's a prominent link in the Mexico–United States border#Barrier section. And besides that section seems to answer your question of what it's made of and how long it is.

You've seemed to ask separate albeit related questions in your comments from those in your subject heading which is always confusing. If you feel the article on the barrier does not adequately cover these seperate questions there are several links to the article on the border in the article on the barrier, including in the very first sentence so even if you just read what Jayron32 suggested, you should have come across the article on the border.

You've been asking questions on the RD for a long time, often being directed to articles. If you want to learn more, it'll be very helpful if you're able to read articles sufficiently. Including where necessary, links to related articles or sources which are likely to cover your questions inside those articles. And preferably finding these articles yourself where possible. As said, by Jayron32, if there are specific parts of your question which aren't covered by the articles, you're welcome to seek clarification here although I would suggest Korean Demilitarized Zone and Desert#Human relations would also be important reads. (Noting of course as the first articles makes clear, not everyone does survive the desert, and not all people illegally crossing at the Mexican-American border from the Mexican side are Mexicans.)

Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalists v. republicans in Belfast

I find it interesting (although not surprising) that there were and are political divisions between neighborhoods in Belfast: some are largely republican, e.g. Falls Road, Belfast, and others are largely loyalist, e.g. Shankill Road. Why? I can imagine two simple reasons: that this wasn't the case before the Troubles, but violence and military policy made it outright dangerous (or at least very highly inconvenient) to live in a neighborhood with others from the opposite side, so minorities on both sides gradually moved away and settled in areas where they agreed with the majority; or that before the Troubles the natural inclination to live with one's friends and compatriots (and not to live with one's un-friends) produced self-segregation, so the Troubles saw comparatively little population exchange. So basically, I'm saying "it was that way beforehand, so the Troubles reinforced the existing status" or "it wasn't that way beforehand, but it arose in connection with the Troubles". Is either of these correct? If so, which one's fundamentally closer to being right, or if both are quite wrong, what's the fundamental reason for this population distribution? Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you can probably imagine, this is really secondary to the religious divisions, i.e. the neighbourhoods were actually divided along Catholic or Protestant lines before the Troubles. (Now that I think of it, this is not very helpful!) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it helpful? You point to my second suggestion and say that it's basically the correct answer. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I realized as I posted that all I really know is anecdotes from my wife's extended family in Belfast, haha. But based on their stories there have been sectarian religious neighbourhoods for generations, back to the 1920s. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to read about the lead up to the Troubles at Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. The divisions have been there for a very long time. You might find the quotes in [3] interesting as a background to the civil rights issue. Dmcq (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At an early stage of the Troubles, there was a campaign by paramilitaries of "burning-out" the houses of those from the rival community, so those areas that were a mixed quickly became single-community; there is safety in numbers. In this street on the border between two areas, all the houses owned by Catholics had been burned by Protestants (August 1969). Alansplodge (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't entirely over even now. See [4] for instance about some families being driven out of their homes in the last few weeks. Dmcq (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of both. Some areas were heavily one side or the other pre-troubles and then the sectarian violence led to the remaining minority community leaving. Other areas were mixed but ended up with one community. Look at the election results for Belfast Dock constituency in the regional parliament for example. Until the 1960s it was marginal, often electing Unionists, who would have been supported by the protestant community. During the 1960s it started to trend nationalist but was still nearly 40% Unionist. The equivalent area today would be New Lodge, which is over 90% catholic on the census figures. I've friends who work for Sinn Féin and they told me that their polling figures there are 85%+ with any Unionist candidates getting derisory vote shares of less than 1%. Valenciano (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

What was the penalty for murder and manslaughter in Austria-Hungary and the German Empire?

Basically, I am curious about this because I want to speculate what would have happened had someone killed Adolf Hitler before World War I. Futurist110 (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Capital punishment in Germany and Capital punishment in Austria, though the latter is very brief. Murder was definitely eligible for the death penalty, typically by guillotine in pre-WW2 Germany. Can't say regarding manslaughter, though in most societies only intentional murder is eligible for the death penalty. Dragons flight (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homicide and the Death Penalty in Austria-Hungary (1907) makes interesting reading; apparently they were unusually lenient (actual methods are not discussed however). Alansplodge (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Hanged by the neck until dead! - “Pole hanging”.: "Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary used an unusual variant of short drop hanging. There was no gallows as such, but rather a stout vertical wooden pole (or post) of about 2-3 meters height with a metal hook or eye bolt at the top to which a rope noose was attached. There was either a ladder or steps up to a small platform at the back of the pole for the executioner to stand on. The pinioned prisoner was placed with their back to the pole and then lifted up either manually by the hangman’s assistants, on a simple board platform or by a cloth sling running under their armpits so that the executioner could put the noose round their neck. At the signal they were now jerked downwards by the assistants thus tightening the noose. This jerk combined with the thinness of the cord typically caused a carotid reflex and led to rapid unconsciousness". Alansplodge (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a rather unpleasant YouTube video of the Austrian Nazi Hermann Frank being dispatched in this way, should you feel the need, Alansplodge (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see from that article that Wikipedia has Hanging#Pole method. Alansplodge (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking what if Hitler had died before he could rise to power in Germany. He wouldn't have to die by murder. If he had been in the wrong place, he could have died in combat during World War I. Although it's sobering to think that it's possible there was a guy who actually did die in combat, who if he had survived might have become even worse than Hitler. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See great man theory, according to which "history can be largely explained by the impact of highly influential individuals". Others go with the history from below theory, which says that events are dictated by social movements which throw up appropriate leaders if the circumstances are right. My guess is that the truth lies somewhere between the two. Alansplodge (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there records like clay tablets, papyrus, or parchment or stuff from historians like Herodotus or Josephus etc, that suggest or say that Atenists fled Egypt due to persecution after the death of Akhenaton and tried to keep their religion elsewhere?

Like maybe they fled south to Sudan, or north to Caanan, or west to Carthage or east to Mesopotamia or Arabia etc? Also, before Akhenaton died, were there traditional religionists fleeing from Egypt because they were persecuted by the Atenists? Thanks. 144.35.45.38 (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amarna letters might be a relevant source for research; they are from about the same period — The poorly-sourced Atenism article is regretfully not very helpful for your specific needs. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:9480:46FD:8725:3114 (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on Akhenaten seems to be slightly more helpful; Akhenaten#Akhenaten and monotheism in Abrahamic religions does not directly address the issue of migration of Atenists, but does discuss some (often highly speculative) theories about Atenism and its influence on later monotheistic religions; that may lead the OP to some research on the subject. --Jayron 32 10:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

144.35.45.38 -- I strongly doubt whether anyone in classical antiquity who wasn't literate in Egyptian writing knew about Akhenaten or Atenism at all (and even Egyptian scribes and priests with access to surviving dusty old documents might not have been able to get any clear idea about them, other than that the priests in the reigns of subsequent pharoahs didn't like them). Herodotus barely even knew that Jews existed. Josephus thought that the Israelites' stay in Egypt coincided with the Hyksos dynasty, but he was just guessing. By Roman times, Egyptians were much more likely to be repeating derogatory tales of "Osarseph" than any genuine history about Atenism... AnonMoos (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Lord of the Treasury

The British prime minister has the title first lord of the treasury, in addition to prime minister. My question is why? This title seems to imply that the prime minister is also a lord, when they’re just a member of parliament. Seems a bit muddled to me —Andrew 23:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Lord of the Admiralty was not necessarily a lord either. A lot of early holders of both these offices were actually lords, so perhaps there was an expectation that the job would automatically go to a peer? More research needed. Alansplodge (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the "Lord Mayor of London" and judges addressed as "my lord", none of whom were generally aristocrats holding a peerage title. To dilute things even further, during the 18th and 19th centuries, continental innkeepers and others dealing with tourists often addressed any male English-speaker who looked upper class as "milord" (in Italy, "milordo"). And the Kings of Arms at the College of Arms were not actually kings... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

IRGC

I saw this[5] on the news, but then after further reading I came across this WP article: Controversies_surrounding_Army_of_the_Guardians_of_the_Islamic_Revolution#Labeling_by_the_United_States_as_a_.22Terrorist_Organization.22.

What's going on here? Hasn't the IRGC already been designated a terrorist organization back in 2007? Did they somehow lose the designation sometime between 2007 and 2017 and got re-designated in 2017? Mũeller (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Test TV Tubes Here Free! at 7-Eleven (Hooray!)

I love 7-Elevens!

Check this out, the 1950s(?) 7-Eleven in this picture runs a banner that says "(?) Test TV Tubes Here Free!"

Did they really mean that they test CRTs for free in that store? What a wonderful proof of highly advanced ancient civilization! Erich von Däniken is right! -- Toytoy (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]